House of Commons

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

Monday 23 June 2014

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to improve the administration of the work capability assessment.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

I am committed to continually improving the administration of the work capability assessment. I am pleased to say that since the announcement in the House during our last Question Time, the backlog has fallen from 766,000 to 712,000.

[Rosie Cooper]

On 10 June, the Minister admitted to the Select Committee that 712,000 work capability assessments were outstanding. That number includes 234 recipients of incapacity benefit who are to be assessed for employment and support allowance, and 84,000 incapacity benefit recipients who have not yet been migrated. My constituents would like to know who is at fault, Atos or the Minister.

[Mike Penning]

When the coalition Government came to office, the WCA backlog did not suddenly happen; the problem already existed. However, we take responsibility for what we are doing. [Interruption.] There is no point in Labour Members’ shouting us down. They have short memories, but their backlog existed. If they do not wish to admit that, perhaps we can see the documents, which will enable us to know the facts. We have carried out 1 million incapacity benefit assessments, and 700,000 people are currently being helped into work or are looking for work.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been cynical if we had simply turned our back on all the existing claimants and not considered them too? That, of course, has been the cause of much of the backlog.

[Mike Penning]

I entirely agree. If we had not assessed those 1 million incapacity benefit recipients, those people would have been left, as the Labour party left them for 13 years. At least they now have an opportunity to look for work, and those who are not capable of going to work, or seeking work, are receiving the assistance that they require.

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

22. Leaked memos reported by the BBC on Friday show that ESA is one of the largest fiscal risks that the Government currently face. What is the Minister going to do about that?

[Mike Penning]

No Government of any description talk about leaked documents, but I can say that the information in that document was not new. I had released most of it earlier, and I believe that the BBC worked up the story for its own benefit.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

The Minister said that the WCA problems were long-standing. Is there a process whereby the last Government’s figures could be made available to the House? Who entered into the Atos contract?

[Mike Penning]

There is no doubt that the Atos contract was taken out by the last Labour Administration. I would love to know exactly what the backlog was, but, as an incoming Minister, I am not allowed to see the figures. Perhaps Her Majesty’s Opposition would be happy to release them. If those documents were published, we would all know exactly what the backlog was before the present Administration came to power.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

The backlog does not involve only ESA. There are also huge backlogs of decisions relating to personal independence payments and universal credit. Only 7,000 universal credit claimants have been dealt with, although at this stage the number should be about 1 million. In comparison with figures such as those, the passport fiasco pales into insignificance. Does the Minister not think that his Department has bitten off far more than it can chew?

[Mike Penning]

No, I do not. As the Chair of the Select Committee knows, there is no universal credit backlog, so her statement about that is not particularly helpful. I think that we need to concentrate on ensuring that benefits go to the people who deserve them. That is what is most important.

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

Can the Minister confirm that Atos Healthcare will not receive one penny of compensation from the taxpayer for the early termination of its contract?

[Mike Penning]

There is no doubt that the contract was taken out by the last Labour Administration. Her Majesty’s Opposition called for me to sack Atos. If we had done so, we would have had to pay it a huge amount of compensation, but, instead, it will pay substantial damages to the Government when the contract is terminated.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

20. Judge Robert Martin has said that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has seen a huge reduction in the number of work capability assessment appeals, not because of the quality of decisions, but because of the huge backlog and the quality of the service that is being provided.

[Mike Penning]

I am afraid that that is factually incorrect. I read Judge Martin’s comments, and I do not think that that is quite what he said. There has been a reduction of more than 80% in the number of people who are appealing. That is because better decisions are being made, which is right and proper for everyone.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

It is high time that Ministers took responsibility for their failings. It was their decision, after the election, to migrate all recipients of incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance. That was the decision that triggered the delays and backlogs about which we have heard. Now, the memos that were leaked last week have revealed that ESA

“is not delivering more positive outcomes for claimants”

than incapacity benefit did, and the Work programme has proved hopeless, with a 94% failure rate. How long will Ministers allow this shambles to continue?

[Mike Penning]

Clearly Her Majesty’s Opposition have a short memory as to what happened when they were in government. This problem started under Labour, Atos was in place under Labour—[Interruption.] Opposition Front Benchers are saying “No, not us”; then they should release the documentation that proves what the backlog was before the last election.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

2. What steps he is taking to improve the claims and decision-making process for personal independence payments.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to improve the claims and decision- making process for personal independence payments.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

16. What steps he is taking to improve the claims and decision-making process for personal independence payments.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

Yet again I am committed to improving our performance and that of our contract providers. I want to make sure the right decisions are made as soon as possible. With that in mind, I have looked, particularly working with Macmillan, at how we can reduce waiting times for terminally ill people waiting for PIP. That stood at 28 days when I first met the Work and Pensions Committee, and I said that was unacceptable. It is inside 10 days now, and I want it to become lower.

[Ann McKechin]

As the Minister of State is aware, by his own Department’s statistics it will take 42 years to clear the current backlog. In the meantime people are running out money, and they are becoming more stressed and more ill as a result of his Department’s failure to get a grip on a payment which his Government introduced. When will the backlogs be reduced to a decent level, as people have a right to entitlements in this country?

[Mike Penning]

It is really important that we get the decisions right and that the right people get those payments. I said before the Select Committee that I promise to do that within my own Department’s administration, and we are addressing that. There was a real performance issue as to how many people were coming through the schemes. I am addressing that now with the providers, and it will improve, and not in the length of time the hon. Lady mentions, which is scaremongering.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

An awareness campaign last week by the MND Association and MND Scotland informed us that about half of people diagnosed with motor neurone disease die before 14 months. They do not fit into the Minister’s definition of “terminally ill”, so how long does he think those people should wait for their claim to be assessed?

[Mike Penning]

Now I have addressed the issue of the terminally ill, we are particularly addressing progressive illnesses. We want to look at that very quickly. As soon as we can get that situation addressed, I will come before this House and say so, but the priority must be that the people who need it get it, and the people who do not need it, do not get it.

[Nick Smith]

Some Blaenau Gwent constituents have waited months and months for assessment. Why did the Minister’s Department not properly pilot what has become this fiasco?

[Mike Penning]

It is interesting that yet again a Labour Member uses the word “fiasco”, and I know the Public Accounts Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), made a similar comment. It was not actually in the PAC report, however, so this was a made-up comment that was not in the report. [Interruption.] Well, it was not in the report, and how on earth can we be talking about something that was not in the report? At the end of the day, we need to make sure we address this situation. I have admitted that the waiting time is too long, and we will get it down. We will do something about it; the previous Administration did not do so.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I was recently able to inform a constituent that they were about to receive a cheque for over £5,000—welcome news until we realise it is an arrears payment for a personal independence payment claim submitted some 300 days earlier. The Minister tells us he is addressing the matter; what is he doing to stop disabled people being out of pocket by so much for so long?

[Mike Penning]

What we are doing is making sure we speed up the process on our side and the contractors doing the assessments speed up their side. As I have said before, if necessary there will be a cash incentive for them to make sure that they deliver, which will be paid only when they deliver faster.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on reducing the time taken to handle these claims, but what is he doing to reduce the time taken for the appeals mechanism procedure, so that that part can be speeded up as well?

[Mike Penning]

The appeals process is a matter for my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice, and I intend to write to them today, but fewer people are going to appeal, particularly on PIP—it is much lower than predicted—and there has been more than an 80% reduction on work capability assessment. There is more to be done, but if the judges have less work to do on appeals, I will be very happy about that.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I also welcome the improvement in the process. What lessons have the Government learned for rolling out other new assessment schemes, perhaps including a replacement for Atos in respect of WCA?

[Mike Penning]

One of the things we will look at very carefully is making sure that the contract bids are judged not just on the lowest price, but on whether the contractor can produce the capacity that is required. That is exactly what we are doing; when we release a new contract, we look at whether the contractor has the capacity and the skills to produce quality decisions.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

What is the Government’s target for how long people will have to wait for these benefits by the time of the next general election? As the Minister tries to restore order from this chaos, will he be in a position soon to tell those in the queue how much longer they will have to wait?

[Mike Penning]

One of the things we are trying to do is communicate much better with people who are waiting, which is the most important thing we can do. What we do not want to do is build up promises, so that people think they will be assessed quicker than they will be. On PIP in particular, we will make sure that the providers are doing the job we are asking them to do, and that we are acting as fast as we can and taking the correct decisions. On the first point, I cannot give a time scale at this time, and it would be wrong for any Minister to stand before the House and do so.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Government did not bother to pilot PIP properly, Atos made misleading statements in its bid, Ministers have presided over a 42-year backlog in cases, and each decision costs £1,500—more than the benefit of some £1,120 that many receive. Reassessments have had to be postponed while sick and disabled people wait for a decision, including cancer patients, who according to Macmillan are experiencing anxiety, financial worries and worsening health. Is it not time that the Minister acknowledged that it is another catalogue of DWP chaos and that the £1 billion savings promised by 2015 will not be achieved, while sick and disabled people are living with the worry and hardship that he has caused?

[Mike Penning]

I do not accept many of the points that the hon. Lady makes, but what I do accept is that it is unacceptable for people who are in desperate need to wait, which is why I acted with Macmillan really fast to bring the time down from 28 days to inside 10 days for people with terminal illness. We are now looking at the other cases and working with as many of the charity and other groups as we can to make sure that we get the figure down. If they work with us, we can work on this together. The Opposition keep moaning about the policy, but the previous Administration left people on the disability living allowance for years, with only 7% of them ever having a face-to-face assessment. That was an appalling situation.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of recent trends in employment figures.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of recent trends in employment figures.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

15. What assessment he has made of recent trends in employment figures.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

The recent trends are remarkable: there are more people in work than ever before, youth unemployment is down 91,000 since the election, the claimant count for 18 to 24 year-olds has fallen for 30 consecutive months, and we have seen the largest annual fall in long-term unemployment since late 1998. I also note that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), the claimant count is down 33% and the youth claimant count is down 41%.

[Mel Stride]

As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, youth unemployment in my constituency is substantially down since the last election, not least due to his efforts to ensure that work always pays. However, does he agree with me that approaches to incentivising work are always best if they are universal, unlike the Opposition’s proposal for means-tested youth allowances, which would punish hard-working families and those people who do the right thing?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes, the reality of what we have been trying to do is to make sure that people can get into the jobs that are available. What they do not need—and what is quite ridiculous about the Opposition’s proposal—is to try to take everybody who is below level 2 up to a level 3 qualification. Some people who do not even have a GCSE in maths, for example, are expected now to do training courses to take them to level 3 before they go into work. The reality is that we are getting them work-ready and giving them the training they need. That is why there are record employment levels of some 30.5 million, which beats what we were left by the last Government.

[Mr Amess]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the 29% decrease in the number of 18 to 24-year-olds claiming jobseeker’s allowance in the constituency I represent, and does he agree that it is further evidence of the success of our long-term economic plan?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is worth noting that under the last Government, youth unemployment increased by nearly a half—up almost 300,000—and long-term youth unemployment increased by 74,000. Since then, excluding full-time students, youth unemployment has come down to 7.9%, which is the lowest figure since 2008. Youth unemployment is down 98,000 on the year, and down 91,000 since the election, and long-term youth unemployment is down 25,000 on the year. That is getting the job right.

[Oliver Colvile]

Plymouth, as my right hon. Friend knows, is a low-wage, low-skills economy. Does he support the Government’s proposal to give Plymouth the city deal for a marine energy park, which will create more than 10,000 new jobs and help provide jobs for the young unemployed?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I absolutely agree with that; it is the right thing to do and it shows how this Government are investing in providing in an area the right kind of jobs for the right kind of people. Even in a difficult area such as my hon. Friend’s, the claimant count is down by 27% and the youth claimant count is down by 30% on the year. This kind of investment helps us to get people into real jobs, not jobs subsidised by the Opposition’s proposals.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that a disabled unpaid voluntary worker has been told by the Department for Work and Pensions that as from now she will be in the same category as part-time workers who have a job? Is this a way of padding out the number of people in employment?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I do not know what this case is, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about it, I will deal with it specifically—

[Mr Skinner]

I have done.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Well, I have not seen the letter, but I will once I have ferreted it out. We are not padding anything out—we do not need to, because there are about 600,000 vacancies now in jobcentres up and down the country and we are doing our level best to help people of all descriptions, including those who have disabilities, most of whom would genuinely like to seek and find work. We are working with them to help them get the kind of job that can change their lives, rather than parking them for many years in a row, as Labour did.

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

With so many young people still in unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, does the Secretary of State not think it anomalous that young people can get support in higher education but not in further education?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is not true really, because young people can get help in further education. Under jobseeker’s allowance, traineeships allow up to 30 hours’ training per week—we have made that more generous, because under the previous Government the figure was only 16 hours. For others, two to eight weeks’ full-time training is allowed, depending on the duration of the jobseeker’s allowance. It is one thing to come up with a policy, but another to come up with a policy answering a question that nobody has ever asked.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Employment rates in Wales are about the same as elsewhere in the UK, which is very welcome, even if historically rather anomalous. However, we have a large number of people who are involuntarily employed part-time, because they cannot get the hours required. Is it fair or even reasonable for the Government to insist that people take on hours when those hours are just not available?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The jobcentres do not force anybody to take on something that is not there; the jobcentres are working will all those individuals. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s welcome for the figures from Wales, because it has been particularly successful, having had some very difficult times, particularly in the valleys. I welcome that improvement in employment. Jobseekers go to the advisers, who help them to find those jobs and take the hours that are available. No one will be punished or penalised for trying to take a job or for working with the advisers and only taking the jobs that are there.

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

6. What assessment he has made of the performance of Universal Jobmatch.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Universal Jobmatch revolutionises the way jobseekers look for work. Since it was launched in November 2012, we have seen 6.9 million jobseekers register on the site; 4.3 million average daily job searches; over 560,000 jobs available; and more than 550,000 companies set up an account. It has been a successful transformation.

[Stephen Mosley]

My right hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that more than 5,500 jobs within 5 miles of Chester are being advertised at the moment, which is a massive testament to the number of new jobs that have been created under this Government. However, Universal Jobmatch depends on accurate data, so what steps is he taking to ensure that all the jobs on the site are described accurately, are real and are available for jobseekers?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We regularly talk to all the employers. New employers are seen by advisers in the jobcentres in the local area. Fraudulent jobs are rare on the site; it is estimated that fewer than 0.1% of these vacancies have been fraudulent since go-live, and those have been removed. We constantly monitor the Universal Jobmatch system and we crack down on abuse. In addition, employment advisers are meeting all those employers they are not aware of or who have just come up on the system for the first time.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The problem is that that is just not happening, and perhaps the Secretary of State should accept that. For example, I saw a job advertised in my constituency today for a care assistant in a care home that has just closed down. Jobs are being wrongly categorised. Among sales assistants, we find jobs for account executives, for which qualifications are needed. What exactly is happening with Universal Jobmatch?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The problem is not what the hon. Lady describes. It is with Labour Members, who cannot bear the idea that, when they were in government, they had an archaic system that worked only from 8am to 6pm. Our system works for 24 hours. It works while people’s computers are shut down. It nominates jobs, and advisers can offer advice online. This is a major success story. The problem is that Labour does not get it. We are getting more people into work, higher levels of employment and falling levels of unemployment. In fact, we have some of the lowest levels in the European Union.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What recent progress he has made on the universal credit programme; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Universal credit is on track to roll out against the timetable set out last year. The claimant commitment is in place across all jobcentres. Universal credit is live in 14 sites, and from today further expansion is under way across the north-west, with couples and families joining at a later stage. Based on the case load projections, there are, at the moment, around 11,000 people making those claims on universal credit.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I am interested in the Secretary of State’s answer. In 2011 he announced that a million people would be claiming universal credit by April 2014, when the true figure was just 6,000. What went so badly wrong with his projections, and what are his current milestones for the delivery of universal credit?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I think I made that clear before, but I will repeat it again. Back in 2012, I was not happy with the plan for the roll-out, because it mirrored too much the roll-outs that used to happen under the previous Government—[Interruption.] We hit the bump. [Laughter.] It is interesting that Opposition Members sit there laughing, because I remember the tax credit fiasco. They launched tax credits and people suffered. People did not get their payments and were out of pocket. That has not happened with universal credit. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I simply say that we deliberately set a pathfinder and we are expanding it now, with 90 new sites. Universal credit is rolling out carefully, and we are ensuring that all those who are eligible get the money that is due to them when it is due. It is not the disaster that we had under the previous Government.

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

What progress is the Secretary of State making in his discussions with other Government Departments about the various forms of state support they give in the era of universal credit? I am thinking of free school meals, which could be considerably improved. Is the matter all sorted? If it is not, how is he getting on?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I believe it is getting sorted. Very soon, the Department for Education will be able to make announcements about its preferred options for universal credit, and we will be able to accommodate them regardless of what it asks for.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

That is very interesting. In 2011, the then employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), said that the Department would consult on new eligibility criteria for passported benefits such as free school meals

“in good time to take decisions to meet our overall timetable to introduce universal credit by October 2013.”—[Official Report, 7 November 2011; Vol. 535, c. 66W.]

The Schools Minister has only just admitted that it would cost an extra £750 million to give free school meals to the children of all those whom he eventually expects to be on universal credit. Can we clear this up this afternoon? Do the Government intend to give free school meals to everyone on universal credit, or do they intend to introduce a new means test for free school meals? If the Secretary of State cannot give a proper answer this afternoon, as I suspect from the way he is performing, will he at least tell us when he will make up his mind?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman does this publicly—he was told the answer to this the other day when he came to my office to talk to me directly. Just in case he does not know how free school meals work, let me tell him that they are means-tested today: there is no change to that.

[Chris Bryant]

No, they are not.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes, they are, because they are set against means-tested benefits. I wish the hon. Gentleman would get his facts right and learn something about the benefits system. We have a system that will enable us to deliver the free school meals to those who are eligible for them, and not to those who are not eligible for them. The reality is that the mess that the Opposition left us is being cleared up and they cannot bear it. They do not even know whether they support universal credit. They flip-flop more on every policy than any other Opposition ever have.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

8. What estimate he has made of the number of people below the threshold for auto-enrolment in a workplace pension.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

We estimate that around 2.7 million individuals, aged 22 to pension age, who have earnings below the earnings threshold for auto-enrolment are not saving in a qualifying workplace pension in the private sector. About 1.6 million of those individuals are earning between £5,772 and £10,000 and have the right to opt in. Employers must tell workers about this right.

[Julie Elliott]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but does he agree that it would be right to extend pension auto-enrolment to all low-paid workers who are missing out at the moment?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but let me explain why I disagree with her. She would enrol people at, for example, £6,000 a year—that is the policy of the Labour Front-Bench team. At current contribution levels, someone earning £6,000 a year would be putting 8.8p a week into a pension. If they did that for 35 years, they would end up with a pension of £1.93 a week. That does not seem a sensible policy to me.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

21. Does the Minister agree that the Government have stealthily been depriving more low-paid women of pension contributions every year? Is it not time that that was put right?

[Steve Webb]

No, on the contrary, the people we are excluding from auto-enrolment are those for whom we think the default should be not to save in a pension, because they will get a state pension typically of £7,500. If they are earning £6,000 now, should the Government take money out of their pay packet, when they are earning £6,000, to top up a pension of £7,500? That does not make any sense.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Pensions Minister has made some welcome changes to the way in which smaller pots will be managed, with aggregation, pensions following workers and so forth. If that works well, will there be scope in the future to review this limit?

[Steve Webb]

We are keen to avoid discrediting automatic enrolment with trivially small amounts of money. My hon. Friend can imagine the newspaper headlines if we had required a firm to set up a pension scheme so that the employee and employer combined put 8p a week into a pension. We would have been laughed out of court. We have reformed auto-enrolment, and it is going extremely well. It has a good, strong reputation, and I want to protect it.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

What the Minister does not tell the House, of course, is that Library figures show that someone earning just below the raised threshold for auto-enrolment could save up to £20,000 over a working lifetime—quite a decent nest egg, I am sure that we would all agree. So why have the Government deliberately removed 1.5 million people—the majority of whom are low-paid women—from auto-enrolment? Although that sum is not enough to buy a Lamborghini, does the Minister agree that millions of people are losing out?

[Steve Webb]

On the contrary, the Pensions Commission—the hon. Gentleman often refers to the Pensions Commission, one of whose members is now a Labour peer—recommended that low earners needed an 80% replacement rate. Someone on the wage that he just gave gets an 80% replacement rate based on the state pension alone, so we are delivering—[Interruption.] That is after tax and national insurance. [Interruption.] They are paying national insurance at £10,000 a year, so they get about an 80% replacement rate without needing to be automatically enrolled. Setting up auto-enrolment for tiny amounts of saving is simply inappropriate.

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of the effect of sanctions on claimants of jobseeker’s allowance.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

Sanctions have always been part of the benefits system and are imposed only where claimants fail to meet reasonable requirements. Sanctions play an important role in encouraging compliance: 70% of claimants say that sanctions are useful for them to follow the rules.

[Mr Hepburn]

Can the Minister explain why more than 50% of benefit claimants in my constituency whose benefits have been sanctioned have had the decision overturned? In the meantime, they had to live for weeks on nothing—unlike that lot over there, who stuff their nests. Is it not true that this scheme is nothing more than a con? The Government say that they are cutting benefits. They are cutting benefits, but they are taking them off the most vulnerable people in the country and leaving them out for ever.

[Esther McVey]

There are a couple of points I need to answer, because what was said was inaccurate. The figure for the overturns is 10%, not the high number the hon. Gentleman alluded to. At the same time, people on sanctions are still on benefits and have an underlying qualification to them. The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. Perhaps he does not like the fact that the number of people in work has gone up significantly under this Government and the number needing to claim benefits has gone down significantly.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Sanctions as a principle are a very fine part of the benefits system. May I urge the Minister to maintain a system of sanctions and not to listen to the Labour party? It is clear that it is the Conservative party that has become the party of labourers and that Labour is the party of layabouts.

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As I have said, sanctions have always been a part of the benefits system, because it is about compliance. I would welcome an announcement today from Opposition Front Benchers on whether they would remove sanctions. That would be very interesting.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

11. If he will take steps to reduce (a) the number of benefit claimants who appeal against decisions and (b) the length of time it takes to have such appeals heard.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

Appeals on all benefit decisions have dropped by 79% in the first quarter of this year compared with the same period last year. The introduction of mandatory reconsideration and the decision assurance call is having a positive impact.

[Mr Hollobone]

My right hon. Friend will be as concerned as I am that some of the waits for first-tier tribunal appeal hearings for Kettering constituents have been up to 40 weeks, which is more than twice the national average. What success is he having with the Ministry of Justice to get the appeal waiting times down?

[Mike Penning]

One of the first things we can do to get appeal waiting times down is to have fewer people needing to appeal. I accept that it is taking too long in Kettering and perhaps in other parts of the country. That is for another Department, but I will contact it today.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine has had an application for the personal independence payment refused—a decision that I regard as perverse. I wrote to the Minister personally to draw to his attention how bad the decision was, but received a reply from a civil servant. I wrote to the Minister because I thought he was interested in creating an efficient system. Will he please do me the courtesy of replying to my letter and addressing his mind to the case of my vulnerable constituent, who has been so badly affected?

[Mike Penning]

I have a personal policy that I write to all Members of Parliament—from both Houses—if they write to me. If a civil servant wrote back, that is wrong. I will reply and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to come to see me at his leisure to discuss his constituent’s case.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

13. What assessment he has made of recent trends in employment in the private sector.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

There are more people in private sector jobs than ever before, up more than 2 million since the 2010 election.

[David Rutley]

Given the strong growth in self-employment in recent years and innovative schemes such as the Pop-Up Business School, which has helped people in Macclesfield start their own business, what steps are the Government taking to encourage the unemployed actively to explore opportunities in self-employment?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend, who is a Harvard graduate and has been a senior executive in many high-flying companies, has a huge interest in people setting up their own business. This Government introduced the new enterprise allowance, which has led to 2,000 people a month setting up new businesses. We have done videos with people such as Levi Roots to reach out into different communities, and the link-up, start-up programme enables employers to speak to people who hope to be able to set up their own business.

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

What is the right hon. Lady doing about the trends that show that more and more people are working in small and medium-sized companies in the service sector, which demands high skills? What are we doing to equip young people in particular with the right skills for a good life in the future?

[Esther McVey]

I will be glad to answer that question for the hon. Gentleman. We are taking significant steps to allow more than 1 million young people to earn and learn through apprenticeships. Equally, through sector-based work academies, we are helping people to get a job and then to progress in that job. We have put in place work experience to help young people to find out what a business entails and then to get a job in it, so there is considerable support to get young people into work, which is why youth unemployment has fallen for nine consecutive months, with 100,000 fewer people in that group than at the election.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

How many people are now employed on zero-hours contracts?

[Esther McVey]

Roughly the same number who were employed on zero-hours contracts under the Labour Government in 2000. I know that Opposition Members like to say that the number has significantly increased, but I believe that they were taken to task for getting that information wrong. Local councils such as Doncaster, where the Leader of the Opposition resides, have the highest number of zero-hours contracts.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

14. What assessment he has made of the effect on homelessness among under-35-year-olds of the extension of the shared accommodation rate.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The Department has commissioned an independent review of the changes to local housing allowance, including the extension of the shared accommodation rate. The final report of that review is due to be published this summer.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The situation worries many of my constituents, and a recent study by Crisis showed that in many parts of the country such as Cambridge only a tiny fraction of shared houses are available for people to rent. When he considers the review, will he change the broad rental market areas and ensure that people can find somewhere to live if they wish to be in Cambridge, Blackpool or any other location?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend has made repeated representations about the broad rental market area for his constituency. We have used targeted funding to provide additional local housing allowance rates in areas of pressure, so although the general increase in the LHA rate is 1%, four of the five LHA rates for Cambridge, including that for shared accommodation, increased this April by 4%.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

What specific meetings has the Minister had with his colleagues in government with responsibility for housing to discuss schemes such as foyer projects, which link training initiatives with housing and support for young people?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman raises the valuable work of foyer projects. My noble Friend Lord Freud, the Minister for welfare reform, leads on housing benefit for the Department, and I will ensure that he is aware of those projects, if he has not already held specific meetings about them. If the hon. Gentleman would like to give us further details, we will be happy to look at them.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The under-35 shared accommodation rate is a particular problem for fathers who do not live with the mother of their children, but want their children to stay with them at weekends, when it is simply not suitable for children to be in the sort of accommodation with other young men that people get under the rate. Has the Minister examined that situation?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady will be aware that, in exceptional cases, housing benefit can be topped up, but she will also know that the same issue could arise under the shared accommodation rate for under-25s. However, if two single people choose accommodation together, the combined total of their shared accommodation rates is larger than one family’s standard rate for a two-bedroom flat, so two people coming together can rent a larger property than a family requiring two bedrooms.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

18. What steps he is taking to introduce stricter criteria on eligibility benefit for applications from foreign workers.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Our reforms have ended a situation in which migrant workers had indefinite access to jobseeking benefits, which we inherited from the previous Labour Government. Since April, we have banned access to housing benefit. From July, migrant workers will have their claims to jobseeker’s allowance stopped if they have claimed for six months and cannot show that they have found employment. I intend to tighten this up further still.

[Mr Ruffley]

I am grateful for that reply. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the tougher habitual residence test and the new minimum earnings guarantee. Has he received support from European partners for his tougher approach to curb benefit tourism, and are they taking further steps to move the approach forward?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am in discussions with colleagues from various countries in the European Union. Many of them, including the Dutch and the Germans, have made it clear that they essentially support our direction of travel and that some kind of change must be made to the regulations. The German Chancellor made Germany’s position clear, saying that the EU is “not a social union” and there cannot be de facto immigration into other EU social systems.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

19. What estimate he has made of the number of people who will receive face-to-face guidance at the point of retirement in 2015-16.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

From April 2015, we expect over 300,000 individuals who retire each year to be able to take advantage of the new pension flexibilities and access the offer of free guidance. The Government have recently consulted on the delivery framework for the guidance, to ensure that it is designed to give consumers the support they need to make informed choices in the way they choose to access it.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

How will the Government ensure absolutely that retirees who cash in their annuities are not exploited by private sector financial vultures in the guise of advisers?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We already hear anecdotal examples of people getting cold-calls that say, “This is your Government guidance offer.” We want to make it clear that that is not based on Government guidance, because that has not started yet. We are trying to make sure that instead of people making retirement choices with no information or advice, which often happens, they will have a right to go to a reputable provider and get information and guidance from someone who does not have a commercial interest in selling them something.

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

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

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Today I welcome the National Audit Office’s positive response to the report on the child maintenance scheme, which simplifies the system and helps parents work together in the best interests of their children. There will be further to come on this soon. Already we know that twice as many parents intend to pay direct, even before the second stage of our reforms and ahead of expectation.

[Rehman Chishti]

What support are the Government giving to older workers and their employers in Medway to assist them into work and to build a fairer society?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

I, along with the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), recently published the “Fuller Working Lives—A Framework for Action” document, which sets out the support that we are going to give to older workers. That includes a new health in work service, Jobcentre Plus tailored support, guidance and a toolkit for employees, and from next week the right to request flexible working hours.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

At the start of this year 3,780 people were claiming universal credit. The most recent numbers show that 5,610 people are receiving the benefit. At this rate of progress, how long will it be until the 7.7 million households that are supposed to receive this Government’s flagship benefit, as the Secretary of State originally set out, are receiving it?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We have already made that clear. To date around 11,000 people are on the pathfinders. We have started a roll-out to another 90 sites beyond the 10 sites where the pathfinder took place. There will be further changes and enhancements, and we expect and believe, according to the plan that we laid out, that everybody eligible will be on the benefit by 2017.

[Rachel Reeves]

I think that is the first time I have not heard the Secretary of State say that his project is on time and on budget, but we still hear total and utter complacency. At the present rate of progress, it will take a staggering 1,052 years before universal credit is fully rolled out. So what do we have? Universal credit delayed, personal independence payments delayed and employment and support allowance delayed. Does not the Secretary of State realise that his incompetence is not only wasting tens and hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, but causing untold pain and hardship for some of the most vulnerable people in our country?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As I said, we are rolling out universal credit to 90 sites and we will deliver it safely and carefully, unlike what the Labour Government did with tax credits. To answer the hon. Lady’s general question about what we are doing, this Department and this Government have undertaken the biggest welfare reform programme ever and we are getting more people into work—there are record numbers in work and record falls in unemployment; and we are getting more young people into work and more young people who have been long-term unemployed back into work. The benefit cap means that 42,000 people have been capped, as a result of which 6,000 have moved into work.

On universal credit, 600,000 claimant commitments have been signed. There are 6.9 million people registered for Universal Jobmatch. The Work programme—[Interruption.] She does not want to hear this because these are all records of the success of welfare reform. Through the Work programme, 550,000 people whom the previous Government wrote off and who never got a job are now back in work, and through auto-enrolment under the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), 3.6 million people have moved into a workplace pension. This is a Government who are reforming welfare. The Opposition have no policies, no purpose and no prospects.

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

T5. This morning I was with the staff and students of Farleigh college of further education in my constituency, which offers excellent education and training opportunities to young people with autism and other complex conditions. What more can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that we reach the goal of full employment by ensuring that increased opportunities exist for young people with learning disabilities and autism?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

I think the whole House would agree that we need to give everyone the opportunity to live their dreams and have their aspirations, and that is exactly what this Government want to do. I would love to come and see the scheme that my hon. Friend is talking about, so that I can see for myself what it is delivering.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

T2. In last week’s Westminster Hall debate, the Minister said of the closure of the independent living fund that “there really should not be concern.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 91WH.] How will he ensure that the concern being expressed by current ILF recipients that they will lose their independence is unfounded?

[Mike Penning]

I also said during that Westminster Hall debate that, for nearly three years, new recipients of ILF have been dealt with by local authorities. There have not been any major problems. We are confident that this will roll out correctly and we intend to roll it out as soon as possible.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

T7. Unemployment in Braintree between May 2010 and May 2014 has dropped from 3.4% to 2%, and youth unemployment in that same period has dropped from 6.3% to 3.8%. There remains a challenge, however, in that the unemployment rate is not falling as fast for young women as it is for young men. What are the Government’s policies doing to help young women to get back into work?

[Esther McVey]

I am pleased to say that unemployment is falling right across the country and across all age groups. Employment is up as a consequence. We are doing significant things. We now have record numbers of women going into work, and at record rates. Our policies, more than anything, are supporting young girls.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. It is all very well for the Minister to say that, but more than 200,000 young people have been out of work for over a year, which has consequences for the possibility of their finding work in the future. Youth unemployment is falling more slowly than overall unemployment, so what is she doing to help the youth of this country get back into employment?

[Esther McVey]

It is quite incredible that the hon. Gentleman should ask that question, considering that youth unemployment shot up by 45% under the Labour Government, and that we have managed to get more young people into work. As I have said, youth unemployment has fallen for nine consecutive months; it is 100,000 fewer than at the general election. He would be better off reading about what we have done, if he wants to know how to get young people into work.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Will the Minister provide the House with an update on the implementation and delivery of the mesothelioma compensation payment scheme?

[Mike Penning]

I am really proud that the coalition Government have introduced this new scheme. It is now fully funded and it is rolling out on time. Payments will be made on time to the people who need those funds so much, through no fault of their own, and we are all very proud of that.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

T4. My local citizens advice bureau has been contacted by a young single woman who has been hit by the bedroom tax. After paying her rent and utility bills, she has just 84p a day left to spend on food and toiletries. With eight households for each available one-bedroom property in my area, moving is simply not an option. How can the Secretary of State continue to try to justify a policy that results in such extreme poverty?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We have given local authorities between £300 million and £400 million for discretionary payments. It is their job to ensure that individuals with particularly difficult circumstances can be helped with that money. The overall policy is very simple. It is about people who are living in accommodation that they do not fully utilise, and about others, including the quarter of a million left by the last Government in overcrowded circumstances and the 1 million people on waiting lists. I do not think that the hon. Lady has ever got up and asked a question about those people. The reality is that this policy will help them to get the accommodation they need to improve their lives, and not waste it on people who do not need it.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I hear repeated concerns that there may be targets for benefit sanctions at jobcentres. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is not the case, and send a clear message to advisers that they should not be seeking to sanction people inappropriately to hit some sort of target? Their aim is to help people.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I can assure my hon. Friend that there is no target on benefit sanctions, that the advisers give benefit sanctions as a last resort, and that the system has a full set of checks and balances. There is a mandatory reconsideration almost immediately of that decision, and then there is the opportunity to appeal. The purpose of a sanction is to help to remind the individual that this taxpayers’ money comes with an obligation to co-operate; to find work by seeking work.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

T6. Why will the Government not pay universal credit payments to the main carer of children in a family rather than the main earner?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Let us pause and get this absolutely right. The reality is that what the Opposition are now saying is utterly illogical. [Interruption.] Let me give the hon. Lady the figures. What is fascinating is that 93% of cohabiting couples and 98% of married couples share their finances, so most of those people will reach a conclusion. The second point is that we have put safeguards in place within universal credit so that the payments can be nominated as an exception if the carer is to receive the money. Right now, this is about a household getting more money than under the existing systems. This is a benefit that benefits more people, and, honestly, the idea of micro-managing everybody’s lives from Westminster is the kind of absurdity that the Labour party tried when it was in government.

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

It is welcome that youth unemployment has fallen by some 59,000 in the past three months, but I understand that there has been an underspend of some £50 million on the Youth Contract budget. Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that that money will be spent on supporting young people into work?

[Esther McVey]

Absolutely, I can. All the money that we said that we would be spending on youth schemes—we are doing just that.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T8. It is a great shame that Tory Members of Parliament criticised the Trussell Trust and Oxfam—in fact, some might say threatened them—for daring to suggest a link between food poverty and the social security system: the cuts, the delays, the misapplied sanctions and the abolition of the social fund. Will the Secretary of State now accept his responsibility for what has been a 54% increase in the need for food aid in just one year, and commit to working positively with those organisations to see how his Department can help to address the root causes of food poverty?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Inequality is at its lowest since 1986. There are 500,000 fewer people in relative poverty than at the election; 300,000 fewer children in relative poverty than at the election; 200,000 fewer pensioners in relative poverty than at the election; and 450,000 fewer workless households than at the end of 2010. We have done more to help people who are hard up than the hon. Lady’s Government ever did.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

What impact has the Government’s long-term plan had on long-term unemployment, and what representations have the Government received on long-term unemployment from the Opposition?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend for asking that question because we have seen the biggest annual fall in long-term unemployment since 1998—108,000 fewer people on long-term benefits. That is a significant change. When we came into office we said that we would help those whom the Labour Government left behind and forgot about. We have set up the Work programme and other schemes, and the consequences are more of them in work.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

T9. Last week I met a constituent who received her husband’s personal independence payment only after he had passed away. Will the Minister guarantee that no one else will suffer that deeply distressing situation in the future?

[Mike Penning]

Of course I cannot guarantee that, but we need to do everything we possibly can on this. Perhaps the hon. Lady will pass on our thoughts to her constituent for her loss. It is very important that we get the scheme to run faster, but the quality needs to be right. I am very sad when that sort of thing happens, but I cannot possibly guarantee to the House that it will not happen again. We just have to make sure that it does not happen very often.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I have been here since the beginning of Question Time and may I tell the Secretary of State that I have been sickened—there is no other way to describe my feelings—by his complacent indifference to the agonising hardship suffered by the most vulnerable in our society? He should be ashamed of the policies he is pursuing.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The only sickening thing is the last Government plunging the economy into such a crisis that more people fell into unemployment and hardship as a direct result of the incompetence of the people whom the hon. Gentleman has progressively supported.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

Under this Government, how many more women are now in employment?

[Esther McVey]

The rate is the highest it has ever been, at nearly 68%. The number and rate of women in employment is the highest we have ever seen.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

After nine months, fewer than 200 people in Hammersmith and Fulham are on universal credit. This morning the shadow ministerial team visited Hammersmith’s citizens advice bureau to hear directly from my constituents about the catastrophic failure of the Secretary of State’s Department in every area of operation. Is his failure to roll out universal credit just a cover-up of another DWP crisis in the making?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Isn’t that interesting? What a revealing statement. We have endlessly offered the Opposition Front Bench team the opportunity to visit jobcentres where universal credit is rolling out, but only one spokesman went—[Interruption.] No, the shadow Secretary of State never went and is refusing to go. Now she would rather visit citizens advice bureaux than the people who are actually delivering universal credit. Surely that is the most pathetic excuse I have ever heard.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I have a number of very sick constituents who have been pushed into severe financial hardship as a result of unacceptable delays in the PIP process. Some of them are now dependent on food banks. I listened carefully to the Minister earlier, but will he set out a timetable for clearing the backlog for all applicants, not just the terminally ill? What interim support will he offer to those having to wait more than 28 days?

[Mike Penning]

I repeat that it is taking too long. I accept that and am determined to get the time down. We are working with the providers to ensure that we get it down. I will look into individual cases if the hon. Lady wants to bring them to me, but we are doing everything we possibly can. I would rather see people being assessed than left without any assessment, as the previous Administration did, or with paper-based assessments.

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

Underlying the overly positive spin that Ministers have put on the employment figures is the fact that for the first time ever the majority of families living below the poverty line are in work. What are the Government going to do to make sure that work is always a route out of poverty?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Nothing is more revealing than when the Opposition start claiming that we somehow have to spin the fact that there are more people in work now than when we came into office. We will soon break through the barrier and have the highest proportion of people in work. Unemployment is falling, youth unemployment is falling, and adult unemployment is falling. We do not need to spin facts, because facts in this case tell us that our welfare reforms are working.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry, but as usual demand exceeds supply and we must move on.

Points of Order

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

15:33

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), contradicted my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) earlier when he asked about the sanctions rate. She said that the number of successful appeals was around only 10%. According to the Trussell Trust’s “Below the Breadline” report, the average success rate was 58% over the period from 22 October 2012 to 30 September 2013, and in the three months to 30 September 2013 it was 86%. How can we put on the record whether those figures cited by the Trussell Trust are correct and where the Minister managed to get the figure of 10% from?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister is welcome to respond if she so wishes.

[Esther McVey]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I gave the official statistics, and I was correct.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, we will leave it there for today, but knowing the hon. Lady—

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Patience, Mr Sheerman. A man of your seniority should have acquired gravitas and stoicism. We are coming to you, man. Be calm, be happy—it is Wimbledon. Relax.

[Mr Sheerman]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot wait any longer. We have got to hear you, Mr Sheerman; the nation must hear you.

[Mr Sheerman]

On a day like today when such serious issues are being debated in Question Time, when so few Conservative Back Benchers are here, and when time for the business runs out and there are a number of pent-up questions from Labour Members about serious issues such as the fact that the students’ disability allowance is being taken away, what can we do to add to the length of the session so that Members in all parts of the House get a fair crack of the whip?

[Mr Speaker]

My appetite for hearing hon. and right hon. Members ask questions is insatiable. I would happily run the session on for longer, but I am afraid that it is not within my power. Not only is the hon. Gentleman here every day during working hours, but I sometimes fondly imagine that he probably sleeps here as well; I do not know. He knows that his request is unfortunately beyond my powers, but he has made his point with his usual alacrity, and it is on the record.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Question Time, the disability Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), stated that he had inherited the current backlog in ESA claims from the previous Government. How can we put on record the fact that his predecessor told the Work and Pensions Committee that a small backlog in 2011 was going to be eliminated by the summer of 2011? The two statements clearly cannot be consistent.

[Mr Speaker]

The evidence is that the hon. Lady has found her own salvation. She asked how it could be done and at the same time she did it. It is on the record, and we will leave it there.

Deregulation Bill

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Fourteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2013-14, on Legislative Scrutiny: (1) Criminal Justice and Courts and (2) Deregulation Bill, HC 1293; and Second Report of 2014 from the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, Work of the Committee in 2013, HC 1173 of Session 2013-14.]

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 4

Removal of restriction on investigation of tramway accidents in Scotland by RAIB

‘(1) The Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 14 (extent of Part 1: investigation of railway accidents by Rail Accident Investigation Branch), omit subsection (2) (which prevents the Part from applying to tramways in Scotland).

(3) In consequence of subsection (2), omit section 1(3).” —(Tom Brake.)

Part 1 of the Railways and Transport Safety 2003 does not currently apply to tramways in Scotland and so the Rail Accident Investigation Branch cannot investigate tramway accidents there. This amendment removes that restriction.

Brought up, and read the First time.

15:37

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 25—Civil penalties for parking contraventions: enforcement.

Amendment 61, page 7, line 22, leave out clause 10, clause 11 and clause 12.

Government amendment 13.

Amendment 1, page 26, line 4, clause 35, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert “in paragraph (a) leave out from “if new and important evidence” to “discovered” and insert

“where secondary investigations have enabled more new, significant, or important evidence to become available, having particular regard to—

(i) enhancing and preserving the rights of those affected by a maritime accident to learn from the proceedings of such reinvestigations and conclusions drawn from them; and

(ii) future safety issues and measures.”.”

Government amendments 36 to 49, 51, 24 and 26.

[Tom Brake]

This group of amendments covers accident investigation, parking contravention, driving, and private hire vehicle licensing.

New clause 4 and amendment 24 deal with rail accidents and, specifically, tram investigations in Scotland. They will remove a prohibition in the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 that prevents the Rail Accident Investigation Branch from investigating tram accidents in Scotland. The prohibition was originally included at the explicit request of the Scottish Executive because operation and safety matters on tramways are a devolved matter. Until now, this has not been an issue as there were no tramways in Scotland, and in practice the power would never have been exercised. However, now that the Edinburgh tramway has entered public service, the prohibition is no longer appropriate. This is a devolved matter, so the consent of the Scottish Parliament is needed. Scottish Ministers will support the legislative consent motion required to remove the prohibition.

The RAIB is already a UK-wide organisation. Its inspectors investigate accidents and incidents on all mainline services, including in Scotland, and currently undertake investigations of tramway accidents in England and Wales. RAIB inspectors already have the required investigative expertise and the necessary powers to conduct a thorough investigation and make recommendations to ensure that lessons are learned. Should there be an accident or incident on the Edinburgh tramway, it is therefore appropriate that RAIB inspectors should be able to undertake an investigation.

If the prohibition on undertaking investigations of tramway accidents or incidents in Scotland were not removed, RAIB inspectors would have no statutory power to investigate, so the safety implications of any accident or incident might not be fully exposed, and there might be repeat incidents if the root causes are not addressed. Although the new clause is only small, the implications for the continued safety of our rail network of perpetuating the prohibition are significant.

The RAIB has already shown its considerable value in contributing to our having one of the safest rail networks in the world. I of course hope that it will never be necessary for RAIB inspectors to be deployed, but we must not be complacent. This is an opportunity to remove a small legislative anomaly, enabling RAIB inspectors to apply their considerable experience and expertise consistently across the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

What has the accident experience of tramways in England been over the past year, and will the power include the ability to investigate pedestrians and drivers of third vehicles or bicycles that get caught by trams?

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that I do not have figures to hand on accidents relating to trams in England and Wales, but I will write to my right hon. Friend on that subject. I assume that any investigation of an accident would assess its causes—for instance, if it involved a vehicle driving on to the tramlines—and would make recommendations about how to deal with such issues.

Government new clause 25 relates to changes in the use of CCTV for issuing parking tickets by post. The Government are concerned that the use of CCTV for on-street parking is no longer proportionate, and that local councils over-employ it to deal with contraventions when it would be more appropriate and fair for such contraventions to be handled by a civil enforcement officer. We have therefore committed ourselves to ban the use of CCTV for on-street parking enforcement. That was announced in September and re-stated in December 2013 as part of a package of measures designed to support high streets.

Under existing measures, when a CCTV camera is used by a civil enforcement officer to identify a parking offence, a penalty charge notice can be issued to the offender by post. In practice, that means that drivers may receive a parking ticket through the post several weeks after an incident, which makes it difficult to challenge the alleged contravention.

The Government are concerned that a proliferation of CCTV cameras for offences such as parking may undermine public acceptance of their wider beneficial use. To introduce the change, we need to amend legislation to prevent local authorities from relying so heavily on CCTV for parking enforcement.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that the new clause relates to parking, but will he confirm that CCTV cameras can still be used for issuing fines via the post for other offences, such as parking on zig-zag lines in front of schools?

[Tom Brake]

I will come on to that point in a few moments.

New clause 25 will amend part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 to prevent the automatic issuing by post of fines for parking offences, and instead require that notification of penalty charges is given by a notice attached to the vehicle.

The new clause includes a wider power to cater for an outright ban on CCTV if that is considered necessary in future. However, the Government intend to protect the use of CCTV cameras where there is a strong safety argument for doing so. Their use will therefore be banned in all but the following limited circumstances: when stopped in restricted areas outside a school; when stopped where prohibited on a red route or clearway; when parked where prohibited in a bus lane; or when stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about his statement at the weekend that local authorities are not able to make a profit from CCTV cameras, and what does he think about that?

[Tom Brake]

I have not had any discussions with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government since his announcement at the weekend. It is very clear that local authorities cannot issue parking fines to raise funds for other purposes, but that they can use the money from parking fines to invest in transport and some environmental measures. The Government are concerned that the family of local authorities as a whole has a surplus of about £630 million in funds raised through parking tickets. We believe that we have taken a sensible and proportionate approach by ensuring the power has the ability to exempt key parts of the road network so that we reach the right balance of fair enforcement in the right places.

I now move on to amendment 61 on taxis and private hire vehicles.

15:45

[James Duddridge]

Before the Minister moves on, will he confirm when the power will come into effect, and what will happen to councils that perhaps have a longer-term contract with a provider that falls outside the period?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is a very good point, which I think it would be more appropriate to respond to in writing. Clearly, there may well be contractual issues. If local authorities have entered into contracts for, say, a five-year period, there may be implications, so rather than giving him an off-the-cuff response, I will write to him on that point.

Amendment 61 would remove from the Bill the three clauses that relate to taxis and private hire vehicles. That is not a course of action that the Government intend to adopt. On the contrary, we consider that the taxi and private hire vehicle clauses will have significant benefits, both in terms of cost savings for the trade and convenience for passengers, and we are determined to see those benefits realised.

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

Will the Minister explain why he has not listened to what the travelling public want? There is huge concern about these clauses. He has not consulted the Local Government Association, nor has he listened to the public or the evidence, and as a result, he is going to put public safety at risk.

[Tom Brake]

I cannot agree with that at all. We are not putting public safety at risk, and I think the people who have concerns about safety do at least have London to consider, where, of course, all the measures apply, and I am not aware of significant issues being raised in relation to safety in London.

Clause 10 concerns the circumstances in which a private hire vehicle driver’s licence is required. Its purpose is to allow people who do not hold a private hire vehicle driver’s licence outside London and Plymouth to drive a licensed private hire vehicle when the vehicle is off duty. At a stroke, that will lift the burden that many families currently face of having to run a second car so that other family members can drive for domestic purposes. I have heard arguments to the effect that this will be unsafe and that the Government are being reckless in taking forward the policy, but I do not agree with that.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

There was a case in the local Slough magistrates court on these issues very recently, and those who were charged were found guilty and fined extensively. The comments from the magistracy are interesting. The court said that they regarded this as a very serious set of offences, putting the public at risk and depriving legitimate drivers of income. They were particularly concerned that the trigger incident involved a lone female being collected late at night from Wexham Park hospital. Is that not evidence that these sorts of changes are required?

[Tom Brake]

I do not think that what the hon. Lady has described is evidence that what the Government are proposing—a relatively small number of changes to the way in which private hire vehicles can operate—will have an impact on safety.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

On that point, does the Minister acknowledge the concerns of police and crime commissioners and organisations such as the Suzy Lamplugh Trust about rogue or unlicensed taxis? This deregulation is likely to compound that problem.

[Tom Brake]

I certainly agree with those organisations that we need to be concerned about rogue, unlicensed taxis, but I do not think that anything the Government are putting forward today will increase the likelihood of there being rogue, unlicensed taxi operators. For instance, a private hire operator passing on a job to another will be passing the job on to an operator who is, of course, licensed.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

I will make some progress.

Safeguards will be in place, the main one being that the law will continue to prohibit people who do not hold a PHV driver’s licence from acting as a PHV driver. It was with safety in mind that we decided to alter the position in London by introducing the reverse burden of proof: where a driver without a PHV licence is caught driving a licensed PHV with a passenger on board, the Bill places the onus on the driver to show that the vehicle was not being used as a hire vehicle at the time. We believe that that approach will make the job of enforcement more straightforward for local authorities.

Clause 11 will standardise the duration of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers’ licences at three years, and private hire operator licences at five years. Shorter licence durations will be permitted, but only according to the circumstances of a given case and not on a blanket basis. That will apply in England and Wales, but not in London or Plymouth. I have heard arguments about the adverse safety implications of clause 11, and about licensing authorities losing their ability to monitor drivers sufficiently. The three-year licence duration applies to more than 50,000 taxi and PHV drivers in London, and outside London just under half of licensing authorities set that duration for their drivers, so that measure is already common. We recognise that local authorities take their taxi licensing responsibilities seriously, which is commendable.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers, the National Taxi Association, and the National Private Hire Association are totally opposed to these clauses. Why is the Minister not listening to those who have to enforce the regulations or who are part of the delivery of our taxi services?

[Tom Brake]

The Government have listened to and taken on board concerns expressed by a range of organisations, and have also heard support for the measures we are proposing. We think it important not to place a burden on private hire vehicle drivers that requires them to have a second vehicle in their family to enable them to get around. Safety is vital when licensing taxi and PHV drivers; that is why local authorities are allowed to take into account the criminal records of driver’s licence applicants. Best practice guidance advises licensing authorities to undertake formal criminal record checks every three years, and that facility will still be available. Moreover, the new Disclosure and Barring Service allows taxi and PHV drivers to sign up to an updating service that will allow licensing authorities to make inquiries about the drivers they licence, should they feel the need to do so.

Clause 12 allows private hire vehicle operators to subcontract bookings to operators licensed in a different district. It will apply in England and Wales, outside London and Plymouth. Once again, the clause has been opposed on safety grounds, with arguments that enforcement will be difficult. I stress that that measure already applies in London—I am not aware of any enforcement issues—and the principle of subcontracting, albeit to an operator in the same district, is already enshrined in provincial legislation. I cannot see how allowing PHV operators to subcontract journeys across borders will generate safety issues. Operators will be allowed to subcontract bookings only to other operators who are properly licensed, and those operators will have to fulfil their bookings using properly licensed drivers and vehicles.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The Minister says that he is not aware of any enforcement issues, but may I remind him that the real public safety concern is the number of bogus, unlicensed taxis that operate—particularly in London—and pose a threat to the welfare of women travelling home late in the evening? Last year there were 250 assaults and 56 rapes. Measures that will make that situation worse by making the system more difficult to enforce—that is what the Government propose—should surely concern the right hon. Gentleman and the whole House.

[Tom Brake]

Again, I agree that the Government, local authorities, the police and campaigning organisations should do everything they can to ensure that women and other users of private hire vehicles use only licensed vehicles, and that there is a strong clampdown on those who are operating illegally. Again, I do not think that anything the Government are proposing in these clauses will have the effect that the hon. Gentleman seems to be saying they will.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a local authority cannot take enforcement action against taxis that are licensed in another area, and that relaxing this policy will only add to that problem?

[Tom Brake]

As I have said, if, for instance, an operator cannot do a job in an outside area and passes on the responsibility to another licensed operator, that operator will be licensed, and there will be enforcement associated with that licence. Enforcement authorities will be able to check the operator’s records for any given booking to ensure that it has been undertaken lawfully.

To sum up, these are tried and tested measures. We believe there are adequate safeguards in place. We acknowledge, of course, that the Law Commission review is a significant landmark to those who have a keen or vested interest in the evolution of taxi licensing and regulation, but the key point is that that review will not deliver tangible change in the next year, whereas these measures will. They in no way undermine or nullify the Law Commission’s review; they are simply the first steps on a long deregulatory journey, which will continue when the Government find an opportunity to take forward the Bill that will arise from that review. The Government are firmly of the view that clauses 10 to 12 should remain part of the Bill, and that amendment 61 should be resisted.

[Graham Jones]

The Minister says these measures will be helpful, but Hyndburn borough council currently cannot take enforcement action against taxis from another authority, such as Rossendale, and his proposals will only aggravate the situation. Will he confirm that that is the case?

[Tom Brake]

At the risk of repeating myself, I do not think that any action the Government are taking will put people at risk.

Let me respond to a couple of earlier interventions. It was suggested, for instance, that we have not consulted. We have indeed consulted: we conducted a targeted consultation earlier this year and also tapped into the extensive consultation conducted by the Law Commission during its comprehensive review. Nor is it true that no one wants the measures we are proposing. For instance, the Private Hire Reform Campaign is highly supportive of all these measures, and after extensive consultation, the Law Commission recommended all three of them in its most recent comprehensive review of taxi legislation.

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that I will move on now to Government amendments 13 and 51, which deal with the duration of driving licences granted to drivers with relevant or prospective disabilities. The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provides that drivers with relevant or prospective medical conditions may be issued only with time-limited driving licences with a maximum duration of three years. That means that drivers with relevant medical conditions need to reapply for their licence at least once every three years. In many cases, where a medical condition is well controlled or progressing only slowly, a three-yearly review is unnecessary. Our amendments will enable the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to issue licences with a duration of up to 10 years.

Every licence application will still be considered on a case-by-case basis, and licences will still be issued for shorter periods where that is appropriate. Only drivers with conditions that are considered low-risk and unlikely to progress quickly will get a licence of longer duration, so road safety will not be compromised. A driver will still have a legal duty to tell the DVLA of any condition that he or she has developed or that has deteriorated, and it is an offence to fail to do so. Doctors and other third parties, such as the police, can also notify the DVLA when patients or drivers who have a notifiable medical condition, or do not tell the DVLA about it, come to their attention.

When the DVLA consulted on this proposal, 81% of respondents said they supported it. Those expressing support included the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the RAC Foundation, the Epilepsy Society, Diabetes UK, the Royal College of Physicians and the Freight Transport Association. Our amendments will ease the burden on motorists who currently need to make unnecessary applications every three years. They will also ease the burden on GPs, who have to complete the administrative work, and the DVLA, where applications are processed.

Let me turn to marine investigations and the Opposition’s amendment 1. Hon. Members have referred to the campaign—which was supported by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—by the relatives of those lost in the sinking of the MV Derbyshire. I recognise that the amendment is intended to ensure that a future campaign of a similar type that uncovered new evidence would lead to the reopening of the formal investigation into the relevant accident. However, hard cases make bad law.

16:00

No one questions the valuable outcome of the reopening of the formal investigation into the Derbyshire, or the commitment of the campaigners to improving maritime safety, but the amendment would enable anyone who disagreed with the findings of an investigation to search for new evidence and, regardless of how trivial that evidence might be, compel the Secretary of State to reopen the investigation. In the Government’s view, that would do nothing to advance the cause of maritime safety.

Let me repeat the advice given in Committee about how the Secretary of State would approach the decision on whether to reopen an investigation. Each case for reopening would be considered on its merits. The points for consideration would include, but not be limited to: the likelihood of lessons being learned that would improve the safety of marine operations and ship design; the likelihood of being able to identify the true cause or causes of marine accidents, where those causes were particularly uncertain prior to the evidence being found; and the likelihood of uncovering information that would provide a deeper understanding of the causes of other marine accidents. Let me reassure hon. Members that I agree that the reopened formal investigation into the MV Derbyshire was valuable and led to real improvements in maritime safety. If similar circumstances applied again, I am convinced that the Secretary of State would reopen the investigation.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

A more general point about marine accidents is relevant here. All of us who represent marine communities know just how hard it is for bereaved families to come to terms with their loss in the event of marine accidents, and that is made all the harder when they do not know what happened, and when unanswered questions remain. Anything that makes it harder, more costly and more bureaucratic for the families to get the answers they need must be a retrograde step. I ask the Minister to look more carefully at not just this single instance, but at the framework, and to think again about how he takes forward the regulations on this issue. It is a huge comfort to bereaved families to find out what actually happened to their loved ones.

[Tom Brake]

Of course it is. I have just stated the parameters that will be used to establish whether it is appropriate to reopen an investigation. We would, of course, want to ensure that the families had the answers that they wanted and deserved, so that they could get closure. We are arguing only about whether there should be a mandatory requirement on the Secretary of State to reopen formal inquiries, irrespective of the value of any new evidence that comes forward, and however small it is.

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

I hope to catch the Speaker’s eye later and contribute to the debate. The Minister may be convinced, but it is the seafarers and their families who need convincing, and they are not convinced. Will he clarify the process from here onwards? Will there be detailed regulation and consultation? If the legislation is agreed to today, how do we go forward towards implementation?

[Tom Brake]

I shall respond to that shortly, but let me restate that I do not believe that anything we are proposing would have got in the way of the MV Derbyshire inquiry. All the evidence surrounding that shows that under these proposals the Secretary of State would still have reopened the investigation. All we are talking about is whether there should be an automatic trigger, irrespective of the nature of the evidence that comes forward. That is the only point that is in dispute, and I am absolutely certain that if the current Secretary of State or any future Secretary of State felt that the evidence brought forward could, in any shape or form, lead to further safety improvements being identified, they would want to proceed with a formal inquiry. I think most Members would agree that if, 100 years from now, a formal investigation was automatically triggered under this legislation by something that happened today, that would not be likely to make a significant contribution to improving safety.

Amendments 36 to 49 make minor technical improvements to the drafting of schedule 2. Amendments 36, 37 and 39 make drafting changes to render the language more consistent. Amendments 40 and 43 relate to new section 128ZZA, which allows the registrar to cancel a requirement to undergo an emergency control assessment when it is appropriate to do so. The policy intention was to cover all ECAs, but cross-references were missed, so the Bill does not cover the ECAs that are required in relation to licences for trainee instructors. Amendments 40 and 43 simply extend the new section to cover ECAs in connection with licences.

Amendment 41 amends new section 133B(2A), which concerns the ability to retake failed ECAs. It inserts references to assessments required in relation to licences for trainee instructors, which will ensure that the ability to retake a failed assessment applies to all assessments, regardless of the stage at which they were originally ordered. New section 133B(5A) states that a person applying to undergo a further ECA cannot do so until after a further six months, or any other such period prescribed by regulations. Amendments 38 and 42 simply allow a person to retake an ECA before the end of the six-month period in cases in which that is appropriate. Amendments 44 to 49 make consequential amendments to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 to reflect amendments made to the Act by schedule 2 to the Bill.

Let me now conclude my remarks—

[John McDonnell]

Will the Minister answer the question that I asked earlier, about the process involving marine investigations?

[Tom Brake]

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall do so later. Let me now end by urging Members not to press amendments 1 and 61 to a Division.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I rise to speak briefly on Government new clause 25 and more specifically to our amendments 61 and 1, which relate to taxis and maritime issues respectively.

First, I shall comment on what the Minister said about the CCTV measure. The short notice of the introduction of the amendment—it appeared only at the end of last week—suggests that it was a political hot potato, passed between the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government. There have long been rumours that the DCLG intended to scrap the use of CCTV even in sensitive areas, in contrast to the wishes of DFT Ministers. Over the weekend, press coverage of the issue was almost entirely dominated by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us on whether DFT Ministers decided to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) has called a “pickled policy”, or whether this is simply an example of what the Government’s frequent use of the Alice in Wonderland principle of sentence first and trial afterwards.

It concerns us greatly that the measure was introduced so late in the day. It is at odds with the consultative approach adopted by the Department for Transport. A range of organisations, including Living Streets, the Local Government Association, the British Parking Association, the Freight Transport Association, Disabled Motorists UK, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and Guide Dogs for the Blind, have made their concerns known, yet the Government published the new measure before seeing those responses.

There are of course legitimate concerns that councils have been using cameras as a routine means of parking enforcement; that is wrong. There have also been problems where stickers, such as resident permits and blue badges, have not been visible and drivers have wrongly been issued with tickets; that is an occurrence that we should make as infrequent as possible. It is understandable that drivers become frustrated when the first they hear of an infringement is a letter through the post, without the opportunity to discuss the circumstances with an enforcement officer. So we agree with the Select Committee on Transport that there should be greater oversight of the way in which local authorities use cameras to institute penalty charges, but that could be done through statutory and operational guidance, which is exactly what the groups I just mentioned would have liked.

CCTV remains vital for parking and for traffic and safety enforcement in certain areas where the use of parking officers is not practical: schools, bus stops, bus lanes, junctions and pedestrian crossings all come into that category. We hear from the Government response to their consultation that those areas are to be exempted and that CCTV could still be used in these circumstances, but that is not on the face of the Bill and we would welcome confirmation that this is the case and that plans will be put into practice.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that there are times when a camera-based system can get the wrong end of the stick? A constituent of mine was prosecuted for moving into a bus lane; they did so to get out of the way of an emergency vehicle, but the council still went ahead with the prosecution.

[Mr Marsden]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an instance of which he has the full details but I do not. I will not comment on the particular point but will comment on the general point, which is as I have just said: these matters are best dealt with by discussions with the enforcement officer before the ticket is issued. To that extent, I think we are at one.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The reality is that if we relax legislation of this kind, especially when the exemptions are not on the face of the Bill, certain people will take advantage of the situation—drive in bus lanes because they think they might not get caught, for example. There were cases some years ago in which CCTV of cars in bus lanes picked up many vehicles that were driven by criminals on the run for other causes. Once a criminal, always a criminal, and such people will take advantage.

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that underlines why the Government should have given much more careful consideration to the thoughtful proposals and sometimes quite detailed comments submitted by the various groups before bringing forward these measures as part of this rag-bag Bill.

We do not object to the Government’s amendments reining in the use of CCTV in place of everyday traffic enforcement but, as is obvious from the comments we have already heard today, the whole House would welcome answers from the Minister, so we can ensure that vital spots such as bus routes and school runs continue to be protected by CCTV and we know the details of how that will be assured in legislation.

Amendment 61 would remove clauses 10 to 12. The Deputy Leader of the House will not want to hear this, but we strongly oppose the Government proposals on changing taxi and minicab law simply and crucially because it will put passengers at risk. I listened carefully to his opening comments: he said the Government are determined to see the reforms implemented, which reminded me of the old speaker’s note, “Argument weak here, shout like mad”—although, to be fair, being a Liberal Democrat, he did not shout. He really ought to take note of what Members have said today, particularly the interventions from my hon. Friends the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) about the particular concerns that women have —my hon. Friend the Member for Slough referred to an awful case—and about the vital issue of enforcement. On the basis of the reassurances he has given today, the Minister cannot guarantee that the Government will be able to enforce the current safeguards. The issue is one of enforcement.

The Minister talked about the “targeted consultation”—a wonderful phrase. We were told by Harold Wilson some while ago that a week is a long time in politics. Perhaps the Minister, being a Liberal Democrat, thinks that 10 days is an eternity, but 10 days is in fact the amount of time that was allowed for this “targeted” consultation. I doubt whether many people listening today will be particularly impressed with that process.

16:15

[James Duddridge]

I always tell my constituents not to believe everything that is in the papers, but Guido Fawkes carried a number of stories in an online blog about the unions lobbying on these issues and financial interconnections between members of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition and the unions on this matter. Was there any evidence behind those rumours and is there anything to be declared?

[Mr Marsden]

Not on my part, I do not think; I think the only thing to be declared is the hon. Gentleman’s attempt to pursue something on a blog that, as various people know, may or may not have some foundation. In this case, it obviously does not have much foundation.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

A primary union concerned with this issue is the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which is not affiliated to the Labour party, sadly.

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. Friend makes the point for me.

The truth of the matter is that once again an ideological imperative to be seen to be cutting red tape is resulting in vital principles of good governance being relegated. Although we have rightly had a long drawn-out process from the Law Commission’s proposals to consider all the interests involved—I shall come on to some of those in due course and perhaps put the hon. Gentleman’s somewhat paranoid mind at rest—it has been marred by the Government’s rushed and risky proposals. These plans have been poorly drafted and badly consulted on and they could put the travelling public in danger.

Taxis and private hire vehicles play a vital part in connecting people’s lives. They provide a wide range of services—everything from trips to the airport to early morning trips back from nightclubs. They are an essential means of transport for a wide range of people without access to a car, particularly in cut off or rural locations. For young people—sometimes for recreation, but also for work, training or family commitments—and for older people, they are a lifeline, providing mobility and social cohesion.

Previous work, including that of the Transport Committee in 2011, showed that the regulation governing the trade is often complex and contentious. We, therefore, like so many organisations outside this House, hoped that the DFT would approach reform in an inclusive, comprehensive and balanced way, especially looking to use the expertise of users, taxi operators and local councils in piloting a new course. Sadly, that has not been the case. Opposition to these measures is widespread: the police, industry bodies and members of the trade themselves are warning that they have severe safety implications. Yet Ministers have introduced the specifics of the plans late in the passage of the Bill, leaving little opportunity for real engagement with industry stakeholders.

Despite the excellent speech made on 29 April in Westminster Hall by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield—he has been steadfast and vocal on the threat that this part of the Bill poses to vulnerable taxi drivers, and even today has been meeting delegations from a range of organisations concerned about the proposals—it is still not clear why these measures were not included in the Bill on Second Reading, so they could have been debated more fully. Is this a reflection of their on-the-hoof nature, or a conscious attempt to avoid the criticism that would inevitably follow?

The context of today’s discussion is important. We should consider the questions that the rise of new services such as Uber pose about the impact of new technologies on the trade. The Government must be clear about what priorities they set for private transport companies, and surely those should be safety and security. That is quite the opposite of the piecemeal reforms being introduced in the Bill. What is needed is a far more comprehensive look at the regulation and enforcement of the taxi and private hire trade. That is exactly what the Law Commission announcement about the need for a new national framework underlined, so why on earth are this Government cutting the ground from beneath the Law Commission’s feet with these ill-thought-through proposals?

In the detail of the clauses we are opposing, the Government plan to allow people without a licence for a minicab to drive one when it is off duty. That could or will greatly increase the potential for rogue minicab drivers, who appear no different from legal drivers on the streets and could threaten vulnerable passengers, including women, who enter their vehicles. It will be nearly impossible to enforce these rules; it will be difficult to monitor whether a minicab is in service or off duty, and whether the driver is a minicab licence holder or not. The Minister may respond, as he has before, by talking about London—several times in his speech I thought he was grasping at London like a drowning man grasping at straws—but other areas of the country do not have the same resources for enforcement, and the sad truth is that rapes and sexual assaults committed by people purporting to be private hire drivers are not uncommon. The changes to the law are rightly an issue of public concern.

[Mr Redwood]

If the licence is the guarantee of safety and the person driving the minicab would need the permission of a licence holder, is that not the continued guarantee? [Interruption.]

[Mr Marsden]

As my hon. Friends ask from a sedentary position, “How do you know?” I could also talk about the transfer of these licences but, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, this is about resources and enforcement. The truth is that we would not know.

The proposed measures might damage the entire legitimate taxi industry, too. Greater Manchester’s police and crime commissioner has said that there is a clear danger that they will lead to an increase in unlicensed private hire drivers taking business illegitimately and that the measures are a backward step for law enforcement. I say again that this move is unnecessary. Why have the Government not listened to the Law Commission, which led an extensive consultation on a complex issue, receiving 3,000 written responses from across the trade? The process involved a series of 84 meetings over four months, an industry survey and meetings—one of which I attended at Blackpool cricket club—where scores of taxi drivers all put useful points. Why have the Government ploughed ahead with these reforms? Was the review simply a waste of money?

My next point deals with the one made by the right hon. Gentleman. Ministers would also let minicab operators subcontract a job to firms in another area, which means the customer booking the taxi could not be sure of the individual or the firm picking them up. Customers would lose their right to select a firm based on a strong reputation for safety. Many vulnerable people may start to lose confidence in their travelling habits if they do not believe they have a safe cab company whose services they can rely on. These proposals also have implications further down the line, for the supply chain in taxis and cabs. We are talking about things being made in the UK, with jobs and livelihoods provided in the UK, and a valuable force for social cohesion. That force will be under threat if the general public lose confidence in the methods of regulation and licensing.

[James Duddridge]

In Southend, I have a regular contract with AC Taxis, as it is convenient; the firm is a good supplier and well trusted in the area. If it had to outsource some of its work, I would expect it, as a reputable firm, to outsource to another reputable firm. It may well outsource to Rochford Taxis, also an excellent supplier, but I would not expect it to go to a random firm to contract out the work. The company would be protecting its reputation, and it would be in its interest to behave in a decent and good way.

[Mr Marsden]

The hon. Gentleman is right about that, and he is right to defend the reputation of the company he has had dealings with and knows to be reputable. However, the basis on which we have to proceed in legislation is not what the best would do, but what the worst might do. That is the point I am trying to make. The Law Commission has made it clear that any such arrangements would need to be subject to enforcement officers having the ability to impound vehicles and issue penalties in other areas, so that jobs could be passed between firms more accountably.

The taxi and minicab hire industry in this country is locally and closely regulated by councils, which is where regulation should stay. At the moment, minicabs and taxis can, quite rightly, be driven only by someone who has undergone criminal, medical and background checks by the local authority. By trying to micro-manage the changes from Whitehall, the Government risk jeopardising people’s safety. Members here are quite right to emphasise issues such as women using taxis late at night. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust commented on the proposals, saying that it knows, from the sexual assaults on women each year, that posing as a legitimate minicab driver is what some particularly dangerous sexual predators do. The trust stated that

“moves to allow any individual to drive licensed minicab when it is ‘off duty’ will provide greater opportunity for those intent on preying on women in this way. We are also concerned about the proposal to require licensing authorities to renew licenses on a three-year basis rather than annually, should they wish to: we think that checks on drivers should be as rigorous and frequent as necessary”.

That is what we think as well. It is also what the Local Government Association and the police and crime commissioner for Northumberland, Vera Baird, have said. Sixteen police and crime commissioners from all political parties and none have gone on record to voice their opposition to the process and the proposals that have resulted. Incidentally, they include three former Members of this House: Tony Lloyd, Vera Baird and Jane Kennedy.

There is real anger from people who feel that their voices have been ignored in the process. Government guidance on consultation stresses the importance of adequate time and engagement and transparency with key stakeholders, yet Ministers settled for a short period of consultation to give them a cloak for enacting these controversial and piecemeal reforms. As I have said, the Government would dilute the safety checks by ending mandatory minicab licence renewal. As we have seen all too often, the Government pay lip service to localism, but when they want to beef up their so-called red-tape challenge, any mention of localism goes out of the window. What we then get, as we have with this proposal, is clodhopping centralism, dreamed up in short order to fit their soundbites, ignoring the concerns of all those who have looked at the matter in depth, and posing real safety concerns for people, not least women, who use taxis and private hire vehicles especially at night. I urge all Members who take seriously the safety of our roads and the vulnerable passengers in our community to back this amendment and to delete these clauses.

Finally, I come to amendment 1, which would amend clause 35. Today, the House has an opportunity to change these ill-conceived and potentially dangerous plans to row back the rights of seafarers and their families as they seek to find answers to the causes of marine accidents, and to learn lessons that could save lives. I listened carefully to what the Minister had to say, and felt that he was, from time to time, straining to convince himself rather than the rest of us. He said that hard cases make bad law, which is perfectly correct. Although I shall refer to the MV Derbyshire, it is not the simple thrust of why we have made this proposal. He said that he would be convinced—he used the words “would be”—that the Government’s proposals are adequate. The truth is that it is not good enough for any individual to be convinced that the Government’s proposals are good enough; it is important to have a framework that ensures they are good enough. The Minister said that hard cases make bad law, but I say, having heard him draw on examples from 100 years ago and beyond to the time of the Titanic, that ludicrous examples make bad argument. No one has, at any stage, proposed such a distance in time.

Clause 35 seeks to abolish the duty that obliges the Secretary of State automatically to order that a marine accident investigation case be reheard. This duty was enshrined in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, which followed years of campaigning by unions and the families of those affected by accidents at sea. A number of serious maritime incidents demonstrate how important this duty is. The causes of major incidents involving great loss of life have sometimes been found on the second investigation and after some time. That, of course, includes shipwrecks, which are often discovered following painstaking research and the physical trawling of the seabed.

16:30

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument. Does he agree that the 22 recommendations from the MV Derbyshire report support his argument that we should not downgrade the Secretary of State’s powers?

[Mr Marsden]

I do agree, but as importantly, so do most of the people involved in the MV Derbyshire campaign and, indeed, the Minister, John Prescott, who opened the inquiry.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I strongly support what my hon. Friend says. In more recent times, we have had new technology, which might not have been available when an accident happened. We now might be able to investigate and find the causes of ships sinking or whatever, because of new technology.

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is an iterative process, which simply exposes the weakness of the Minister’s argument.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case. I commend him for bringing amendment 1 to the Floor of the House, because in a context where it is increasingly difficult for families to get the legal aid that they need to take such things forward, it should not be left to them to launch their own investigations. It is an extremely costly, difficult and distressing process.

[Mr Marsden]

The hon. Lady makes an absolutely valid point. Context is all, particularly in this case, which was crucial to the duty being put into law. MV Derbyshire sank in 1980 and was found only in 1994. That example prompted reinvestigation many years after the original incident.

The duty that the Government want to scrap was used in 1998 to reopen the formal investigation into the loss of the Derbyshire in September 1980. The Derbyshire disappeared south of Japan during Typhoon Orchid. All on board—42 crew and two passengers, who were wives of crew members—lost their lives. She remains the largest UK ship ever to have been lost at sea.

A major union-funded search for the vessel in the 1990s, supported by the International Transport Workers Federation—a global organisation, with affiliates in Britain, including the RMT, Unite, the National Union of Seamen, Nautilus International and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and broader support from the Public and the Commercial Services Union, the Communication Workers Union, the GMB and others—was required to make that breakthrough in discovering the wreck of the Derbyshire. That effort identified the wreck in 1994 and led to the introduction of the duty in the 1995 Act to establish the necessary evidence and place the legal obligation on the Government to reopen the investigation.

After nearly 20 years of campaigning, the investigation into the cause of the loss was reopened in 1998, and great credit for that decision goes not just to the organisations I mentioned but to my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), who galvanised the local campaign and ran an all-party group on the subject, and of course to John, now Lord Prescott, who, as Secretary of State for Transport, invoked the powers for the reinvestigation because he drew on his awareness of the struggle that unions and families had undertaken to find the missing ship. He has recently described the Government’s attempt to remove the duty as a massive insult to those who campaigned for the truth about the Derbyshire.

The steadfast way in which the friends and family group that set up the campaign, based in and around Liverpool, and the poignant memories brought back by the 20th anniversary this year of the finding of the ship testify to the huge importance of the power to reinvestigate, not just to find out new facts but, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) said, to support and recognise the loss of those who were affected. All this has been reflected in the wording of amendment 1.

The reinvestigation absolved the crew of any blame for the loss of the vessel and led to significant improvements in the safe operation of bulk carrier class ships and the understanding of typhoon conditions. For those reasons, the claim made in Committee by the Solicitor-General, who is not in his place, that if a wreck is discovered many years after an accident, safety insights would be irrelevant or out of date, really does not hold water. That argument was disproved by the case of the Derbyshire. Maritime accidents may be relatively rare, but they are tragic events and it is crucial to understand them as fully as we can.

Although it relates to a different mode of transport, the recent search for the Malaysian flight MH370 demonstrates that even in today’s technologically advanced world there are circumstances in which even our greatest efforts struggle to match the vastness of the oceans our ships and planes traverse. Who knows when future evidence on that incident will emerge as to the plane’s final fate? It might take months, years or even decades.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It may indeed be technology that has not yet been developed that will solve those problems.

[Mr Marsden]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the context of this debate, the MH370 incident shows that in other circumstances, where such incidents might affect British ships and citizens, Ministers must have flexibility and the power to reopen inquiries. [Interruption.] The Minister says that that is absolutely right, but I will go on to demonstrate that the inadequacies of his clause as drafted would not allow that to happen. If any such tragedy were to occur in British maritime in the future, we must have the law in place to guarantee that men and women working on our ships, and the families who rely on them, get the answers, however long the recovery of evidence takes.

The Government’s preferred approach in this Deregulatory Bill is to retain a discretionary power—a weaker section of the 1995 Act—to rehear such a case if the Secretary of State suspects that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred. That is simply an unacceptable weakening of the Secretary of State’s ability to protect seafarers and their families. It downgrades rights from a duty to a mere choice.

Sadly, that was reflected by some of the Solicitor-General’s comments when defending the change in Committee. In response to a challenge from my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), the Solicitor-General said:

“We are talking about something similar to a judicial inquiry, with all the formality and costs associated with it. It is not just about money, but about taking up the time of a huge number of people. If it is a worthwhile exercise, because it will help safety or clear someone’s name, it is obviously worth doing, but it is pointless and expensive if it happens many years later.”––[Official Report, Deregulation Public Bill Committee, 11 March 2014; c. 311.]

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman did not intend it, but he seemed to suggest that there should almost be a statute of limitations on the timescale that influences a Government’s response. I am sorry to say that grief, support and the ability to find the truth are not always amenable to an automatic, time-limited cut-off point.

There is also a circular problem inherent in the Government’s proposal. It is not clear how the Secretary of State can be expected adequately to assess the existing evidence in order to suspect a miscarriage of justice without the sort of rigorous, independent work carried out by the marine accident investigation branch. The work will now be undertaken by the branch only if the Secretary of State requests it because he already suspects a miscarriage of justice.

It has been claimed that the removal of the duty can be described simply as tidying up in order to synchronise the 1995 Act with other recent guidance. However, recent MAIB guidance has made it very clear that its remit lies only in dealing with the reporting of the circumstances of an accident and not an investigation of its root cause. The MAIB is not—I repeat, not—responsible for enforcement or prosecution of any responsible bodies. Those functions are still underpinned by the 1995 Act.

There is one other factor to take into account: reinvestigation inevitably might mean that difficult truths are unearthed about the adequacy and focus of previous assessments by officials and the Department when making an initial judgment. Any Minister should be able to pursue the process subsequently without fear or favour. Under the element of discretion that the Government propose, that ability might be, or could appear to be, hampered, but retaining the existing duty protects those in government—of whatever party—from any suggestion of partiality with regard to taking forward the reinvestigation process.

The Government’s impact assessment cites a human rights argument in defence of the clause, claiming that the possibility of the future automatic investigation of an accident could have an impact on the career prospects of survivors. However, the Derbyshire reinvestigation showed the value of being able to step back from an initial rush to judgment on the culpability of crew for the accident, because new evidence eventually established unrelated causes.

I have been hugely impressed by the work of campaigners such as Paul Lambert, who represents the families who lost loved ones in the MV Derbyshire accident. They still feel that this is a key issue, as does Mark Dickinson, the general secretary of Nautilus International, who takes a keen interest in the case, not least because, as a member of the International Transport Workers Federation, he helped to co-ordinate the search for the Derbyshire in 1994. I am pleased that amendment 1 has been signed by many hon. Members, several of whom hope to speak in the debate. Some have been contacted by constituents who have been affected by tragedies, while others represent coastal communities. Some are simply loth to see an important safeguard sacrificed so unthinkingly.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) emphasised the importance of maintaining the thrust of the existing duty. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is to be applauded for frequently, tirelessly and with determination raising this and related maritime matters inside and outside the House. As hon. Members might suspect, there is a real worry that several aspects of the Bill show that the Government, in their bid to be seen as shedding regulation, risk blinding themselves to the value of apparently minor existing legislative provisions and specifications. However, the example of maritime investigations shows that the need for such detail has been vindicated by the blood, sweat and tears of those caught up in such tragedies, and the bitter years of struggle to uncover their causes.

Regrettably, our attempt in Committee to delete clause 35 in its entirety was defeated. However, in an attempt to build consensus, we have tried to recognise the Government’s argument that the Secretary of State should have the flexibility to avoid the costs of reinvestigation when it is absolutely clear that new evidence will be of little or no value to determine the causes of the accident, and if no interested parties are calling for a reinvestigation. However, amendment 1 would ensure that if there was a reasonable possibility that new evidence would provide significant new information about the causes of an accident, answers for the surviving families or safety lessons for today, the duty to reopen the investigation would be retained.

It is imperative that we retain a stronger power than that in the Bill so that the Secretary of State’s default setting is to reopen investigations. We owe it to those who have died or been injured not to remain silent on that point. We must send a clear message to Ministers and civil service administrations of now and the future, and to the men and women who do such valuable and vital work in our maritime economy today, that justice and safety will always come first, which is why I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to reject clause 35 as it stands by voting for amendment 1.

16:45

[Mr Redwood]

We have just heard 37 minutes of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), largely misunderstanding the Government’s modest proposals or exaggerating their consequences. Let me reassure him that I, too, would wish to see an inquiry into a maritime disaster reopened as soon as there was significant new evidence and a hope of getting closure for the troubled families, or safety recommendations to save people who venture on the seas in the future. I am quite sure that is what the Minister said and, as I understand it, that is exactly what the Bill achieves.

Similarly, in the case of taxis, none of us here wishes to endanger people using taxis, as some Opposition Members seem to think the Government wish to do, but the proposals are nothing to do with that. They are to do with the possible use of a hire car vehicle by the family of the licensed user for their own family purposes, but not plying for hire. It seems a perfectly reasonable and modest proposal so that families who do not have a large income do not have to run two cars, which they might find difficult to do.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Legislation must take account of possible unintended consequences, not just what seems to be a nice idea on the surface.

[Mr Redwood]

I agree, and that is what we are debating today. I am on the side of the Minister on this occasion. He might find that remarkable, but it seemed to me that he made a reasonable and moderate case. The language in the Bill and in the Government amendments does the job, so I am trying to reassure the Opposition, who seem to be giving a long-winded and misguided interpretation of what the Government intend. I would say the proposals are too modest overall. I would like to see more deregulation coming forward in these important areas, but in no way do I wish to jeopardise safety or give people a bad ride in their taxi.

[Julie Hilling]

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that taxi drivers, private hire vehicle drivers and the rest of the people in the trade are not asking for other drivers to be able to drive their cars; in fact, they are saying that family members should not be allowed to do so.

[Mr Redwood]

Some are with the hon. Lady and some are with the Government. She cannot generalise quite as wildly as she does. I understand that some associations take that line, but if one talks to taxi drivers and private vehicle drivers, one finds people on both sides of the argument. I do not want to go into those sensitive issues; I just offered a little support to the Minister because the language captures exactly what everybody in the House wishes to achieve—better safety and security.

I want to concentrate on the issue of car parking. I am grateful that the Government have brought forward, again, an extremely modest proposal to deal with the fact that many motorists feel they are picked on by councils that have turned parking controls into a way of making easy money out of them. The proposal goes only a little way in the direction I would like the Government to take. I understand the Minister’s difficulties, because we need quite a lot of local decision making, but the idea behind his proposal is that simple camera enforcement is not always the right way to go. I gave an example in an intervention to show how camera enforcement of a bus lane proposal could be very misleading and unfair to the individual concerned, who was trying to keep out of the way of an emergency vehicle. That is not always captured by the fixed position of the camera, which concentrates on the bus lane. There could be similar problems with parking enforcement.

The problem, which is a large one for many electors, comes from too many parking restraints and restrictions that have not been well thought through. Once again, Members have rightly defended good parking controls. I am very much in favour of good parking controls. I agree that we need to stop people parking on blind bends, near pedestrian crossings or in places where their vehicle could obstruct the line of sight and endanger safety. I also agree that we need parking restrictions on roads where the parking would get in the way of the flow of traffic, because that not only impedes the traffic and stops people getting to work or taking their children to school, but can create danger by causing frustration among motorists.

It makes sense to have sensible parking restrictions that ensure that the flow on roads is reasonable, junctions have good sight lines and are safe, bends have the best sight lines possible, and so forth. That should be common ground in the House, and I do not think the Minister is trying to stop councils doing that or enforcing those sensible restrictions strongly and fairly, as we want. But the type of parking restriction that we may well be talking about here, where some relaxation is needed, is where a piece of road which the council designates as safe and fair for people to park on at certain times of day or certain days of the week and not others is subject to such complicated regulation that sometimes a law-abiding motorist cannot work out from the local signs and practices whether the parking regulation applies or not. For example, do the parking restrictions apply on bank holidays? Often, the sign is silent on that point. Is the sign clear about whether different rules apply on Sundays? Is the sign close enough to the parking area in question? Are there different restrictions on different sides of the same street, as sometimes happens in London? Do we know where one set of restrictions ends and another begins?

There can also be variable bus lane times, and it can be difficult to keep up with the changing regulations. This shows that there are circumstances in which a council thinks it perfectly reasonable to allow parking in a particular area or use of a bus lane at certain times but not at others. The motorist could be in genuine doubt about the restrictions, or perhaps feel that they were unfair or frivolous because they did not fall into the category of restrictions that are essential to ensuring that traffic can flow and that safety sightlines are maintained.

We can use this little debate to probe the underlying problem that we are trying to address. We can also use it to allow the House of Commons to tell councils that some of them are overdoing parking restrictions or are chopping and changing the regulations too often during the day or on different days of the week. Perhaps those regulations have not been properly thought through. Perhaps the enforcement is unfair, or too sharp. If someone has been delayed by three minutes while paying for something in a shop, they could find that they have committed an offence because they could not get back to their car within the given time on their ticket. People often have to be quite prescient in those circumstances. They need to know exactly how long it will take them to get to the shop, find their goods, queue to pay for them at the till and get out again. They do not want to overpay for what can be quite expensive parking, but if they get it slightly wrong, they can end up with a big fine. That is why people think that this is a nasty lottery in which the councils are the only winners, and camera enforced parking restrictions can be even worse for the individuals concerned.

So, one cheer for the Government for realising that this is a big issue and coming up with their modest proposal on camera enforcement, but may we please have some more, because this does not solve the overall problem? Solving the overall problem will help parades of shops and town centres in places where trade is not good. This irritating, over-bureaucratic, over-regulated parking is one reason that people do not bother even to try to park in those areas, because they think they are going to end up with a fine for behaving perfectly reasonably.

[Julie Hilling]

I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate. I must declare that I am a proud member of Unite the union, which has an interest in the taxi trade, although, sadly, it has not briefed me on this issue.

A few weeks ago, my two Bolton colleagues and I attended a meeting in my constituency which had been called by the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers. In attendance were people from the Law Commission, the Local Government Association, the National Taxi Association, the National Private Hire Association, Unite, the GMB, the police and crime commissioner for Greater Manchester and councillors from a number of Greater Manchester authorities, including Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale, Trafford, Stockport and Salford. It was interesting that those attendees from a vast range of different backgrounds all spoke with one voice. They did not understand why the clauses affecting taxis were being rushed through in the Deregulation Bill. They wanted them to be withdrawn, and replaced by holistic legislation that focused on the Law Commission review. At a meeting of such a diverse group of people, it is unusual for everyone to speak with one voice.

We know that there are already problems in the system. In the north-west, for instance, Rossendale has licensed more than 1,000 hackney carriages, most of which are being used not in Rossendale but elsewhere. Where are the checks being carried out, and by whom? We do not have national standards, so a taxi that is licensed in Rossendale but does not reach the standards required by the authorities in Bolton could be driving around Bolton. In that situation, a passenger in Bolton who wanted to complain about that taxi could not do so to officers in Bolton, as they would have no right to inspect the vehicle or check the driver.

In Sheffield, North East Derbyshire district council has licensed a Sheffield-based operator that uses hackney carriages licensed by Gedling borough council, so in effect no council has regulatory control. Sheffield council is particularly powerless when there are complaints from Sheffield residents about taxis overcharging or poor driver behaviour. The interesting question for me is why Rossendale, for example, is licensing so many taxi drivers. Why are firms going to Rossendale or Gedling for licences? Is it because the regimes in those places are much easier to get through, or because it is cheaper to get the vehicles licensed there? What is it about the system in those places? When the system as a whole is fractured, there are all sorts of ways for disreputable drivers and companies, or people who are simply trying to make the quickest buck they can, to get through it.

There is also the question of whether operators should be able to make journeys across local area borders. We need to look holistically at what we do about those cross-border journeys to ensure that there can be enforcement of regulations. No matter where a taxi is licensed, if it is operating in Bolton, why can Bolton enforcement officers not be allowed to enforce regulations on that vehicle? I am not sure that the answer is necessarily to say that it is not possible. We need a framework in which it can happen, whereby local authorities can get remuneration to enable them to carry out checks when licensing has been carried out by a different authority. The situation is complex and is made much worse by this Bill.

The issue came to my attention when the parents of a 13-year-old girl came to one of my constituency surgeries because they were concerned about a specific incident that had happened to her. She had taken a taxi. To start with she was going to Bolton, but part way through the journey she received a call from her friend to say they needed to meet elsewhere. It appears that at some point on the journey the taxi driver turned off all his monitoring equipment, including his GPS. The 13-year-old was taken to quite a remote estate in the constituency. The taxi driver parked up and said that he was just waiting for a friend to bring him his mobile phone charger. Fortunately, the girl started to get agitated. She had told the driver that she was 16, because her mum had said that she should tell people that she was a little bit older, thinking that it would offer her protection. In fact, in these circumstances it appears to have done the opposite. The girl became concerned about the questions the taxi driver was starting to ask her about her social life and so on. Fortunately, she had the nous to get out of the taxi. She played a ruse and said she wanted to pop over to a nearby shop and buy some cigarettes, of all things. The taxi driver agreed, saying they could share them, and she got out of the taxi and ran like hell. Fortunately, she met a bystander who listened to her, took her to the local McDonald’s, called the police and waited with her until they turned up.

It turned out that the taxi driver had a record of past misdemeanours. He was taken through the tribunal system and lost his licence, so is now unable to operate in Bolton. But, like me, the girl’s parents were horrified to learn that although the driver is banned in Bolton, he could become a taxi driver anywhere else, depending on whether another local authority did a police check. Because he was not prosecuted, a police check might not throw up the fact that he was a danger to the travelling public and, it would appear, to young women in particular.

I asked the Department for Transport a written question about the proportion of local authorities in England and Wales that require a disclosure and barring service check on applicants before issuing a taxi or private hire vehicle licence, and I received this response:

“The Department for Transport does not hold this information. Local authorities are under a statutory duty to ensure that any person to whom they grant a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is a ‘fit and proper person’. As part of this process they can undertake”—

note the word “can”—

“criminal record checks on applicants but we do not keep details of the assessment policies and procedures adopted by local authorities.”—[Official Report, 28 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 522W.]

That “can” seems totally inadequate.

I have asked questions about whether all local authorities carry out police checks, but as no one holds the information, we do not know the answer. That is another reason why we need holistic legislation that ensures that licensing authorities carry out proper checks on drivers. We need a system in which a person who is banned by one local authority is banned, full stop. The changes proposed in the Bill will make the situation worse, not better.

[Graham Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Does she accept that that principle applies not only to the licensee but to the condition of the vehicle? We have varying licensing conditions for vehicles themselves. Some authorities might argue that other authorities license vehicles that they would deem to be substandard because they have a higher threshold. Does she accept that the age and condition of the vehicle is also of paramount importance to local people?

17:00

[Julie Hilling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When a vehicle can be licensed in one authority and the driver in another, and both can operate somewhere else, we have a ridiculous situation in which nobody can enforce standards because the vehicle will never be driven in the authority where either licence was granted. He is absolutely right that we have no equality of standards across the piece. It is a ludicrous situation, and it is ludicrous that the Government intend to deregulate further. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I wrote to the Secretary of State about my 13-year-old constituent. In response, I was told that legislation obliges a local authority to satisfy itself that any person to whom it grants a taxi or public service vehicle licence is a fit and proper person to hold such a licence, but “fit and proper” is not defined in legislation and it therefore falls to the local authority to decide. Why do the Government think that further deregulation will keep my constituents safe?

When I first read the clause that allows family members to drive an off-duty taxi or private hire vehicle, I could see no problems with it and thought it seemed a sensible idea. I asked the operators and others involved about that when we met. I was not wholly convinced by the answer and so asked whether the taxi markings could be removed. I was told that that would be extremely difficult for taxis operating in my local authority—I guess this would be the case for all taxis operating outside London—because they are clearly marked as taxis. Another issue that was raised was what would happen in areas where taxis are allowed to use bus lanes. What would happen if an off-duty taxi used a bus lane? How would we enforce proper usage? I was then convinced by their arguments.

As we talked through those matters, I realised that in all our areas we already have a massive problem with unlicensed taxis touting for business, particularly late at night. I am no longer often in city centres late at night, but I have been in the past. It has to be said that one can become quite desperate when looking for a taxi. In particular, young people who have perhaps been drinking more than they should will not be rigorous about checking the identity of the driver or the car; they are simply delighted to be getting a lift home. We should not introduce any measures that weaken regulation and make it more likely that people will get into a vehicle that is not being driven by the licensed driver.

[Graham Jones]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument, and one that I think the general public will have a lot of sympathy with. Does she agree that there are also implications for police enforcement? In my area, taxi drivers are sometimes drug couriers, and the police find them. If we are going to deregulate who can drive the vehicle, the question of who is the mule—is it the driver or the person taking the car?—is a serious problem for police enforcement. Who is driving that vehicle? Who is the person who last had it?

[Julie Hilling]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point yet again. I absolutely agree that we need clarity on who is the driver of the vehicle, particularly one that is marked as a taxi, and what the vehicle is involved in, whether it be legitimate or illegitimate trade.

All the people who came to the initial meeting—drivers, trade union representatives, operators and enforcers—said that nobody in the industry was calling for the right for family members to be able to drive the cars. They are all happy with the current situation, because they understand how it protects them, their family and their trade when their vehicle is used for business, not pleasure. I find it difficult to understand where the proposal came from, because the trade is not calling for it. It might be very generous of the Minister to say, “A driver won’t have to have a second car because his wife can drive his”, but they do not want that.

There are real problems with the current system. I wholeheartedly ask the Minister seriously to consider removing these nonsensical provisions from the Bill, to make sure that we have holistic legislation based on the Law Commission report, and to support our amendment. We need a national register of drivers. We need national standards for drivers and vehicle operators before we ever allow them to sub-contract. We need robust licensing policies in all licensing authorities. We need a clear duty and method for local authorities to share data with the police and other local authorities. We need the local authority where taxis are operating to be able to undertake checks and enforcement wherever the driver or the vehicle is registered, and for the enforcement body to be recompensed for that enforcement.

The Government should, as soon as possible, initiate a proper national system for taxis and private hire vehicles. That would be welcomed by the profession and by everybody involved in it, including licensing bodies, local authorities, and, most importantly—

[Mr Redwood]

Is the hon. Lady telling the House that the current licensing system is poor and allows through people it should not? Is she really sure that councils would welcome a national system?

[Julie Hilling]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention because it allows me to reiterate what I said. Yes, the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Operators has called for a more rigorous policy. It welcomed the Law Commission report and the notion of holistic legislation that could introduce some of the things the Government want but also created a robust system to ensure that we do not have rogue operators, rogue drivers, or people who are a risk to the travelling public.

I call on the Government to introduce holistic legislation and to remove these three piecemeal and ridiculous clauses from the Bill to ensure that the travelling public are safe and not put more at risk.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I urge the House to support amendments 61 and 1, and to reject clause 35. I will not rehearse the strong arguments comprehensively and ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) about the safety of seafarers.

I want to say a few words about the Government’s proposals on taxi deregulation. In April, I held a Westminster Hall debate on their proposed reforms to the legislation on taxis, private hire vehicles and hackney carriages. Incredibly, there was near-unanimous support across the Chamber, even from Government Members who seemed to agree that the reforms were poorly drafted, rushed, and involved risk and unintended consequences. Taxis and private hire vehicles form an essential part of our national transport system. Indeed, for many of our elderly and disabled constituents, they are often the only form of public transport; that applies particularly to those of us who represent rural or semi-rural areas. I fear that in the rush to deregulate, changes are being proposed that may well endanger public safety.

Those concerns are being expressed not only by me and by other Labour MPs but by, among others, Unite, my union; the RMT; the GMB, which represents thousands of drivers of private hire and hackney vehicles all over the country; the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers; the Local Government Association; and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. I have met all those bodies, or they have been in contact with my office to express their worries about the nature and implications of these proposals for the deregulation of private hire vehicles.

Opposition Members have expressed a particular concern about clause 10, which will enable people who do not hold a private hire vehicle licence to drive that vehicle when off duty. The reform will surely lead to an increase in the number of unlicensed drivers posing as legitimate drivers, if there is very little that policing or licensing authorities can do, in practice, to identify bogus drivers.

Following the Westminster Hall debate, I conducted a consultation exercise with taxi and private hire vehicle drivers in my constituency. One of my findings was that passengers very rarely, if ever, ask drivers to show their licence badge. Drivers made it clear that they felt that the operation of unlicensed taxis in their area risked damaging the reputation of, and confidence in, the firms they worked for.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the concerns voiced by some 19 police and crime commissioners around the country, including mine, Ron Hogg, the police and crime commissioner for County Durham and Darlington. His view is that an inevitable consequence of this deregulation will be an increase in the number of people attacked after a night out.

For the sake of the record, I want to make the Minister aware of police figures showing that, in London alone, 214 women were sexually assaulted last year after getting into an illegal minicab or an unlicensed taxi, and 54 were raped. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust, a leading independent women’s safety charity, shares my concerns. It has said that clause 10

“will provide greater opportunity for those intent on preying on women in this way.”

None of us wants our constituents to be put at risk—I do not believe that the Minister does, either—but passenger safety and public confidence in the taxi and private hire vehicle industry should not be undermined by the Government’s mad dash to deregulate.

There are concerns about clause 11, which will set standard durations of three years for taxi and private hire vehicle driver licences, and of five years for private hire vehicle operator licences. The industry and trade unions expressed concerns on that point during the limited time available for the consultation. The National Private Hire Association and the Institute of Licensing have said that the clause will remove flexibility from councils, and there are already concerns about how effectively drivers are scrutinised.

Although local authorities impose licence conditions on private hire vehicle drivers and operators that require them to report criminal convictions and changes to their medical status within a specified period, in practice such conditions are often ignored. Even in the case of driver licences, although the police are supposed to inform the local authority of any recordable convictions—indeed, the police have the discretion to inform the local authority of minor matters—information is often given haphazardly.

Some local authorities get information directly from their local police force, but—for the Minister, it is a big but—in very few instances do local authorities receive information from police forces outside their area. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who is sitting alongside me, made that very point. It is important, because one of the Bill’s provisions will allow subcontracting, so a taxi or private hire firm might come from another area and be covered by a different police force.

I remind the House that effective implementation will require local authorities to sign up to the disclosure and barring service in order to receive information about convictions during the term of a licence. The Minister has said that he does not see any problem, but the service is relatively new, and how it will work in practice is not yet known. We know that local authorities have inadequate control over, or powers for, effective policing or enforcement, so how will the extension of cross-border work that the provision will bring in be properly licensed and controlled? The lack of confidence in clause 11 is further evidence, I believe, of the rushed and piecemeal nature of the reforms.

17:15

One of my principal concerns relates to the Government proposal to allow private hire vehicles to subcontract and book an operator in a different licensing area. When I re-read in Hansard the Minister’s response in the Westminster Hall debate, and indeed on Second Reading and in Committee, I saw that he said that the change would give customers more choice—that was part of his justification—and that it might be advantageous, in that passengers could ring up their local provider if they did not know who to call. However, passengers may well not want to use the subcontractor that has been sent to their door. At the moment, they have some degree of control over that.

Quality is an issue, and in some cases, the name of a company is important—a Government Member raised that point during the Minister’s opening statement. People may book on that basis, and may choose not to book others on the same basis. A customer might choose a local operator because of their local knowledge, because they like those particular drivers and feel comfortable with them, or because they have experienced problems with another operator. A member of the public might call a specific operator because they feel that they are reliable and safe to travel with. I am thinking specifically about women travelling home. They might not be travelling back from a night out; they might be nurses or home care workers travelling back from employment. They might have a preferred operator because they know they will be transported safely. A disabled passenger might know their preferred provider to be competent in assisting disabled passengers, and they may have confidence and comfort in the knowledge that a particular provider will take them home safely.

My consultation found that drivers appreciated those concerns, and as a consequence, were overwhelmingly opposed to the reforms. Particularly in relation to subcontracting, there is a risk in passing jobs from one company to another. It is not the wonderful panacea that some advocates of deregulation, such as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who is no longer in his place, would have us believe. The House really should think about some of the consequences, including the unintended consequences, of the proposals.

[Graham Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. People might be expecting a vehicle that is perhaps five years old at most, and that has been crash-tested for safety, from an operator they are familiar with and a local authority that has a very robust licensing system; but the vehicle that turns up may be from another authority, or could even have been licensed in the far ends of the United Kingdom. It could have no age restrictions on it, and be poorly MOT-tested, or its tests may not have been as frequent as they would have been under the local authority. The vehicle may not be as robust or as sound—it is only as good as it was on the date on which it got its MOT—as a vehicle that their local authority would permit. People could end up with a vehicle that is unsatisfactory, compared with what they would expect in their local authority area, because of the cross-border taxi proposal.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He makes a very sensible point. Apart from choice and preference, and whether a cab or a private hire vehicle is adapted for the disabled, there are also issues about levels of maintenance, and different standards in different local authority areas.

On the Opposition side of the House, and on my part, there is agreement about the need for reform of the industry. However, there is consensus across the trade that this piecemeal approach is not what is needed. What is different since the Westminster Hall debate a couple of months ago is that the Law Commission has now reported. In his opening statement, the Minister said that the Law Commission agrees with clauses 10 to 12; well, that is not quite the whole truth, is it? What the Law Commission has advocated—and for the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government are not following through on this—is a comprehensive review to get rid of the inconsistency in standards across the country that my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn and others identified, and to deal with the concerns about inadequate enforcement. The idea that we can cherry-pick three proposals for deregulation and that there will be no consequences flies in the face of what the Law Commission is about, and seems rather contrary.

As my hon. Friends have indicated, the Law Commission’s July 2013 interim statement said that if reforms were to be implemented, they must be underpinned by tougher powers for licensing officers. I do not see why the proposed reforms are so urgent that the Government should bypass meaningful consultation; in doing so, they are undermining the work of the Law Commission that they initiated.

We must have a holistic approach; changes to regulation should be considered in the context of the legislation as a whole, rather than in a piecemeal fashion. Failure to do so not only disregards the trade and other stakeholders, but may put passenger safety at risk. The reforms look set to endanger the travelling public and ignore stakeholders. I do not believe that they are fit for purpose, and they should be removed from the Bill.

[Caroline Lucas]

I rise to reinforce some of the arguments that hon. Members have made about amendment 61, to which I have added my name. Many people in my constituency have raised this issue with me, and there is real concern about public safety. Nothing that I have heard from the Government this afternoon has put my mind—or, I am sure, my constituents’ minds—at rest.

Taxi companies in my constituency have also raised concerns. I come back to a theme to which other hon. Members have returned time and again: nobody really knows what is driving these measures. People are not asking for them; on the contrary, organisations that are watching the proposals are sounding the alarm. They include the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which we should surely listen to closely. Given that no counter-argument is coming from other organisations to balance the discussion, it strikes me as incredibly perverse for the Government to push ahead with these measures and fly in the face of so much advice suggesting that there are dangers involved.

I was particularly moved to hear the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) again tell the House the story of her 13-year-old constituent—she raised that topic in the Westminster Hall debate secured by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) a few weeks ago. It was horrifying to hear that story then, just as it was today. The bottom line is that people with disabilities, young women, those worried about how they will get home at night, and those without access to a car will be watching for the implications of clauses 10 to 12, and they are worried about them.

Brighton and Hove has 1,800 drivers who serve our city well. Many of them have said that they are worried about the Government’s attempts to rush through changes to the regulations, and that the measures will be bad for the travelling public and the city, and potentially dangerous. The Government proposals seem rushed and are another example of unthinking, anti-regulation, small-state ideology that has no basis in evidence or common sense and, as has been said, risks putting public safety at risk.

We have had nothing close to meaningful consultation, and the Government even failed to discuss these changes with councils before tabling the clauses. The Local Government Association put it politely, but states clearly:

“We are disappointed that the LGA was not made aware of these proposed clauses until they were brought before the Deregulation Bill Committee.”

Where is the speed coming from? Why do we have to pre-empt other processes to get these measures into statute so fast?

There is concern that the proposals could lead to women being put at risk of assault or attack by unlicensed and unregulated drivers when they travel late at night. The deregulation of the taxi industry could also lead to rogue taxi drivers, criminals posing as drivers, passengers being ripped off, and people being unsure whether the taxi they have flagged down is legitimate.

Ministers should surely follow the 2011 proposals of experts on the cross-party Select Committee on Transport, who advised the Government to listen to users—particularly those in vulnerable groups—those in the trade, and local authorities, and to keep the situation simple and local. Instead, clauses 10 to 12 show a systematic attempt to water down standards and rules that were designed to serve and protect the public.

I come back to the sense that this is being driven by—I do not know: is it being driven by ideology or something else? During the debate of the hon. Member for Easington in Westminster Hall, I just observed that the boss of the minicab giant Addison Lee had made an individual donation of £500,000 to the Conservatives last year—it was reported as the third largest donation in the three months to the end of September. Government Members immediately started jumping up to point out that Addison Lee does not currently operate outside London and so has no particular interest. However, Addison Lee is on record as saying that it would very much like to operate outside London. I will leave it there; I simply say that when we are searching for a reason to understand why the Government are pursuing this policy, one cannot help but notice that there has been a very large donation from Addison Lee.

[John McDonnell]

I convene the RMT group in Parliament. I raised these issues at the RMT conference this morning and we had a discussion about their implications.

On the taxi and minicab issue, the RMT represents only the black cabs in London, which has been prayed in aid as operating the system that will now be rolled out elsewhere. I want to dissuade the Minister from the view that the RMT is happy with the regime in London at the moment. In fact, in the RMT’s view, there should be further regulation, with annual testing. The figures have already been given for assaults and rapes, which are occurring even in the capital city’s regulated regime.

What worries me is exactly what others have said. From the point of view of the union and a number of other organisations that have been cited, everyone thought that we were on a journey over the last couple of years: the Law Commission would conduct its investigation and review; there would be adequate consultation; a comprehensive Bill would be produced; and then we would establish a regime that, although perhaps not everyone would be happy with it, would at least be nationally comprehensive, effective, properly enforced and readily understandable. There is therefore a lack of comprehension of why the measures have been introduced in such haste. In fact, I am led to believe that one of the informal consultations on some of the legislation lasted only 10 days and was conducted by e-mail.

There may well be some association between donations, speed and amendments, but to be frank, what concerns me most is getting the legislation right, and I just do not think that the measure will prove effective. I think it will cause more problems than it is worth. I also think it will prove deeply unpopular as it is rolled out. If there is a lack of safety, particularly for women, the Government will reap the whirlwind. They will face a backlash, because what they are doing flies in the face of all the expert evidence that has been presented. Everyone who practises on the ground, right across the country, is saying that this is not the way to go about it, so I caution the Government: they are making a mistake today and may well want to think again before the day is out.

On marine investigations, again, people are slightly bewildered about why the measure is included in this Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), who sits on the Front Bench, for taking us through the history and in particular the Derbyshire incident. I, too, want to go back to that incident, because I find it extraordinary. I remember the campaign about the Derbyshire and I remember that key period when a number of the unions and others were raising the problems with that type of ship. From 1975 to 1997, nearly 400 of them went down and we lost something like 1,300 seafarers. The Derbyshire was one of those ships. There was an issue with design and safety.

At the time, there were all sorts of insinuations about it being the crew’s fault. The RMT undertook its own investigation, along with Nautilus and the International Transport Workers Federation, as my hon. Friend said. They found the ship and discovered the real causes. However, the investigation would not have been reopened but for a piece of legislation introduced in 1995 by—who? By a Conservative Government. Until then, the system was not satisfactory. The Derbyshire relatives, the unions and others had to campaign because reopening an inquiry was left to the whim of a Minister. That was unsatisfactory. A Conservative Government thus changed the legislation to provide for an automatic reopening of an inquiry when new evidence was found.

17:30

We have heard the argument that inquiries should not be reopened on the basis of slight or insubstantial evidence. None has reopened in that way. No inquiries have resulted from people coming forward with evidence relating to a ship sunk a century ago and demanding an inquiry. What people want is the confidence they never had before the Conservative Government introduced the legislation: that when new information becomes available, an inquiry will automatically be reopened.

The people most affected—the relatives—have an important role to play. The point was made about closure. The Derbyshire relatives wanted to know what happened to the 42 seafarers and the two wives who went down. Until they knew, there would always be allegations, there would always be uncertainty. They just wanted to know what happened to their relatives. At least the legislation gave them some potential for closure.

I can understand why, if we are scrutinising legislation, we might want to remove elements of regulations that are no longer needed and no longer effective, but everyone in the sector and everyone who represents seafarers is saying that these regulations are desperately needed, because they provide confidence and security to the families in the whole sector and to seafarers themselves that when an incident has occurred and new information has come to light, there will automatically be an investigation. It will not be left to the discretion of an individual Minister and decided on a whim.

I asked the Minister in an intervention what would happen if the Government went ahead with this and what would be contained in the detail of the regulations, but I have yet to hear a response. I hope the Minister will respond in detail later. I would like to see something along the lines of amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South. That would at least provide some protection for the involvement of interested parties, particularly the relatives. It would also give some commitment that, if information emerges from which we might learn lessons regarding the future safety of seafarers, that should be a relevant factor in the considerations.

I hope that this legislation does not go through tonight, but if it does, I urge that a proper and detailed consultation be held with all those in the seafaring industry and all those who work in the maritime sector, so that the regulations can be considered in detail. We need to learn the lessons not just from the Derbyshire but from other cases and from those who have been involved in the campaigns.

Let me repeat that the current regulations came from Conservative legislation, which I supported at the time and helped to campaign for outside this place. I simply cannot understand why the Conservative party is stepping back tonight from what has proved to be an effective piece of legislation that was implemented on a cross-party and consensual basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South mentioned the role of Lord Prescott in ensuring that the inquiry was reopened; he used the legislation that the Conservative Government had introduced. I ask Members to think again before approving this measure, which has a significance beyond a deregulation Bill; it drives to the heart of our maritime industry and to the protection of seafarers as they risk their lives on behalf of our economy.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

We have heard a series of excellent speeches from my hon. Friends, which I think have comprehensively demolished the Government position on just about every front. I do not wish to repeat the fine arguments made by my hon. Friends and other Members on the Opposition Benches; rather, I shall say a few words about perhaps the lightest of the relevant issues—parking and parking enforcement.

I do not believe anyone has spoken up today for those most affected by parking. Those who watched the news reports last night no doubt saw some drivers, typically male drivers, saying, “We don’t want too much parking regulation. We’d like a bit less regulation and a bit more freedom.” It was all a bit “Jack the Lad”. On the other hand, we heard a middle-aged woman saying, “I want to see the parking laws enforced properly, because we do not want to be affected by it, and if people break the law they should face the penalties of the law.” I strongly agree with her.

I am sure we have all had postbags bulging with complaints about parking problems, and it is nearly always from people who have been abused by people who have parked irregularly. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) kept confusing the rules on parking and where people can park with the enforcement of those rules. We are talking about enforcement. If rules are not enforced, it means that people are getting away with breaking the law.

[Mr Redwood]

I did not confuse them at all. I drew the distinction. I said that the reason people are fed up with the enforcement is that, in many cases, they do not think the rules are fair.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to challenge those rules, that is fine, but we are talking about the enforcement of the rules that exist. To most people, I think, the rules are probably reasonable, but the enforcement sometimes falls down, and I think that using CCTV to enforce those rules is absolutely right. I do not want the rules to be weakened, and I do not want the enforcement to be weakened. I want to help people who are affected badly by parking. For example, people park across my neighbour’s driveway when football matches are on. It is completely unacceptable that he should be blocked into or out of the driveway by other people parking across it; that is simply not on.

These problems may not be as important as the investigation of accidents at sea, or the potential dangers involved in the licensing of private hire vehicles, but they do affect people and people are concerned about them. I want strong enforcement of the parking rules to continue. As the right hon. Member for Wokingham said, we may sometimes challenge the way in which the rules operate, but they should be enforced none the less.

I entirely agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) about the need for a national register. There is no reason why we should not have one. We have automatic number plate recognition on a national basis. It ought to be very easy for the police to find out quickly who someone is and what his or her car is by means of an electronic register.

I also agree with what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said about the Bill. I was a member of the Joint Committee that subjected it to pre-legislative scrutiny. I thought then that it was driven by dogma, and I still think that. The Government want to say “We are the great deregulating Government,” so they must introduce deregulation Bills, but I am a regulator: I want more regulation in certain circumstances; I want life to be made more civilised; I want ordinary people to be protected by regulation. I do not want freedom for people who will make life miserable for other people, and that may mean more regulation. I am a re-regulator, not a deregulator. I shall certainly vote against the Bill tonight, not just because it is dogmatic, but because of what is in it.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the banks collapsed not because there was too much regulation, but because there was too little? The Government are advocating deregulation and a light touch.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will not get on to the subject of the banks, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you would stop me if I did, but I think that they are too unregulated now. We have banks in public ownership which are still not behaving themselves because they are not sufficiently regulated.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that the whole of banking regulation was completely changed by the incoming Labour Government, who introduced new agencies? I presume that he is criticising them.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The right hon. Gentleman may remember that I was not always in favour of everything that new Labour did. In fact, I wanted to go a great deal further. I called myself a democratic socialist, rather than new Labour.

[Julie Hilling]

Does my hon. Friend recall that the then Tory Opposition continuously argued against regulation of banks and other financial institutions?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend is right. I think that we are now recognising the mistakes of the past and, perhaps, seeing the supertanker beginning to turn. I want it to turn much faster, and move towards the more civilised society that we had before the deregulatory society that we have seen for the last 20 or 30 years.

I think that I have made my point. I think that the Bill is dogmatic, and that bits of deregulation have been put in to give it some kind of meaning. I think that the Government are profoundly mistaken. The speeches made by Opposition Members have demolished the Government’s arguments, and I look forward to seeing the Government defeated in the Lobbies.

[Graham Jones]

I want to speak about the Government measures on the deregulation of taxi licensing. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) made a valuable point when he said the light-touch approach is not necessarily the best one. In this case, certainly, while we have the localisation of taxi licensing, we can see a plethora of problems in taxi licensing that will not be resolved and, indeed, will be made considerably worse by the measures. They could do a lot of damage to taxi licensing and the respect taxi drivers have in the taxi licensing industry if quality and standards for the fare-paying passenger start to erode. I will therefore vote against these amendments tonight if a Division is called, and I want to explain why I cannot support them.

On the issue of non-drivers being able to drive cars, I mentioned earlier one concern that I have in Lancashire. We work with Lancashire police and we get taxi drivers who are involved in criminal activity—fortunately not many, but a significant number none the less. The police work with the local authority to deal with criminality through taxi licensing. Occasionally taxis are used for couriering drugs around. The police have a difficult job trying to determine who was responsible for the drugs in a particular vehicle, and that will be made more difficult when there are other drivers of a vehicle in which the police find drugs or other illegal items. Having various individuals driving a particular vehicle may throw considerable doubt on such matters. My constituents would expect me to raise the point as to the need to be clear about who is driving a vehicle, who is in a taxi, and who is licensed to drive that taxi, and where.

All these things are crucial, because, certainly in my area, if we are to have a taxi industry that the public respect, we need a taxi policy the public have confidence in, and I do not think the public will have confidence in a taxi policy that opens the door to criminality. For my constituents, there is no worse form of criminality than the transportation of drugs in taxis. I must emphasise that this does not happen frequently, but when it does happen—and it does happen—it is worrying. Not knowing who is driving a vehicle is therefore of some concern.

As I have said, having non-drivers, so to speak, driving taxis is certainly of concern to my local constabulary, and I am sure there are many other reasons why people will feel uneasy about that, too, not least the issues mentioned to do with the abuse of taxis—having the plates on the sides of taxis and non-drivers driving in bus lanes and so forth—or having rogue drivers in those taxis thinking they can take a chance and pick up a fare even though they are not a licensed taxi driver. There is a host of issues around individuals who are not licensed to drive taxis but who may drive the vehicle as a taxi where the plate is on the side and they think they can get away with it.

I have grave concerns about the three and five-year licences, primarily because it will remove local authority control. Situations may also arise where people on three and five-year licences may have been involved in issues that would have led to a suspension in one area where the licence applies but it has not done so and they carry on operating with the licence in other areas, and they do not have to appear before the committee for a fresh licence. It is worrying that it may be accepted and a given that they carry on with that licence. We are trying to raise the standards of taxi operators, taxi licences and taxi vehicles, and this erodes that. The fact that taxi drivers will not be compelled to come back before the local authority licensing committee regularly will open the system up to those who would take advantage of the longevity of their licence to carry on plying their trade, albeit legally in the authority that they licence from, but perhaps not up to the standard of the local authority in which they are operating.

17:45

The third and final issue I wish to discuss is subcontracting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington said, people might phone through to their favourite operator whom they know and trust, and that operator could subcontract to another licensed firm in another local authority area, and a vehicle that they are unfamiliar with or unsure of could arrive at their door. That raises all sorts of issues. Is it possible, as was asked, to turn that taxi away, or does it have to be accepted? Most people would probably assume that it was a taxi from the company they had phoned, and would get in it.

Hyndburn wants a local authority taxi licensing policy that reassures the public that the taxis are of a good standard, that that standard is properly, professionally and regularly maintained by the local authority, and that the taxi drivers are reputable and meet a standard determined by local people through localism and the local authority. Other authorities might adopt standards that are a little bit lower—or in some cases, a lot lower—and perhaps the people of Hyndburn do not wish to have such taxis on their roads. However, this provision will simply allow those taxis to turn up, because the job is subcontracted to another local authority, and the paying passenger might be none the wiser or might simply feel obliged to take the taxi.

There is some variation in taxi licensing across the United Kingdom. One local authority not far from me was licensing taxis in Aberdeen. Anybody who knows my constituency knows that it is in the centre of the United Kingdom, in the north of England, so it is rather ridiculous that that local authority is licensing taxis in Scotland. I do not think that a taxi driver from Scotland would ply his trade in that area. Essentially, there is a race to the bottom.

What is aggravating the situation is that local authorities’ revenues have been taken away by the Government’s austerity cuts, and they are chasing revenue. Local authorities therefore see taxi operators as a means to an income, which means that they want to increase the age threshold of the vehicles and relax the inspection regime. We are talking about consumers of local authority services in what is a marketplace, so a race to the bottom in taxi licensing is taking place. Local authorities near me have raised the age threshold for vehicles considerably and reduced inspections, allowing them to take place in the private sector, which gives rise to questions about whether the inspection process is robust enough. There is deep concern about the age of such vehicles. My local authority frequently carries out MOT tests on vehicles, and that testing must be done through the local authority MOT testing station. We have a very high standard, and the age limit for such vehicles is seven years. I doubt whether my constituents want 20-year-old charabancs with 400,000 miles on the clock turning up, driven by someone with a five-year licence who may have a conviction for violent assault or carrying drugs, and who can ply his trade in Hyndburn simply because he is licensed from another authority.

This provision will make the situation far worse because the customer will not be in control. They will phone up their local, trusted company, but the job will be subcontracted to a local authority in which the standards may not be as high, or far lower, and where the licensing conditions may be far more relaxed. The driver who turns up may well be a sex offender, or have some sort of criminal record. The vehicle may well be 20 years old, with many thousands of miles on the clock, and it might have been tested at an MOT station where the methods are not quite as robust or reliable. Of course, a vehicle’s MOT test is only as valid as the day of the test and not the day after, so if we do not have regular MOTs or other inspections, a vehicle’s condition cannot be as guaranteed as that of others where there is a more robust testing regime. This comes back to the issue of choice; the customer is not in control. The customer will phone their favourite taxi firm and the taxi will roll up from a taxi firm operating in a local authority area with poorer standards, so what will we get? We will get poorer conditions. The fare-paying public will not appreciate the proposal being put forward in their name because it devalues the service they receive.

I am concerned that this provision is being introduced without any support, apart from among those on the Government Benches—although I sometimes doubt whether it has any support there, because it does not make sense to anyone who is aware of the taxi industry. A wider discussion needs to take place. The Law Commission is looking into taxi licensing issues that go beyond those in the three provisions today, yet the Government have sought to bring forward these proposals ahead of the Law Commission’s findings. That seems bizarre, if not perverse or daft. We should have waited for the Law Commission to report because a restructuring of taxi licensing needs to take place. The Law Commission’s input would have been valid and we would have sought to iron out not only the problems the Government are exacerbating today, but some of the others that exist in taxi licensing. So, with deep concern, I will be unable to support the proposals on taxi licensing. The Government have got real problems with them, and they will have to examine them again and repeal them, because they are in danger of presenting the paying public with drivers and vehicles they are not happy with. This is not the public’s choice and they are being put in a very vulnerable position. People will be upset to realise that the Government are not on their side, seem to be on the side of the taxi operators and are, in essence, bringing a danger or a threat to the customer’s door.

Let me make one further point. We talk about taxis, but we should not forget to mention things such as minibuses and the importance of crash safety test standards. We can talk about minibuses on motorways taking school kids, but let us up the ante a bit. It really does matter that the right operator—the trusted one—turns up at the door. Let us suppose that 12 school kids are in a minibus where the seats have not been welded in to a crash safety test standard. Let us suppose that they are whizzing down the motorway and are suddenly involved in an accident. Let us suppose that the favourite operator, which would normally have taken those children, has proper welded-in seats in a proper crash safety tested minibus. In such circumstances, lives could have been saved, and the Government will look at this legislation and think that they have made a terrible mistake by sublicensing to other areas. Such a tragedy would cost lives in order for us to arrive at a sensible point, which is why the Government ought to row back from the position they are in.

[Tom Brake]

First, I wish to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), who is not in his place. He started by discussing CCTV exemptions, which he wanted included in the Bill. I made it clear in my opening remarks precisely what the exemptions were, but to avoid doubt I will simply repeat them. CCTV cameras can still be used in relation to restricted areas outside a school; red routes or clearways; bus lanes, where parking is prohibited; and cases where a vehicle is stopped at a restricted bus stop or stand. That is very clear.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The Minister has indicated where he intends exemptions to be made, but he has not answered the questions my hon. Friend put to him. Where will those exemptions be listed? Where will they be codified? Under what regulations will they be introduced? When will those regulations be laid?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I am sure we will shortly provide the clarity he seeks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) raised the issue of CCTV and parking, and asked when we would introduce regulations and commence the provision. Clearly we will do that as soon as is practicable after Royal Assent. He also suggested that we could restrict CCTV use through statutory guidance. There is a need to legislate; the difficulty at the moment is that local authorities are not supposed to use CCTV other than in exceptional circumstances, but its use is proliferating. We need to respond to that because CCTV is now being used routinely.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South, like other Opposition Members, made a number of comments about how we are putting passengers at risk and how that risk could be greatly increased, but they did not illustrate that with any examples. He attacked me for using London as an example—I believe he said I was praying it in aid—but London does have rather a big private hire vehicle market and so everything that he says is going transpire as a result of the measures we are introducing would have already happened in London. The evidence shows that it has not.

[Grahame M. Morris]

May I remind the Minister that there were 54 rapes and more than 200 assaults in London last year? Does he not think that should concern him and the whole House?

[Tom Brake]

Clearly it concerns me, the Government and the whole House. The issue is that the hon. Gentleman seems to be linking those very serious cases and what the Government are proposing without actually producing any evidence to suggest that there is a link between the two.

[Graham Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Tom Brake]

I am going to make a bit more progress. The hon. Member for Blackpool South called on the Government to have a more comprehensive look at this issue, but the Bill provides an opportunity to introduce the three measures which, as he will have heard me say, the Law Commission supports. We are introducing those three measures. He will know, as will other Opposition Members, that Bills, unlike buses, do not come along in threes; Bills come forward relatively infrequently and if there is an opportunity to take small steps in relation to taxis, we should take them.

[Mr Marsden]

I am listening with care to what the Minister is saying, but so much of the thrust of the criticism that has been made has been about how the Government have put the cart before the House. When were these measures put into this Bill?

[Tom Brake]

I will address that shortly. The hon. Gentleman attempted a joke at the Government’s expense about whether the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport had spoken about these matters. The consultation was issued jointly in December by both Departments, and the announcements that Members will have seen in the press at the weekend were supported by both Secretaries of State and both Departments. Clearly, Departments are working hand in hand on this issue, as they should be.

The hon. Gentleman has stated that we did not listen to the Law Commission, but it supports the three measures. He, like a number of Members, asked about enforcement, which will be dealt with in the usual way. For example, where journey bookings are subcontracted across licensing boundaries the operator that takes the initial booking will retain liability and licensing authorities can investigate any issues in the usual way, so local authorities retain their licensing duties.

[Graham Jones]

The Minister rightly says that the licence will be administered by the local authority, but the vehicle that turns up at the door may well not be licensed by the local authority, and neither may the driver. The operator might be, but the driver and the vehicle may well not be licensed by the local authority where the original booking is made.

[Tom Brake]

I will come to that matter shortly in response to another intervention, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied with my answer.

Moving on to the issue of marine safety, the hon. Member for Blackpool South suggested that I had used a bad example when I referred to something that had happened 100 years ago, although I think that he, or someone from his party, went on to do the same. The issue is that, under his suggested amendment, if a wreck were discovered 100 years from now, regardless of whether it represented substantial new information or had any impact on an investigation, there would be an automatic reopening of an inquiry. That is something for which we want to provide flexibility.

18:00

The hon. Gentleman said that Ministers must have flexibility to reopen inquiries, and that is exactly what we are trying to achieve. We are giving the Secretary of State the flexibility to reopen an inquiry. However, there is no flexibility in relation to miscarriages of justices, for which an inquiry will have to be formally reopened.

[Mr Marsden]

I hesitate to say that the Minister is misrepresenting the words of our amendment. I invite Members to look at its words. As I said, there will not be an automatic reopening of an inquiry, whether it is in 10, 20 or 100 years’ time.

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that my advice says that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment widens the remit rather than closing it down. Perhaps he should go back and look at precisely what he is proposing. It is clear that the Secretary of State will still be required to reopen a formal investigation where there are grounds for suspecting a miscarriage of justice. It is also worth pointing out that what we are talking about has no impact on the work of the marine accident investigation branch; that is completely separate to this issue.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asked whether there would be regulations for marine investigations. The answer is no, there would not be regulations. That is something that would be implemented. We have set out the circumstances in which we would expect the Secretary of State formally to reopen an inquiry. We would of course consider any specific requests that were received from relatives or trade unions that were affected by that decision-making process. The measure would come into force two months after Royal Assent.

[John McDonnell]

The Minister should recognise that he is now taking the law back to what it was when it was completely ineffective. The Conservative Government had to amend the legislation, and the Derbyshire relatives had to campaign for 20 years to ensure that they got justice.

[Tom Brake]

I simply do not agree with that. I said that, under our proposals, the MV Derbyshire case is one that would have been reopened. I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman on his analysis of the impact of this measure.

[John McDonnell]

The reason why the Conservative Government introduced the legislation was that the decision was at the discretion of the Minister. This measure returns it to the discretion of a Minister—it does not matter which party is in power—in whom the public no longer have confidence.

[Tom Brake]

As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say in relation to miscarriages of justice, there is no flexibility. There will be an automatic reopening of the inquiry. I hope that he agrees that there must be some assessment of whether or not new evidence should trigger a formal reopening of an inquiry. Surely the evidence must pertain to the incident. It has to be of a nature that is likely to lead to safety improvements.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

I will give way one final time.

[John McDonnell]

That is precisely why I support the amendment. However, if the amendment is not suitably drafted, the usual process is that Government consult on the detail of regulation. People will be involved in that, and we can hopefully arrive at a consensus. Today the Minister is saying that there will be no regulation that will guide Minister and therefore no consultation. We are back where we were before 1995.

[Tom Brake]

I am repeating myself rather a lot, but I say again that we are not back where we were. I have made it clear that, under our proposals, the MV Derbyshire inquiry would have happened.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) for his support. I was not quite as surprised as he thought I might be in receiving support from him. He expressed the view that the Government had not gone far enough in relation to deregulation. The Opposition saying that we have gone too far and my right hon. Friend saying that we have not gone far enough probably means that the Government have got it about right.

My right hon. Friend went on to highlight other problems with parking, with which we, as Members of Parliament, are all too familiar. I apologise if I have not been brave enough to venture into the other areas that he would like to discuss in relation to parking, but, first, I would be ruled out of order, and, secondly, we all know that when it comes to parking issues, it is a lose-lose situation whatever decision is taken.

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that one concern of citizens is the use of fines to raise funds? I checked Magna Carta 1297, which for these deregulatory purposes can be found in the volume of statutes from 1235 to 1770, and it is clause 14 that is, in part, being reinstated by this Bill.

[Tom Brake]

I did not know that Magna Carta touched on the matter of parking, but I am better informed as a result of my hon. Friend’s intervention.

Still on parking, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham touched on complicated parking signs and rules. Local authorities should ensure that signs are appropriate for parking restrictions. If they are not, drivers may complain to their council. If they receive a ticket, they have a free appeal to the local council and then a free appeal to the adjudicator if the council decides against them. I am sure that he is aware of that and will have referred many a constituent to the adjudicator in relation to disputes over parking tickets. The Government announced over the weekend that local residents and local firms will be able to demand a review of parking in their areas, including charges and the use of yellow lines.

We then had a contribution from the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) who described a distressing incident involving a young constituent of hers. I am sure that we all wish to convey our sympathy to her constituent for what was clearly a very traumatic incident. I do not know whether she has pursued with her local authority its participation in the disclosure and barring service, which may have been able to identify a problem with that particular driver. The hon. Lady went on to say that what we propose in this Bill will make matters worse. Again, I dispute that. We have had many comments from the Opposition saying that the Government will make matters worse, but they have offered little to substantiate those allegations.

The hon. Lady referred to the risk of the public using an unlicensed taxi. The measures to allow off-duty use of private hire vehicles relates not to taxis but to PHVs or mini cabs. In London no issues have been reported to the Department by Transport for London. As I have stated on a number of occasions, the Law Commission recommended this measure. In fact, it may go further as it calls for off-duty use of taxis, too.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is it correct that a person who runs a licensed taxi company, for example, is responsible for everyone who drives for that company? If so, that person has the responsibility to ensure that his or her drivers act properly and are properly checked.

[Tom Brake]

Certainly, that is my understanding. The operator is licensed as such and needs to check all the drivers who are used by that firm.

[Graham Jones]

The Minister says that there has been no safety issue in London. What assessment has he made outside London of police stop checks of taxi vehicles in local authorities that have less regulation than others? We are all aware that in some local authorities a high proportion of taxis stopped by the police are in breach of roadworthiness rules, and those vehicles must be repaired. What assessment has he made of vehicles’ roadworthiness?

[Tom Brake]

I personally have not made such an assessment, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a Member of Parliament, has regularly requested that sufficient enforcement action is taken and that suitable checks are made. I am sure that his local authority will want to pursue that actively and that the police and crime commissioner in his area will want to emphasise it as well. We expect those checks to be carried out now, irrespective of anything proposed in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) dwelt on subcontracting, as did other Members, and talked about what would happen if people used the local reliable firm that they knew and liked, but the job was passed on to another operator. At the moment, if someone wants to use their local reliable firm and it cannot fulfil that job, they are simply told to find another operator, so the risks that he tried to highlight in the job being passed on to another operator are already there when the reliable firm says, “Sorry, we can’t do that job for you. Go and look in the phone book to find another operator.” What we propose would allow that local reliable firm, which one would expect to want to set up a business relationship with another reliable, not local firm, to work with it in partnership to fulfil those jobs appropriately. Irrespective of these arrangements, all firms must be licensed. That is the basis on which their reliability is confirmed.

[Graham Jones]

The Minister says that an individual who is unable to order a private hire vehicle from their favourite firm is in the same position if the company locates a private hire vehicle from another local authority. On many levels, that is wrong. When that individual flicks through the “Yellow Pages”, as the Minister describes it, they can choose to look for a company in their area. This proposal will allow the company to take charge, and that taxi could come from another area with different standards. The choice is therefore removed from the fare-paying customer. Does the Minister accept that the customer is in control when they look through the “Yellow Pages”, but not when the job is passed from one operator to another who locates a taxi from outside the area?

[Tom Brake]

Yes, when people use “Yellow Pages”, they may well be in control of their choice of private hire firm, but I thought the point that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members were making was that there was a risk in a job being passed on by a local reliable firm to another operator. I would suggest that the risk of simply going to the phone book is much greater than using a local reliable firm whose reputation relies on delivering a good service, whether it does so directly or by subcontracting to another firm in an area where it cannot operate. With our system, security is enhanced, rather than damaged in the way he suggests.

18:15

The hon. Member for Easington referred to the need for a comprehensive, nationwide review and reform of private hire. He is probably well versed in private hire and taxi matters. He will understand how difficult it is to get a comprehensive, nationwide review of services. I suspect that there have been attempts under our Government and under Labour Governments to get that comprehensive review under way. It is not straightforward, and it is not something that happens overnight. We have an opportunity in the Bill to introduce some small measures, supported by the Law Commission. We have chosen, rightly, to proceed with them now, and that is the right action for the Government to take.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the disclosure and barring service. There is an automatic update system. It is an optional service for local authorities, which can judge whether to use it. Crucially, three-yearly licence renewal is seen as best practice. That applies in London and half of all authorities outside London.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The Minister is being generous in giving way. Although he uses London as the example where these changes are already in place, does he acknowledge that the enforcement regime is rather different because of the unique arrangement between the Metropolitan police and Transport for London? That arrangement is not replicated elsewhere in the country.

[Tom Brake]

If, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that is an issue—clearly, several Members have raised it during the debate—it is a prime case for the police and crime commissioner to get involved in, to try to ensure consistency across their patch.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said that the Government have made no counter-argument in support of the proposals. Again, I simply refer her to the fact that the Law Commission supports our three proposals on taxis.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington called for a comprehensive Bill. Of course we want the Law Commission to deliver a comprehensive Bill, and nothing that we have done in relation to these measures stops it doing so. He referred to marine investigation and MV Derbyshire. I have taken quite a lot of interventions from him on that issue. I simply say again that the Government are clear that if such an incident happened again, under our proposals the case would definitely be reopened.

The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) wants parking laws enforced properly; well, so do I, and so do the Government. Local authorities will be able to enforce them properly by using traffic wardens, and nothing that we are doing will stop them doing so. I hope he will agree that, as I stated in my opening remarks, the issue is that local authorities have generated a surplus of £635 million by issuing parking tickets.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Does the Minister accept that, by reducing CCTV surveillance of parking, he will reduce the number of convictions and make it easier to get away with parking illegally?

[Tom Brake]

That depends on how local authorities respond. If they use traffic wardens, there is no reason why what the hon. Gentleman has suggested will happen. He suggested that a national register is needed. I do not know whether he has investigated that and can demonstrate that it would increase safety and what the associated price tag might be. Of course, the Bill is about deregulation, not, as he would like, more regulation.

The hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) talked about our taxi policy opening the door to criminality, and I dispute that anything we are introducing would do so. He made that comment without backing it up with any evidence. He referred at some length to subcontracting, which we have dealt with. He wants taxis of a good standard; so do we, and that is what the licensing regime is for.

I think that I have dealt with all the points made, and I simply conclude my remarks by urging the Opposition not to press their amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 4 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25

Civil penalties for parking contraventions: enforcement

‘(1) Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (civil enforcement of traffic contraventions) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 78 (notification of penalty charge) insert—

“78A Notification of penalty charge: parking contraventions in England

(1) Regulations under section 78 must include provision requiring notification of a penalty charge to be given by a notice affixed to the vehicle where the charge is in respect of a parking contravention on a road in a civil enforcement area in England.

(2) The regulations may, however, provide that the requirement does not apply in circumstances specified in the regulations (which may be framed by reference to the type of contravention, the circumstances in which a contravention occurs or in any other way) and, where the regulations so provide, they may make any such alternative provision for notification as is authorised by section 78.”

(3) After section 87 insert—

“87A Power to prohibit use of devices etc: parking contraventions in England

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision to prohibit the use by civil enforcement officers of a device of a description specified in the regulations, or of records produced by such a device, in connection with the enforcement of parking contraventions on a road in a civil enforcement area in England.

(2) The prohibition may be—

(a) general, or

(b) limited to particular uses specified in the regulations.

(3) The regulations may provide that a general or limited prohibition does not apply in circumstances specified in the regulations (which may be framed by reference to the type of contravention, the circumstances in which a contravention occurs or in any other way).

(4) Regulations under this section may amend this Part or any provision made under it.”’—(Tom Brake.)

This new clause deals with the enforcement of parking contraventions in England under Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004. It provides that, subject to certain exceptions, regulations under section 78 must provide for notification of a penalty charge to be given by a notice affixed to the vehicle (which means that a civil enforcement officer must be present to affix the notice). It also confers a power which would enable regulations to be made to restrict the use of CCTV or other devices in parking enforcement.

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 15

Footpaths: provisions to stop up or divert due to privacy, safety or security

‘(1) The Highways Act 1980 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 118 (Stopping up of footpaths, birdleways and restricted byways), in subsection (1) after “on the ground that it is not needed for public use”, insert “or the public need could reasonably be provided by an alternative public right of way or highway nearby”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) When making a determination under subsection (1A) the council and Secretary of State shall have regard to the presumption that footpaths should not pass through farmyards, gardens, commercial premises or other land where privacy, safety or security are an issue.”.

(4) In section 119 (Diversion of footpaths, bridleways and restricted byways), subsection (6A) after “a public right of way,”, insert “, and the presumption that paths should not pass through farmyards, commercial areas, gardens or other land where privacy, safety or security is an issue.”’—(Bill Wiggin.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 17—Presumed diversion of intrusive public rights of way in limited circumstances—

‘In section 119 of the Highways Act 1980, after subsection (6A), insert—

“(6B) Where a path or way passes through the curtilage of a residential dwelling including the gardens and driveways of the premises, a working farmyard or forestry yard or other operational business or working industrial premises—

(a) subsections (6) and (6A) above shall not apply; and

(b) the Secretary of State or council shall confirm a public path diversion order unless he, or as the case may be, they are satisfied that the privacy, safety or security of the premises are not adversely affected by the existence or use of the path.

(6C) Where the premises have been unlawfully extended to encompass the path or way subsection (6B) above do not apply.

(6D) In exercising the powers under this section, the Secretary of State and the council shall have particular regard to the presumption that public rights of way or highways should not pass through the curtilage of residential premises including the gardens and driveways of the premises, a working farmyard or forestry yard or other operational business or working industrial premises.”’

This new Clause will facilitate statutory guidance to allow for the diversion of rights of way that pass through domestic or business premises on the grounds of privacy, safety or security.

New clause 18—Presumed extinguishment of intrusive public rights of way in limited circumstances—

‘In section 118 of the Highways Act 1980, after subsection (6), insert—

“(6A) Where a path or way passes through the curtilage of a residential dwelling including the gardens and driveways of the premises, a working farmyard or forestry yard or other operational business or working industrial premises a council shall make and the Secretary of State or the council shall confirm an order stopping up a path or way unless he, or as the case may be, they are satisfied that—

(a) the privacy, safety or security of the premises are not adversely affected by the existence or use of the path; or

(b) it is possible to divert the path or way such that the privacy, safety or security of the premises are not adversely affected by the existence or use of the path; or

(c) the path or way provides access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise reasonably accessible.

(6B) In exercising the powers under this section, the Secretary of State and the council shall have particular regard to the presumption that public rights of way or highways should not pass through the curtilage of residential premises including the gardens and driveways of the premises, a working farmyard or forestry yard or other operational business or working industrial premises.”’

This new Clause will facilitate statutory guidance to allow for the extinguishment of rights of way that pass through domestic or business premises on the grounds of privacy, safety or security if a diversion is not possible and the right of way does not provide access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise accessible.

New clause 19—Presumed extinguishment of intrusive byways open to all traffic in limited circumstances—

‘In section 116 of the Highways Act 1980, after subsection (1), insert—

“(1A) Where a byway open to all traffic passes through the curtilage of a residential dwelling including the gardens and driveways of the premises, a working farmyard or forestry yard or other operational business or working industrial premises it is presumed that diversion of the highway so that it does not so pass will make the path more commodious and that the highway is unnecessary unless the court is satisfied that—

(a) the privacy, safety or security of the premises are not adversely affected by the existence or use of the path; or

(b) the path or way provides access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise reasonably accessible.

(1B) In exercising the powers under this section, the authority and the court shall have particular regard to the presumption that a byway open to all traffic should not pass through the curtilage of residential premises including the gardens and driveways of the premises, a working farmyard or forestry yard or other operational business or working industrial premises.

(1C) A “byway open to all traffic” means a highway over which the public have a right of way for vehicular and all other kinds of traffic, but which is used mainly for the purposes for which footpaths and bridleways are so used.”.’

This new Clause would create a presumption that byways open to all traffic should be diverted so as to not pass through residential or business premises unless the byway does not impact on the privacy, safety or security of the premises, or provides access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise accessible.

[Bill Wiggin]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

New clause 15 is all about safety. I want to see a fall in the number of deaths that take place every year as a result of rural accidents, as I am sure does every Member. I am passionate about the safety of those who use the countryside. My recent ten-minute rule Bill proposed greater detail in the recording of agricultural accidents. After discussions with the Health and Safety Executive, I am delighted that my proposals have been accepted. I must thank the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) for his support in discussions with the HSE.

I believe, however, that further measures are necessary. As a farmer, I am alarmed at the risks created by footpaths passing through fields or farmyards. A 21st-century farm is dangerous. Equipment is often operated at higher speeds, is incredibly heavy and has risky blind spots. Livestock can be unpredictable, territorial and easily provoked, for instance by a dog. The death of Roger Freeman, caused—or not—by a Brown Swiss bull in 2010, and the subsequent negligence trial, has brought the issue back into the public eye. To quote a letter from the Ramblers to me,

“The case has really highlighted the necessity to re-examine legislation around bulls being kept in fields with footpaths.”

Recently, I have been contacted by two constituents who have been unable to fulfil their role as parish footpath officers, for fear of their safety on local footpaths. My constituents report being chased from routes by dairy cows. They were particularly harassed when accompanied by a dog and describe the cattle as “extremely persistent and worrying.” Nobody—neither walkers nor farmers—should be placed in a position where their safety is at risk.

Equally, farmers cannot be placed in a position of responsibility for the safety of walkers among livestock. No farmer can say with complete confidence that their cattle would always be 100% safe, including if, for example, they had been stung by a wasp. Farmers are therefore incredibly vulnerable to claims of negligence in accidents where the only evidence is from the victim or hearsay. This pressure can foster resentment against those who use footpaths, creating an atmosphere of walkers versus farmers. Such a division can only be unhelpful. The priority for all must be safety.

Traditional rights of way cannot be held to be a greater priority than the safety of those using them. The risks are very real: 24 people have been killed by cattle in the past four years. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the issue. The right to walk in the countryside does not mean the right to die walking. We must therefore be flexible and allow alterations of rights of way to favour safer routes. Common sense on this issue must prevail.

I must also raise deep concerns about privacy and security in the countryside. One of the great pleasures of the British countryside is that it is free to be enjoyed by all. In this day and age, however, the access provided by footpaths is at odds with society’s fear of strangers. The privacy and security of a family home is something we treasure, yet both of those values must be sacrificed by those who have a footpath running through their home or garden. A footpath allows strangers to come on to their property and close to their family at any hour of the day or night. The feeling of security in one’s home is a luxury that most people take for granted. An Englishman’s home may be his castle, but for those with a footpath through their property, there is no security behind their walls.

The desire to protect one’s privacy and security is entirely legitimate and rational. It is natural to be wary of strangers. In January, the Intrusive Footpaths campaign undertook a survey of home owners’ experiences of footpaths. The results present a shocking picture. The IFC found that footpaths through private property have been the cause of two suicides, 12 nervous breakdowns and numerous cases of financially crippling disputes. Families affected in this way should be supported by appropriate legislation, not abandoned to cope with the consequences.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I am listening to my hon. Friend, but Opposition Front Benchers are chuntering. Unfortunately, people who live in urban areas do not appreciate that people who live in rural areas have footpaths that go within 5 or 10 yards of their front doors. It puts enormous stress on people, particularly those who live by themselves, when strangers walk past their front door. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Minister takes note of the stresses put on families who feel that their privacy is being invaded? We are not talking about footpaths that are miles away from people’s front doors.

[Bill Wiggin]

My hon. Friend is right, and I am sure he will seek to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and share his expertise with the House. The key thing for Opposition Members to remember is that we are talking about not rights of way, but people killing themselves, or being seriously hurt or injured. That is what we are trying to avoid. We are trying to make sure that every person who walks or works in the countryside is safe.

No one should feel besieged in their own home. Rights of way should not affect someone’s right to safety. I am therefore asking again for flexibility, as I fear that if privacy is not considered as reasonable grounds for safely altering a footpath, more people’s lives will be plagued by intrusion. Common sense must again prevail.

I read with interest the 2010 “Stepping Forward” report by Natural England’s stakeholder working group on unrecorded rights of way. Although the group did not address the safety and privacy of routes, I believe that my new clause is in the spirit of its recommendations. The report praised surveyors for taking use of land into account in footpath diversions. In its evidence to the Bill Committee in February, the group indicated that it has discussed diversions in greater depth since 2010. In her evidence, Sarah Slade of the Country Land and Business Association emphasised her support for making people’s lives easier through diversions. My new clause is a natural progression from the group’s recommendations. I strongly believe that all interested parties would regret missing this opportunity to ease the risks and conflicts created by footpaths.

The stakeholder group’s guidance, which I suspect the Government hope to make statutory, will not overrule the tests that determine changes to footpath routes, so it is not equal to the task in hand. Nor will it deal with the standard objection of—please forgive the wording—“not substantially less convenient”, which is the excuse given when a footpath may be a few metres longer than it was previously. New statutory guidance may therefore help, but it will not solve the problem.

[Bob Stewart]

Obviously, I am no expert, and I am listening very carefully to what my hon. Friend says, but is there no way in which a public right of way could be changed as things stand, or do we have to legislate for that?

[Bill Wiggin]

There is a way in which a change can be made at minimal cost, but if there is a single objection, the balance of favour, as it were, goes against the owner of the property. Additionally, the process can cost a vast amount. What makes me sad is that this should be not a fight between the landowner and the person objecting—the walker or whoever it might be—but about safety. If people think that a route can be better, we should make it as straightforward as possible to achieve that.

18:30

I am only calling for greater provision in existing highways legislation. The Bill’s aim is to reduce the burden of legislation on day-to-day life, and my new clause would dramatically improve the quality of life of many farmers, home owners and walkers. Ignoring safety and privacy can change rights of way from a delight to a risk. When considering my new clause, hon. Members must understand that its vital element is safety, and that we should consider privacy and security as necessary parts of safety.

Over the past six years, the working group has investigated many issues to do with rights of way, yet it has not addressed the subject of the deaths that occur on them. I am saddened that safety has not been the group’s focus while fatalities have continued. Such deaths are completely unnecessary, because diversions must offer an effective, simple and cheap option to protect walkers. Diverting footpaths does not mean closing off the countryside for walkers; nor does it mean forcing walkers on to roads. It can simply mean changing the route of a right of way to the edge of a field. Walkers’ enjoyment of the countryside would not be lessened by their following the perimeter of fields, but they would be less likely to disturb livestock, and it would be easier and more cost-effective if a farmer wished to fence off that footpath for safety, as only one extra length of fencing would be required.

To encourage that ideal scenario, farmers must be supported when they try to keep the public safe, yet under the existing system they are penalised. A landowner involved in a disputed diversion can face costs of tens of thousands of pounds. At the moment those costs are borne by the landowner. It is irresponsible that the power to allocate full cost recovery lies with county councils, which are not famed for their parsimony. In fact, that is probably the worst possible sort of arrangement. Delay and excessive costs without a cap simply add to everybody’s misery. Farmers who want permanently to alter footpaths on their land to protect the general public and maintain a right of way are delivering a key public service. If a farmer can show that their altered route improves safety, has proper signposting and is away from a road, they should be supported, rather than demonised, by councils.

The Government could provide funding for safe footpaths. The money could come from the rural development programme, funded from pillar two of the common agricultural policy. That option would reduce the burden of disputes involving farmers and councils, but without that assistance, farmers could be forced to copy the image that I am sure we all saw in The Times on 10 May: two long pieces of metal fencing lining a footpath across the centre of a field in Frome. Is that not a terrifying image of the future for rights of way if common sense does not prevail? It is our duty to preserve the Great British countryside for all who are lucky enough to visit it, and to live and work there. Part of that preservation is providing support for those who farm our countryside. Farmers already want the best protection for themselves and those who walk on their land, so I urge the House to support the safety, security and privacy on footpaths that new clause 15 would bring.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will be pleased to learn that members of my constituency Labour party and I took part yesterday in what we call, in a comradely fashion, a red ramble. We walked from the site of the battle of Newburn Ford to Wylam, the birthplace of the great engineer George Stephenson. We walked most of the way across the land of the Duke of Northumberland. Unfortunately, we did not see any red squirrels, but we enjoyed the unequalled beautiful countryside, and views of the Tyne. As we walked, we discussed the role of the Labour movement over hundreds of years in fighting for the right of public access, sometimes illegally, including in the mass trespass of Kinder Scout. I mention that to set out to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) the depth of feeling among Labour Members that causes us to oppose new clause 15.

In government, Labour has demonstrated that depth of feeling by long supporting public access to the countryside and the wider natural environment. In 1949, the post-war Labour Government passed into law a requirement to record public rights of way on a legally conclusive document known as the definitive map and statement. Labour’s 1987 manifesto for government outlined commitments not only to offer all people more freedom to explore the open countryside, but to strengthen the protection of our national heritage. The Countryside and Rights of Ways Act 2000 was one of the most successful and supported pieces of legislation in this area, and it strengthened and consolidated the aims of our original National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.

[Mr Newmark]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady, but I do not think that any Government Member disputes the right to go about the open countryside; that argument was won a long time ago—congratulations on winning it. We are concerned about the right of individuals effectively to intrude on people’s private property and to get—

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Rubbish.

[Mr Newmark]

Excuse me—[Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend wish to intervene?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. There can be only one intervention, and it should be a short intervention.

[Mr Newmark]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are talking about the right of an individual to walk on someone’s property, and how to find a way forward, with local councils, on moving a path slightly, so that people can get to their destination.

[Chi Onwurah]

This is all about individuals’ rights to walk on private property, just as I walked over the Duke of Northumberland’s land yesterday. I do not want to belittle or trivialise cases in which property owners experience significant stress, but there are already powers that permit landowners and land managers to apply to a local authority to make an order to divert or close a public path that crosses their land, so additional legislation is not required.

[Bill Wiggin]

rose—

[Chi Onwurah]

I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Bill Wiggin]

Will the hon. Lady tell us her party’s proposals to ensure that the family of Roger Freeman know that no other family will suffer the pain and misery that they have been through?

[Chi Onwurah]

The Bill’s measures on this subject derive from the Natural England stakeholder working group. I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree that finding a consensus between users, landowners and local authorities, and between Ramblers and the Country Land and Business Association, is such an achievement that it should not be jeopardised. If he wants further proposals to be brought forward, he should work with the stakeholder working group to deliver consensus on them. It is imperative that the measures agreed by the working group are implemented as soon as possible. We do not want them to be jeopardised by the new clauses in the group, especially because those new clauses raise several important questions. For example, who would decide that a public right of way was intrusive? Why are the measures necessary when there are already powers that permit landowners to apply to a local authority, as I set out? Who would define what “limited circumstances” were?

A presumption in favour of a diversion would take powers away from local authorities and reduce the ability of communities to have a say. Is this in accordance with the localism agenda, which I thought all Members on the Government Benches agreed with? Local communities, through their local councils, should have the ability to shape their local area. We should support the rights of all to access the countryside and to maintain existing rights of way, especially as the local countryside offers our citizens benefits in terms of health, exercise and mental well-being.

[Mr Newmark]

I shall speak to new clauses 17, 18 and 19.

Many people up and down the country, especially in rural areas, face the daily personal stress and blight of their properties caused by highly intrusive public rights of way across their land, including the gardens of family homes and working farmyards, as well as commercial premises. The new clauses that I propose set out how local authorities should respond to requests to divert or extinguish rights of way, to applications under the right to apply introduced by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, or negotiation under the new modification consent order process set out in paragraph 5 of schedule 7 to the Bill. Specifically, my new clauses 17, 18 and 19 address and amend sections 119, 118 and 116 respectively of the Highways Act 1980.

It might be helpful for the Minister to have a little context and background to my new clauses. The existence of public rights of way within private property raises several concerns, many of which have been highlighted to me by my constituents. Most important among them is the security of the family and property of the landowner, in particular the security of young children. Having in their backyard a public footpath that anyone can access is worrying for parents and impacts on the daily life of their families.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

Is my hon. Friend aware that people who own such footpaths can apply for them to be moved? I do not see why he is proposing an alternative method.

[Mr Newmark]

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) pointed out, there are issues of safety and security. This is not a subject that I knew anything about until it was raised with me by several constituents, who are extremely frustrated with the existing process designed to protect their family and property. That is what my new clauses are about.

Following on from this are concerns with potential infringements on the privacy of residents and their expectation of being able to relax without strangers appearing in the same contained space. Pathways across land can also reduce the value of the property. That, by the way, is probably the least of my concerns, but it has been raised by my constituents. Finally, farmyard operations put the public potentially at risk because of the limited space through which these routes pass.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

I could accept what the hon. Gentleman says if he were referring to hustling, for example, but the fact that he does not seem to address is that many rights of way are very historic. When I was taken by my grandfather to the footpath that went from Esclusham Above to Esclusham Below, I did it in the knowledge that he went with his grandfather. Such rights are intrinsic in our rural areas. That is what we are frightened about.

18:45

[Mr Newmark]

Yes, yes. I am totally sympathetic with what the hon. Lady says. I am not trying to change historic rights of way. My intention is to create more flexibility in the system to allow paths that go right past people’s front doors and their gardens to be moved slightly. I am not looking to stop people’s access to those ancient rights of way.

In order to solve these problems, the owner of the land in question must seek an order to divert or extinguish the right of way through a modification consent order or an application for public path order. This guidance applies where a public right of way passes through a garden which forms part of the curtilage of a residential dwelling, a working farmyard or forestry yard, or other operational business or working industrial premises. The interests of the landowner must be weighed against the overall impact on the public as a whole—a point that Opposition Members emphasised—and the privacy, security and safety of the landowner are all considerations to which due weight should be given. Furthermore, if the public right of way is extinguished, it should be diverted elsewhere in order to reduce inconvenience to the public.

Now that I have laid out at least some of the rationale for my new clauses, let me touch briefly on each new clause in turn. New clause 17, entitled “Presumed diversion of intrusive public rights of way in limited circumstances”, amends section 119 of the Highways Act 1980 and facilitates statutory guidance to allow for the diversion of rights of way that pass through domestic or business premises on the grounds of privacy, safety or security. New clause 18, entitled “Presumed extinguishment of intrusive public rights of way in limited circumstances”, amends section 118 of the 1980 Act and facilitates statutory guidance to allow for the extinguishment of rights of way that pass through domestic or business premises on the grounds of privacy, safety or security if a diversion is not possible as the right of way provides access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise accessible. Finally, new clause 19, entitled “Presumed extinguishment of intrusive byways open to all traffic in limited circumstances”, is an amendment to section 116 of the Highways Act 1980 and creates a presumption that byways open to all traffic should be diverted so as not to pass through residential or business premises unless the byway does not impact on the privacy, safety or security of the premises or provides access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise accessible.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that although it is essential that we respect the ancient rights provided by footpaths and byways that the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) spoke about in her intervention, it is important that we also respect the privacy, safety and security of individuals and their property. That is the narrow path that I am trying to navigate. I hope the Minister will acknowledge that new clauses 17, 18 and 19 are drafted both to be reasonable to landowners and to respect the rights of individuals to have access to byways, especially if those byways provide access to a vital local service or amenity not otherwise accessible. In this spirit I look forward to his response to new clauses 17, 18 and 19 as well as to new clause 15, which is proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire. I end by thanking my constituent Roger Duffin for raising this important issue and for his guidance in enabling me to draft a constructive solution to a sensitive problem.

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) and for Braintree (Mr Newmark) for tabling their new clauses and allowing us to discuss the important topic of rights of way and the impact that these can have.

We recognise that all four amendments seek to address the issue of intrusive public rights of way. The Government have been giving very careful consideration to this, in discussion with the rights of way stakeholder working group. The work done by the group has been invaluable in pulling together the potentially divergent views of landowners and ramblers.

The Government acknowledge that for householders, farmers and others, an intrusive footpath can have a substantial impact on their quality of life or on their ability to run a business. We understand that while this is not a widespread problem, where it occurs it can cause severe difficulties, and in a significant number of cases people have been put through years of considerable inconvenience and stress, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire mentioned.

It is not clear to me whether my hon. Friend feels that his amendment would help prevent incidents involving dangerous cattle on footpaths, unless it is envisaged that the presumption that paths should not pass through other land where safety is an issue could be used to close or divert rights of way that run through fields where cattle are present. That would clearly be a radical and sweeping measure that could lead to the closure or diversion of innumerable rights of way with questionable justification. The issue of cattle attacks on public rights of way is being addressed separately by the Government, and there is no suggestion from any of the parties involved that primary legislation is required to sort out the problem to which my hon. Friend rightly referred. It is clear, however, that there has to be a change in the way in which both legislation and policy operate if people are to get a satisfactory hearing, and that is what the Government are doing in the Bill.

We very much sympathise with people’s genuine concerns about the problems that can arise from footpaths running through private gardens and farmyards and recognise that we need to find an acceptable solution, but we do not believe that these new clauses are the best way to go about this. Measures are already being developed that will make a significant difference to the way in which requests for diversions and extinguishments of rights of way will be dealt with by local authorities. We are working towards making effective the “right to apply” provisions in the Bill. That will enable a landowner to make a formal application for the diversion or extinguishment of a public right of way; with that will come the right to appeal to the Secretary of State if the authority rejects the application or fails to act on it, so local authorities will not be able simply to rebuff or ignore representations from a landowner, as they can at present. I hope that my hon. Friends will see that as a positive development.

Moreover, the right to apply will be supplemented by guidance that will effectively act as a presumption to divert or extinguish public rights of way that pass through the gardens of family homes, working farmyards or commercial premises where privacy, safety or security are a problem. That guidance has been developed in agreement with the rights of way stakeholder working group.

[Mr Newmark]

The Minister was actively listening and I appreciate his response, but I would ask him to be sensitive to the cost of appeal. Many of these people are not wealthy and it is important that we keep costs to an absolute minimum.

[Tom Brake]

Costs can be a significant issue, and the Government and local authorities will clearly want to ensure that they are kept to a minimum.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire asked whether the guidance would be statutory. This is a deregulation Bill, the purpose of which is to minimise the statutory burden rather than increase it. We believe that the combined effect of the right to apply and the guidance will have the desired effect, and we should see how the measures work out in practice before seeking to add to the legislative burden.

A draft of the guidance has been deposited in the House Library. We recognise that it needs further refinement and it remains open for comment. The rights of way reforms will also give local authorities more scope to deal with objections themselves, rather than having to submit every opposed order to the Secretary of State as at present. We believe that the provisions will make a significant difference, and until we see how well the “right to apply” provisions work alongside the new guidance, making further legislation would be premature. The new clauses would create new regulation where it may prove to be unnecessary and create more problems than they resolve.

The issue of intrusive public rights of way is emotive. I can appreciate why it arouses strong feelings and why those affected feel so strongly that something needs to be done. While putting the terms of a presumption on the face of the Act might seem like a way of making sure something happens, it carries a high risk that the presumption will not work as intended and, unlike the guidance, it would not be possible readily to make changes in response to unforeseen circumstances or to take account of new developments.

As the draft guidance on diversions and extinguishments has been developed by the stakeholder working group, there is a strong consensus around it, which means that it is far more likely to be complied with. We welcome the fact that a new working group is likely to be set up through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which will look at some of the other complex issues, such as green lanes—another very difficult issue to which to find a consensual solution. We firmly believe that solutions arrived at in that way, based on agreement and mutual interest, will result in less conflict and less need for enforcement in the long run.

The proposed new clauses also do not strike the correct balance between public and private interests, which is critical to the agreement reached on the guidance by the stakeholder working group. Legislative solutions imposed without a consensus tend to result in more disputes and legal challenges and there is no stakeholder consensus around the legislative changes proposed here. The new clauses would be quite a fundamental change to the current legislative status quo, which should not be made in the absence of either public consultation or stakeholder agreement, so I regret that I must urge my hon. Friends not to press their amendments.

[Bill Wiggin]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his helpful and constructive comments; it is useful to know that the Government are looking at the risks. I also welcome the formation of a new working group. It does not come as a terribly big surprise that the Government are unwilling to accept new clause 15. However, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), I thank the Minister for looking at our concerns seriously and promising to keep a watching brief on how things progress.

I say to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), who answered for the Labour party, that rights of way are of course emotive and vital, but keeping people alive is more important. Until Labour Members recognise that, they are not fit to be in government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 10

Private hire vehicles: circumstances in which driver’s licence required

Amendment proposed: 61, page 7, line 22, leave out clause 10, clause 11 and clause 12.—(Mr Marsden.)

18:58

Division 12

Ayes: 206

---

Labour: 201
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 285

---

Conservative: 243
Liberal Democrat: 41

19:10

It being later than three hours before the moment of interruption, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 14 May).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 33

Reduction of burdens relating to the use of roads and railways

Amendment made: 13, page 25, line 32, at end insert—

“(aa) the duration of driving licences to be granted to drivers with relevant or prospective disabilities;”—(Tom Brake.)

Clause 35

Removal of duty to order re-hearing of marine accident investigations

Amendment proposed: 1, page 26, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert

“in paragraph (a) leave out from “if new and important evidence” to “discovered” and insert “where secondary investigations have enabled more new, significant, or important evidence to become available, having particular regard to—

(i) enhancing and preserving the rights of those affected by a maritime accident to learn from the proceedings of such reinvestigations and conclusions drawn from them; and

(ii) future safety issues and measures.”.”—(Mr Marsden.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

19:11

Division 13

Ayes: 211

---

Labour: 203
Plaid Cymru: 3
Scottish National Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 284

---

Conservative: 242
Liberal Democrat: 41

Schedule 2

Driving instructors

Amendments made: 36, page 62, line 13, leave out

“authorise the person to apply”

and insert “require the person”.

This amendment is a drafting improvement to make new section 124(3)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 more consistent with the new system for registering driving instructors.

Amendment 37, page 62, line 36, leave out “applicant” and insert “person”.

This amendment is a drafting change to improve the cross-reference between new section 125(3D) and 125ZA(4)(ba) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Amendment 38, page 65, line 26, at end insert—

“unless the Registrar considers it appropriate for the application to be made at such earlier time as may be specified by the Registrar.”

This amendment will enable the Registrar to allow an application to undergo a further emergency control assessment under section 133B(4) to be made before the end of the six month period referred to in new section 133B(5A).

Amendment 39, page 66, line 39, leave out “applicant” and insert “person”.

This amendment is a drafting change to improve the cross-reference between new section 125(2D) and 125(5A) of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Amendment 40, page 69, line 30, leave out paragraph 22.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 43.

Amendment 41, page 72, line 2, leave out from “assessment” to end of line 3 and insert

“—

(i) under section 125(2C) or 129(1B), or

(ii) as mentioned in section 125(5)(a)(ii) or 129(5ZA),”.

This amendment amends new subsection 133B(2A), inserting references to section 129(1B) and section 129(5ZA) to ensure that the ability to re-take failed emergency control assessments applies to assessments taken in connection with licences as well as to those taken in connection with registration.

Amendment 42, page 72, line 15, at end insert—

“unless the Registrar considers it appropriate for the application to be made at such earlier time as may be specified by the Registrar.”

This amendment makes the same change for Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Bill that amendment 38 makes for Part 1 of Schedule 2.

Amendment 43, page 72, line 37, at end insert—

“Part 5 has effect as if after section 133D there were inserted—

“133E Direction to disregard emergency control assessment requirement

(1) This section applies where a person has been required—

(a) under section 125(2C) or 129(1B), or

(b) as mentioned in section 125(5)(a)(ii) or 129(5ZA),

to submit himself for an emergency control assessment.

(2) At any time before the assessment takes place the Registrar may withdraw the requirement (in which case this Part applies as if the requirement had never been imposed).

(3) At any time after the assessment takes place the Registrar may direct that the requirement is to be disregarded for the purposes of this Part (and accordingly any condition that the person holds an emergency certificate is to cease to apply).

(4) Notice of—

(a) the withdrawal of a requirement under subsection (2), or

(b) a direction under subsection (3),

must be given to the person on whom the requirement was imposed.””

This amendment extends what was new section 128ZZA so that the Registrar’s powers under the section cover emergency control assessments in connection with licences. The new section is inserted after section 133D to reflect its revised content. The amendment which inserted new section 128ZZA is removed by amendment 40.

Amendment 44, page 73, line 21, leave out “In”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 47.

Amendment 45, page 73, line 23, after “2006,” insert “is amended as follows.

(2)”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 47.

Amendment 46, page 73, line 25, at end insert—

( ) in the second column, for “for registration as disabled driving instructor” substitute “to be registered in respect of driving instruction”;”.

Amendments 46, 47, 48 and 49 add further consequential amendments to Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, to reflect the amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1988 made by Schedule 2 to the Bill.

Amendment 47, page 73, line 26, at end insert—

“(3) In the entry for section 133C(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in the second column, omit “disabled”.

(4) In the entry for section 133D of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in the second column, for “disabled persons” substitute “persons required to hold an emergency control certificates”.”

See amendment 46.

Amendment 48, page 73, line 32, at end insert—

(aa) in the second column, for “for registration as disabled driving instructor” substitute “to be registered in respect of driving instruction”;”.

See amendment 46.

Amendment 49, page 73, line 33, at end insert—

‘(3) In the entry for section 133C(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in the second column, omit “disabled”.

(4) In the entry for section 133D of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in the second column for “disabled persons” substitute “persons required to hold emergency control certificates”.”—(Oliver Heald.)

See amendment 46.

Schedule 9

Regulation of the use of roads and railways

Amendment made: 51, page 122, line 26, at end insert—

“Part A1

Duration of driving licences to be granted to drivers with relevant or prospective disabilities

A1 Part 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (licensing of drivers of vehicles) is amended as follows.

A2 In section 99 (duration of licences of drivers of motor vehicles of classes other than any prescribed class of goods vehicle or any prescribed class of passenger-carrying vehicle), in subsection (1)(b) (duration of licence to be granted to person suffering from relevant or prospective disability), for the words from “of not more than” to “may determine” substitute “as the Secretary of State may determine which shall be a period—

(i) of not more than ten years and not less than one year, ending on or before the seventieth anniversary of the applicant’s date of birth, or

(ii) where, at the time the licence is granted, there are less than three years until that seventieth anniversary or where the licence is granted on or after that anniversary, of not more than three years and not less than one year”.

A3 In consequence of paragraph A2, in section 100(1)(b) (appeals relating to licences: determination under section 99(1)(b))—

(a) for “three” substitute “ten”;

(b) after “or less” insert “or, where sub-paragraph (ii) of section 99(1)(b) applies, for three years or less”.”—(Oliver Heald.)

This amendment increases the period for which a driving licence for non-vocational drivers suffering from a relevant or prospective disability can be granted from a maximum of three years to a maximum of ten years, ending no later than the driver’s 70th birthday. Once a driver is over 67, the maximum is three years.

Clause 54

TV licensing: duty to review sanctions

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 62, page 40, line 13, at end insert—

‘(3) The Secretary of State must lay the terms of reference of a review under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendments 14 and 15.

Amendment 63, in clause 55, page 41, line 26, at end insert—

‘(14) The power conferred by subsection (1) may not be exercised until after the BBC’s Royal Charter has next been reviewed.”

Government amendments 20 and 22.

[Helen Goodman]

I want to speak to the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), as well as to the Government amendments.

Clause 54 puts a duty on the Secretary of State to review the sanctions on those who own a television but fail to pay the licence fee. Our amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay the review’s terms of reference before both Houses. Clause 55 gives the Secretary of State a power to decriminalise sanctions on those who fail to pay the licence fee. Our amendment would prevent this power from being used before the completion of the next review of the BBC’s royal charter.

The BBC is a universal service, and the licence fee is a universal payment for anyone with a television. The licence fee is not a tax; it is a guarantee of the BBC’s independence. The BBC is the most trusted source of news in the United Kingdom, with 58% of people rating it as their most trusted news source.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the BBC is trusted not just in Britain but across the world, and when other broadcasting services are compared to it, they take it as flattery or a compliment?

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The BBC is now one of the great British brands and it exports across the world.

In the evolution of British broadcasting, the licence fee has gained broad support. Nearly everyone in the UK uses the BBC each week—it has 97% reach—which helps to explain why support for the licence fee is at 53%, up from only 31% in 2004, and is ahead of the 17% support for subscriptions and the 26% support for advertising. It is the top choice for funding the BBC across all ages and all socio-economic groups, whether people are in Freeview, Sky or Virgin households.

Not just the public but other broadcasters appreciate the licence fee, since they have built their business models using finance from advertising, sponsorship and subscription on the assumption that the BBC will not enter those markets and that, as a result, the size of those markets will be fairly stable. Labour believes that the licence fee is the best funding model.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I apologise for intervening again so quickly, but I want to reinforce my hon. Friend’s point. The fact is that we have quality television across the piece in Britain because of the BBC. If it were not for the BBC, standards might drop severely.

[Helen Goodman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No one wants people to go to prison for non-payment of the licence fee. Last year, 165,000 people failed to pay, and 51 were jailed for non-payment of the associated fines, even though people can pay by instalment. Clearly, we need some sanctions to ensure payment. The question is whether the current sanctions are the right ones. That is why we have agreed to a review of the sanctions.

Our amendment 62 would require the Secretary of State to lay the review’s terms of reference before Parliament, because we want a proper, analytical and unbiased review. I wrote to the Solicitor-General’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), who has responsibility for communications, about this matter on 7 April.

Such a review should cover the impact of a change on the level of licence fee evasion. It would be helpful to have historical data on evasion rates. According to the TV licensing database, the statistics on the socio-economic background of unlicensed properties show that 38% are ABs, 29% are C1s, 13% are C2s, 8% are Ds and 11.5% are Es. Those figures are broadly in line with the socio-economic background of UK properties as a whole. That does not translate to the socio-economic status of those prosecuted or imprisoned for non-payment of the licence fee, but it indicates that there is higher evasion among better-off households.

The review should cover the impact on the BBC’s finances. Without that information, we will not know the full impact of evasion. Estimates suggest that a 1% increase in non-payment might lead to a £35 million loss to the BBC. It has said:

“If Licence Fee evasion were to double to around 10%, the BBC would have an estimated…£200 million less per annum for content and services—equivalent to the combined budget of BBC4 and our two children’s channels, CBeebies and CBBC, for example. Due to low rates of evasion at present, an additional £6.7m was available to spend on BBC content in 2012/13.”

Obviously, if evasion went up, such investment would no longer be possible.

The review needs to look at the impact of new technology and the possibility of ending the BBC’s universal offer. Currently, the BBC cannot switch off the signal, so what would happen if it could?

19:30

The review also needs to look at alternative sanctions. Should those be a mixture of criminal and civil penalties? Licence fee evasion currently attracts a level 3 penalty, which is in line with other criminal offences, such as using a vehicle untaxed or without insurance. The maximum fine for non-payment is £1,000, although magistrates take account of a person’s income and employment status. The average fine levied last year was about £170, and it was significantly lower for the unemployed. In contrast, civil penalties tend to be fixed at a single level for all affected.

I am sure the Minister knows that under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, the Government intend to raise maximum fine limits across category 1 to category 5 offences. Increasing maximum fines is the Government’s decision. However, the magistrates court sentencing guidelines will consider that when they are finally being tweaked.

The Government amendments are relevant to this particular point. We are content with Government amendments 14, 20 and 22, but I would be grateful if the Solicitor-General gave the House an explanation of Government amendment 15. Why are the Government unwilling to set the penalties on this occasion? Are they thinking of establishing a new quango, or would it be an extra duty that he would give to Ofcom?

The review also needs to look at the cost of collection now and at any alternatives. Obviously, we do not want the costs of collection to rise. Similarly, it is important to look at the costs to the courts now, and again, we would not want those costs to rise if we changed the system.

My understanding is that although licence fee evasion cases make up around 10% of magistrates court criminal cases, the vast majority are heard uncontested and in bulk, with an average presentation time of three minutes. They account for less than 0.3% of court time, so I hope very much that this is not a major plank of the Government’s policy justification.

We also think it would be a good idea to look at other relevant experiences to see whether that would improve the quality of forecasting the effects of changing the system, such as the DVLA, subscription channels, utilities and the council tax. We understand that the DVLA has had to write off around one third of all unpaid fines for non-renewal of vehicle tax, as it is too hard to collect. Of the two-thirds they pursue, less than half are paid. That does not augur well for the BBC licence fee.

Currently, the BBC cannot stop people who do not pay the licence fee using its services, so it is more vulnerable to payment evasion than its competitors, such as Virgin and Sky, which can disconnect non-payers, or the utilities, which can install prepayment meters. Furthermore, around 10% of households have missed or made only partial payments on a utility bill. If licence fee evasion were to increase to that level, it would result in a reduction of around £200 million to the BBC’s revenue. We also think it would be helpful for the Government to look at any international experience. All those are factors that we would want to see in the terms of reference for a good review.

Amendment 63 is even more important. We need to look at the BBC’s finances in the round. The royal charter review is the opportunity for a complete assessment of the role and strategy of the BBC. Changing financing without reference to strategy and role risks producing an unsustainable position. We do not want to see a salami-slicing of the BBC’s position or the insidious undermining of this great national institution, which, if I may say, Mr Deputy Speaker, seems to be the intent of some of the Minister’s more right-wing colleagues, who are not even sitting in the Chamber today, even though they initiated the whole debate. The impact on other broadcasters matters as well. The royal charter review is an opportunity for them and the public to engage fully with the issues.

The mix we have of large and small broadcasters, public service and commercial, has produced the best television in the world. It is a credit to our country, a huge economic success, and a powerhouse of creativity. It is also a delicate balance and not a trinket to be played with. That is why any change to the licence fee must be properly considered at the time of the royal charter review.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I wish to speak briefly on this matter. I have a lot of sympathy with the Opposition’s views, and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) is right: we have a lot to be proud of. I am always wary of using the phrase, “It is the envy of the world”, but we have a superb television service and, largely, the British Broadcasting Corporation is responsible for that.

There are those on the Government Benches—I have some sympathy with some of my, as the hon. Lady would put it, “right-wing colleagues”—who worry about the political bias of the BBC. Even its former director-general, Mr Mark Thompson, has referred to that. None the less, I do not think any of us can deny that the BBC does a very good public service with its broadcasting, and it is one that is recognised throughout the world. My concern is this: we are living in a fast-changing world and the notion that the BBC’s licence fee can remain in aspic as the only model of funding is one that would be dangerous for the BBC, as well as for all of us, necessarily to hold close to our hearts.

Criminalisation is also something that I want to speak about briefly. When my late mother died, she was living alone. She had been widowed for some years, and she died in September 2010. I took on the responsibility for looking after her affairs in the home in which she had lived prior to it being sold, which took place some months later. I was appalled by the experience that I had, which I am sure is one shared by many hundreds of thousands of our fellow countrymen in a similar position. Literally on a fortnightly basis, we got threatening letters from the BBC’s licensing department, saying that we were committing a criminal offence by not having a licence. There is a sense, I am afraid, in which the BBC regards every single home as being fair game, whether anyone is living there or, indeed, using a television set. It certainly was not terribly good public relations, not just for me personally, but, I suspect, for many other people who go through that particular rigmarole. There is a sense that the BBC feels it has the right to claim, almost with menaces, moneys, when the particular circumstances of my mother having passed away made it even more upsetting to get one letter after another in this way.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point by talking about his mother’s circumstances. My constituents, too, have had similar experiences with the TV licence and the point they are trying to make is that these approaches by the BBC are overly aggressive. That has helped the push towards the introduction of the amendments.

[Mark Field]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For those of us who are broadly supportive of the BBC and its values, it is very upsetting to see that aggressive approach, particularly in circumstances such as the ones that I have pointed out, which affect, as I said, many tens of thousands of our fellow countrymen on a day-to-day basis. The notion is put across that somehow, if we lose the money, we will not be able to have CBeebies and BBC4, but again, there has to be a sense of prioritisation in the BBC, which has a very privileged position with its money—some £2.5 billion a year—that it is able to rely on in order to make the excellent programmes to which we have all referred.

I hope that we will have a sensible debate—in fairness to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, she has presented some sensible proposals—on how our British Broadcasting Corporation will be funded. The only warning sign is that we are increasingly living in a world of pay-per-view and a proliferation of channels. Like me, the hon. Lady grew up at a time when, until 1982, there were only three channels. A fourth channel then emerged, and suddenly we had a plethora of channels that we can rely on. As a result, if the BBC is to play as important a part in public life in the decades to come, it must be wise to the fact that there will have to be changes to its funding mechanism, without immediately accusing the House, and others who wish it to survive well into the 21st and future centuries, of being aggressively anti what it does.

I hope that the Solicitor-General will have some proposals regarding what I have said, and particularly that he will ensure that the good will towards the BBC in the hearts of many of our fellow countrymen remains intact. Some of the BBC’s antics are the sorts of things that have allowed people who would otherwise oppose the amendments to hold the views expressed in one or two of them, although, as we see, they will not necessarily be discussed to any great extent.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make a brief contribution. I look forward to an interesting debate, which I expect will take place not just on the Floor of the House but will make up an important part of discussions on the renewal of the charter in 2016 and beyond.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is a delight to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), and an enormous shame that those who drafted the original clauses are not present to take part in the debate that they began.

[The Solicitor-General (Oliver Heald)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I do not really think the Solicitor-General should be replying to a debate on broadcasting, but I am happy to give way.

[The Solicitor-General]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that we did have a debate in Committee, in which the hon. Gentleman who tabled the amendments was a very active member, and he was satisfied with the Government’s approach.

[Chris Bryant]

Of course—it stands to reason that the hon. and learned Gentleman was present; otherwise, he would not have been able to speak to the amendments. That is a rather redundant, kind of tautologous point—[Interruption.] No, the debate is not finished and I am sorry that the Solicitor-General is adopting that approach. The honest truth is that the Government have approached this whole issue in completely the wrong order. The amendments tabled this evening are the only way we can correct that order because we are putting the cart before the horse.

Surely we should decide what the point of the BBC is and how it should be financed, and then decide on sanctions should those things not be met—not the other way round. Under the Bill, however, before any review of the licence fee and the next charter, it has been decided in principle that there should be a change to the arrangement on sanctions for not paying the licence fee. That is completely the wrong way round. The Government have caved in to some frankly preposterous Back-Bench campaigning, and it is a shame that those campaigners are not present to see the end of this debate and listen to the next stage. The discussion is far from over.

If the Education Secretary were here and looking for a list of British values, I would tell him that I would put the BBC and British broadcasting at the top of that list. I have spoken to politicians from India who said that the style of broadcasting that we invented in this country and exported around the world inspired them to have free and independent broadcasting in their country. I have known politicians from Chile, Argentina and Spain who talked of sitting under the kitchen table and hiding while listening to British broadcasting on the radio—largely through the World Service as it was in the past—because they believed that was the only way they could get an independent source of news.

[David Rutley]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

In one moment.

The BBC is not just about independent news; it is about a long tradition of being able to tell a story about British society in a way that incorporates the whole of human experience. That tradition probably stretches way back to Chaucer, Shakespeare, Marlowe and all the rest, and I believe that the modern BBC sits solidly and squarely slap bang in the middle of that tradition, and is itself a British value. The fact that it is funded by the licence fee is part of that—everybody gets to pay for and share in it, and everybody gets something out of it. I know there are people who believe that the licence fee should pay only for high-minded broadcasting—perhaps for news, classical broadcasting and the like.

19:45

[The Solicitor-General]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

In a moment.

Many of my constituents are on low incomes and in a deprived community, but they are happy to pay the licence fee because it guarantees something for everybody. For them, the sport on television, which would probably be commercially available elsewhere, is public service broadcasting; “EastEnders” is public service broadcasting. The quality that is brought by ordinary broadcasting to everyday lives is part of what people in my constituency believe to be public service broadcasting.

[David Rutley]

rose—

[The Solicitor-General]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) because I said I would.

[David Rutley]

The hon. Gentleman misses the point. No Government Member in this debate or in Committee was questioning the values of the BBC.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes they were.

[David Rutley]

No, not the values. Some might have questioned some of the services, but not the values or the news services and values that are espoused there—absolutely not. The key issue is whether the late-payment approach should be decriminalised, and that is what all Government Members were keen to do.

[Chris Bryant]

I completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman, who I know is fair minded. If he were to return to the previous debates, I think he would say that the fundamental argument made by those proposing these measures is that the licence fee should pay only for high-end broadcasting. Frankly, I think of that as getting the poor to pay for broadcasting for the rich. That is why I believe in a licence fee that is paid by every household and guarantees something for everybody.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

I agree very strongly with my hon. Friend. The licence fee promotes social cohesion, and the alternative would promote social division. He is making the point extremely well.

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely. I am not opposed to the idea of ending present licensing offences per se, although I think there are dangers in that which I will come to in a moment. However, doing it in this order, and in a Deregulation Bill that has nothing to do with broadcasting or licensing, is particularly bizarre. On the whole I dislike Christmas tree legislation, which is what the Bill has become, and these proposals are wholly inappropriate. If we had a broadcasting Bill, I would be happy to see these matters debated in the round and in the context of broadcasting. I think we would have a fuller Chamber—better viewing figures perhaps, and not just BBC executives who are doubtless following every second of this debate.

As we consider current offences and whether they should be swept away, we must bear in mind the fact that broadcasting always tends towards monopoly as that is its fundamental nature. It is very expensive to make a programme, but it is more or less as expensive to show that programme to one person as it is to show it to 5,000, 2 million or 5 million people.

[Mark Field]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish this argument, I will give way.

I think it appropriate, especially in markets of the size we have in the United Kingdom, to ensure that a pot of money is available for local, British programming—programmes made in this country that reflect its interests, not just in terms of news and current affairs, but drama, comedy, religion, and all the different genres. That is an essential part of ensuring that monopoly does not always triumph.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) referred to the £2.7 billion that the BBC is guaranteed as though that were an enormous amount of money. It is nothing compared with Sky, which has £7 billion a year; and how much programming does it produce that is then exported round the world on behalf of Britain? To what extent does it sell Britain abroad? How much does it reflect the whole of British society? It is difficult enough to get a Sky journalist to travel outside the M25, let alone all the way down to Wales, for heaven’s sake. That is why I believe we must have an alternative in the public sector to the monopoly that will otherwise be set up.

[Mark Field]

I had hoped to agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about this measure being in a Christmas tree Bill. I agree with him fundamentally that it would be better to have it in a proper broadcasting Bill, but the difficulty is that we focus our minds on the BBC only when the renewal of the charter comes up, which is not necessarily the best time to look at these things in the broadest sense. However, I disagree with what he said about Sky. Ultimately, we are all consumers of Sky. It is the market that decides, and if there were no market for it, Sky would not have £7 billion in its coffers. We have £2.7 billion in the BBC, which I think does a terrific job, given that amount of money, but it is right that the market should prevail to a certain extent.

[Chris Bryant]

Perhaps what the hon. Gentleman says reflects his constituency, but for the majority of the time that I have been a Member of Parliament, the only way in which my constituents could get BBC 3, BBC 4 or, in most parts of it, BBC 2, let alone Channel 4, was to pay Sky. It had an absolute monopoly on digital television in the south Wales valleys. Because of the mixture of platforms, the geography, the various ways in which, for instance, mansion block flats in London work and all the rest of it, it is important that we have a public service broadcaster with a commitment and a statutory requirement to deliver to every household and provide something for everybody: the 83-year-old who likes listening to Chaucer and Mantovani—if there is a person who likes only that combination—and the 18-year-old who is interested only in the kind of things that are shown on BBC 3.

That is an important commitment and we need that combination, because as somebody once put it to me, if we are to have one 800 lb gorilla in the forest, in the shape of Sky, it is a good idea to have a second 800 lb gorilla in the forest, because that is safer for everybody. The competition we have in the UK between public service broadcasting and the commercial sector is positive. We were wrong in the past to campaign against having ITV and the commercial sector and all the rest. It is right to have that mixture. The two feed off each other, and Sky is now finally learning that it is a good idea to produce programmes of its own.

The licence fee is a phenomenal success for this country. The £2.7 billion that the hon. Gentleman talks of is basically an investment in production, which is why programmes are sold all around the world. We are the only country in Europe that manages to be a net exporter of programming. That might be because of our history, but I think it is also because we have a strong BBC. I also think that the alternatives to the licence fee that are experienced elsewhere in Europe, which many people tout—for instance, Germany has a mixture of a licence fee and advertising, others have a public service broadcasting model based just on advertising, and the Netherlands has a fixed amount of income tax—are more flawed than the licence fee. To paraphrase Churchill, yes, the licence fee may be terrible—for all the reasons that I am sure people can adduce: it is not progressive, it bears down unequally, it affects everybody, whether they are rich or poor, and all the rest of it—but it is better than all the alternatives.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way, because the hon. Gentleman was not here for the beginning of the debate. I would normally be very generous, but he was not here even for the beginning of my speech, let alone the moving of the amendment.

[David Rutley]

I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s argument as closely as I can. He makes the point about how important it is to ensure proper programming and how important the licence fee is, but what we are talking about in this debate is whether it should be a criminal offence to pay the fee late or to be unable to pay it. There are many other worthy providers of great public services that do not have that right. That is what we are discussing.

[Chris Bryant]

It is not, actually. What we are discussing is the order in which the Government should proceed—in other words, whether they should first decide what the future sanction should be and then review the licence fee, or whether they should first review the licence fee and the charter and then decide what the sanction should be. I believe the latter is the only logical and commonsensical way of proceeding. That is why I am strongly supportive of the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland has tabled, because that is precisely what they do. It would be extraordinary if the Government were to oppose our amendments this evening. I know that the Solicitor-General is sometimes a very reasonable man—[Interruption]—although he has not got his reasonable face on now, I see.

[The Solicitor-General]

It is because you would not give way to me.

[Chris Bryant]

I give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

[The Solicitor-General]

The debate we have been having, in Committee and with my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), is about enforcement of the licence fee, not about the principle.

[Chris Bryant]

I have read all the debates, which were actually about fundamental principles as well, and the fundamental principle for me is that we should do the whole policy in the round, rather than doing it piecemeal in a deregulation Bill.

That takes me to the key point about sanctions. Whatever regime one moves to—whether one decriminalises or not—one needs some form of sanction if one is not fundamentally to undermine the licence fee. As I understand it, the Government do not want to undermine the licence fee. They still support it—[Interruption.] From the look on the Solicitor-General’s face, I see that he is not so sure about that. However, broadly speaking, given that the majority of people in this country support the licence fee and believe that although it might not be perfect—they may support decriminalisation—it is none the less the best way to finance the BBC, it is only common sense for us to ensure that some of form of sanction is available.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland pointed out, we would need only a very small increase in the rate of licence fee evasion to see a significant fall in BBC income. I can imagine Government Members then being the first to say, “You can’t cut spending on programming in my area”, or “You can’t cut the regional current affairs programme”, or “You can’t cut spending on orchestras”, or “You can’t cut spending on programmes that are produced and delivered in my part of the country.” However, I say to them that if the Government make it easier for people to evade the licence fee, because they have not put in place sanctions—

[Andrew Bridgen]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He was not here for the beginning of the debate. End of story, I am afraid.

If the Government do not put proper sanctions in place, they are in danger of cutting the overall income for the BBC. On the whole, I think the idea of a summary review of the licence fee, as well as the way in which Governments have sometimes tended to proceed with a new royal charter, is problematic in a modern democracy. It has meant going through the back door of Buckingham palace, rather than in through the front door of this palace in Westminster. On the whole, I would prefer a proper debate in the round. If there are going to be changes after the next charter review and the next licence fee review, that is the time for us to make proper decisions about how we ensure that the licence fee is not undermined but that some of the egregious examples we have all heard of—people being been sent to prison for what is a minor offence—are dealt with too.

As I have said before, in many ways I agree that the licence fee is terrible—it bears down heavily on the poor, just as it bears down on the rich—but it also means that the poor have an opportunity to get quality television. There are very few things in this country about which one can genuinely say with one’s hand on one’s heart, “We do it better than anyone else in the world”, but I honestly think we do broadcasting better than any other country in the world. By proceeding in the wrong order, because of how the Government have mishandled this debate, there is a danger that we will undermine the licence fee and break something that is fundamentally a British value—good public service broadcasting.

20:00

[The Solicitor-General]

We have had a short but lively debate, and I would like to put it on record that no Government Member said that the BBC was not a fantastic institution, or anything of that sort. Our debate was not about the licence fee, although the charter review is coming up, and that will have a process of its own; it was about enforcement.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)—I pay tribute to the way he put his case—made the point that there are many poor and vulnerable people who struggle with the licence fee, and they can be criminalised and even sent to prison for failure to pay it. He clearly felt concerned about them, and made his case in that way. It was not developed as some kind of veiled attack on the BBC. I think it right to look at decriminalisation. Even the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) seemed to accept that at one point, and he even seemed to accept that it would be right to have a review of the sort proposed by the Government. Again, I do not see much cross-party disagreement there.

Clearly, the Government will not take up the invitation of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and say what the outcome of the review and the penalties will be—something I thought she said. She asks why the Government are unwilling to set the penalties now; the answer is that we have not yet had the review. Whether one particular body will have the duty of setting the variable fees is another issue for the review; we want a proper review that will look into all aspects of the issue. As to what analysis has been done of the potential impacts—positive and negative—of switching to a civil rather than a criminal enforcement, or of having the option of both, we are having a review precisely to determine that. The whole point is that we do not want to prejudge the review.

[Helen Goodman]

My question was not why the Government will not decide the penalties at this juncture—I completely accept what the Solicitor-General said about that—but why the Government were offloading the task of setting the penalties on to another body.

[The Solicitor-General]

There will clearly need to be a mechanism to effect the change; someone will have to decide what the variable penalties should be, and I shall come on to that in a moment. I do not think it right, however, to prejudge who or which body should do the setting. The hon. Lady suggested one particular body, but we are happy to let the review look into these issues and come up with its thoughts on what sort of regime should or should not be approved.

The amendments are designed to achieve two objectives. Under amendment 62,

“The Secretary of State must lay the terms of reference of a review”

of the TV licensing enforcement regime

“before each House of Parliament.”

Those would be key papers for the review, and there would be others. What normally happens, and what we propose, is that those papers are deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. It would be unusual to lay them before the House. That would be the normal and best way forward, and it would achieve the same effect as the amendment—that is, it would ensure that the House of Commons was fully aware of the details.

Amendment 63 looks to ensure that the power to decriminalise the failure to have a TV licence via secondary legislation, either by replacing the criminal regime with a civil regime, or by enabling the imposition of civil penalties for such offences, would not be exercised until after the conclusion of the charter process. As previously mentioned, this power would need to be exercised in the light of the review’s findings, and considering the full impacts, costs and benefits to licence payers, to the court system—where, as the hon. Lady said, changes are being made—and to businesses of any changes to the enforcement regime. That would be considered in the context of the charter review.

At this stage, it would be premature to put restrictions on the timing of when the power may be exercised, given that the charter review has not yet started, and the Government have not set out the detail of the process and the timing. The Government therefore resist the amendments on the following grounds. First, the key papers will be deposited in the Library in the normal way and, secondly, we do not want to restrict what should or could happen, in terms of decriminalisation, by aligning the legislation with the timing of the charter review, although the legislation would be in the context of the review.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) made the point that we are living in a changing world. That is true, both as regards the courts and how they go about enforcing, and about the media and broadcasting world. It is also true in respect of how we look at enforcement. Given that so many public services have civil enforcement and that it can be effective, it is certainly right, I think, at this point to have a review, and to try to move away from the aggressive approach that my hon. Friend mentioned. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), and I have encountered the issue in my constituency postbag and at surgeries. Elderly people who feel that they have paid their licence fee—they often have—can be threatened with bills, letters about going to court and so forth, yet it is often the TV licensing authorities that have made the mistakes. A civil approach, where at least the threat of court is not frightening elderly, vulnerable and poor people, might be a better way forward. It is certainly something worth reviewing. On the issue of excellence and free markets, it is right that both can deliver.

[Chris Bryant]

I got a bit confused with all the different reviews we seem to be talking about. We are talking about a review of the charter, which is coming along; and a review of the system of sanctions, which may lead to recommendations on what needs to change and on the use of the secondary legislation included in the Bill. All I am saying is that the latter should not come before the former.

[The Solicitor-General]

I hope the hon. Gentleman would accept that we are where we are. That may not be novel, but it is true. [Interruption.] It does. The Bill had within its scope the enforcement arrangements for the licence fee. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire—not me—was concerned about the issue, which garnered considerable support in the House. He was persuasive in saying that it was right to review this area and take the powers at this convenient opportunity, in case the review comes to the same conclusion as him. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda is very experienced in these matters and has had a role in the leadership of House operations, so he understands these things. This is not such a novel and surprising thing. It is actually a good opportunity to tackle an issue that has arisen in Parliament.

[Chris Bryant]

What I think I understand by that—I hope the Solicitor-General will confirm whether I am right, or will correct me if I have it wrong—is that his Government would or could bring in and use the secondary legislation before the charter review happened. Is that his intention?

[The Solicitor-General]

It is certainly not the intention to do anything that does not take into account the full context—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman laughs, but there is a full context to the charter review. It is difficult when the process has not been set out and nobody is aware of the full details, so one needs to be wary of tying one’s hands too much. All I am saying is that some commitments have been made about the time scale for the review; that is in the legislation. We know when the charter review will take place, and we know that nothing will happen until the review has been completed, taking into account all the various points I have made. That should satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland mentioned variable fees; they are provided for in the Government amendments, which also deal with the question of extent and the Crown dependencies. I commend Government amendments 14 and 15 and 20 and 22, and urge the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

[Helen Goodman]

I did not find the Solicitor-General’s arguments very convincing. He seems to want to retain the freedom to fiddle around with the way in which the licence fee operates before we have seen the results of the royal charter review. None the less, I do not wish to press either amendment 62 or amendment 63 to a vote, although I suspect that amendment 62 may be re-examined in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55

TV licensing: alternatives to criminal sanctions

Amendments made: 14, page 40, line 24, after “be” insert “—

(a) ”

This amendment is a drafting amendment related to amendment 15.

Amendment 15, page 40, line 25, at end insert

“, or

(b) such amount, not exceeding a maximum amount specified in the regulations, as may be determined by a body so specified.”—(The Solicitor-General)

In the event of the Secretary of State deciding to make regulations replacing the TV licensing offences with a civil penalty regime, this amendment would allow the regulations to provide for the amount of the penalty to be determined by a body specified in the regulations, subject to a maximum amount specified in the regulations.

New Clause 3

Limit on indemnity required under Outer Space Act 1986

‘(1) The Outer Space Act 1986 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 3 (prohibition of unlicensed activities), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) An order under subsection (3) may—

(a) provide that section 10(1) does not apply to a person to the extent that the person is carrying on activities that do not require a licence by virtue of the order;

(b) specify the maximum amount of a person’s liability under section 10(1) so far as the liability relates to the carrying on of activities that do not require a licence by virtue of the order.”

(3) In section 5 (terms of licence), after subsection (2) insert—

“(3) A licence must specify the maximum amount of the licensee’s liability to indemnify Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom under section 10 in respect of activities authorised by the licence.”

(4) In section 10 (obligation to indemnify government against claims), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) Subsection (1) is subject to—

(a) any limit on the amount of a person’s liability that is specified in a licence, and

(b) any order made under section 3(3).”

(5) The Secretary of State may vary any licence under section 4 of the 1986 Act that is held at the time when this section comes into force so as to specify the maximum amount of the licencee’s liability under section 10 of that Act.

(6) A variation under subsection (5) is to be made by giving notice in writing to the licensee.

(7) The power under section 15(6) of the 1986 Act may be exercised so as to extend to any of the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any British overseas territory any provision made by this section (subject to any specified exceptions or modifications).” —(Oliver Heald.)

Section 10 of the Outer Space Act 1986 requires people carrying out certain space activities to indemnify the UK government against claims arising out of the activities. The new clause makes provision for limiting the amount of the liability under the indemnity.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Solicitor-General]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 6—Power of HMRC to disclose information for purposes of certain litigation.

Government new clause 7—Combining different forms of subordinate legislation.

Government new clause 20—Tenancy deposits.

Government new clause 21—Short-term use of London accommodation: power to relax restrictions.

Government new clause 22—Electoral Commission: changes to facilitate efficient administration.

Government new clause 23—LGBC for England: changes to facilitate efficient administration.

Government new clause 24—Poisons and explosives precursors.

New clause 8—Replacing homes lost through the Preserved Right to Buy—

‘(1) Within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a plan to—

(a) replace the homes lost through the Preserved Right to Buy;

(b) review the effectiveness of the current Right to Buy policy.

(2) Before making any further changes to Right to Buy, the Secretary of State must carry out and publish an assessment of the impact of Right to Buy policy on affordable housing supply since 2012.”

This new clause would require the Minister to produce a plan to replace affordable homes lost in England as a result of Right to Buy, review the effectiveness of current policy and carry out an assessment of changes since 2012 before making further policy changes.

New clause 10—Repeal of the Sunday Trading Act 1994—

‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.

(2) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday trading at large shops) is repealed.

(3) Section 2, subsection (5) of that Act and Schedule 3 to the Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) are repealed.”

New clause 11—Extending of Sunday trading hours—

‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 2(3), leave out “six” and insert “eight”.

(3) In Schedule 1, paragraph 2(3), leave out “6 p.m.” and insert “8 p.m.”.”

New clause 12—Suspension of restriction of Sunday trading hours—

‘(1) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday opening at large shops) does not apply during the suspension period.

(2) But Schedule 3 to that Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) is to apply during the suspension period to any shop to which it would apply during that period were it not for the disapplication made by subsection (1).

(3) “The suspension period” means the part of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games period which—

(a) begins with Sunday 27 July 2014, and

(b) ends with Sunday 3 August 2014.

(4) Where a shop worker gives an opting-out notice in the pre-Games period that relates to work at an exempted large shop, section 41(3), of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has effect as if the notice period in relation to the shop worker were the period which— Section 42(2) of that Act accordingly has effect in relation to the shop worker as if the reference to three months were a reference to the notice period as it is modified by subsection (1).

(a) begins with the day on which the notice is given, and

(b) ends two months after that day, or with Sunday 3 August 2014 (if that is later).

(5) Where the opting-out notice includes an express statement to the effect that the shop worker objects to Sunday working only during the suspension period, the shop worker is to be treated for the purposes of that Act as having given an opting-in notice at the end of that period.

(6) The “pre-Games period” is the period which—

(a) begins with the day on which this Act is passed, and

(b) ends with Sunday 3 August 2014.

(7) An “exempted large shop” is a shop to which paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 would apply during the suspension period were it not for the disapplication made by section 1(1).

(8) In this section—

(a) “opting-in notice”, “opting-out notice” and “shop worker” each have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and

(b) “suspension period” has the meaning given in section 1(3).”

New clause 13—Suspension of restriction on Sunday trading hours—

‘(1) Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 (which restricts Sunday opening at large shops) does not apply during the suspension period.

(2) But Schedule 3 to that Act (which restricts loading and unloading at large shops on Sunday mornings) is to apply during the suspension period to any shop to which it would apply during that period were it not for the disapplication made by subsection (1).

(3) “The suspension period” means the part of the Rugby World Cup 2015 period, which—

(a) begins with Sunday 20 September 2015, and

(b) ends with Sunday 25 October 2015.

(4) Where a shop worker gives an opting-out notice in the pre-Rugby Cup period that relates to work at an exempted large shop, section 41(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 has effect as if the notice period in relation to the shop worker were the period which—

(a) begins with the day on which the notice is given, and

(b) ends with Saturday 31 October 2015.

(5) Section 42(2) of that Act accordingly has effect in relation to the shop worker as if the reference to three months were a reference to the notice period as it is modified by subsection (1).

(6) Where the opting-out notice includes an express statement to the effect that the shop worker objects to Sunday working only during the suspension period, the shop worker is to be treated for the purposes of that Act as having given an opting-in notice at the end of that period.

(7) The “pre-Rugby Cup period” is the period which—

(a) begins on Friday 17 July 2015, and

(b) ends with Friday 11 September 2015.

(8) An “exempted large shop” is a shop to which paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Sunday Trading Act 1994 would apply during the suspension period were it not for the disapplication made by section 1(1).

(9) In this section—

(a) “opting-in notice”, “opting-out notice” and “shop worker” each have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996, and

(b) “suspension period” has the meaning given in section 1(3).”

New clause 14—Further exemption to Sunday trading hours: garden centres—

‘(1) The Sunday Trading Act 1994 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 3(1), after paragraph (k) at end insert—

“(l) any garden centres.”

Government new schedule 2—Poisons and explosives precursors.

Amendment 84, page 11, line 18, leave out clause 17.

Government amendment 12.

Amendment 85, page 24, line 11, leave out clauses 30 and 31.

Amendment 79, in clause 30, page 24, line 14, leave out from “State” to end of line 17 and insert

“in relation to England may include a requirement that applies only where a planning authority makes compliance with the requirement a condition of a grant of planning permission.”

Government amendments 80 to 83.

Amendment 2, in clause 30, page 24, line 42, at end insert—

‘(2) This section and section 31 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a Zero-Carbon Housing Strategy before both Houses of Parliament.”

Government amendments 16 to 18.

Amendment 64, page 50, line 30, leave out clauses 73 to 76.

This amendment removes the requirement on persons exercising a regulatory function to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth.

Amendment 66, in clause 73, page 50, line 33, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.

Amendment 67,  page 50, line 35, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.

Amendment 69,  page 50, line 37, leave out “only”.

This amendment makes it clear that a person exercising a regulatory function under this section must take regulatory action when needed.

Amendment 68, in clause 75, page 51, line 29, leave out “economic growth” and insert “sustainable development”.

Amendment 70, in clause 76, page 52, line 4, after “75”, insert

“sustainable development” means development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of existing communities and future generations to meet their own needs; and that contributes to the principles that the nation and areas within it should live within their environmental limits, should achieve a sustainable economy and should seek to ensure a strong, healthy and just society.”

This defines sustainable development in terms recommended by the Communities and Local Government Select Committee 2011 inquiry into the National Planning Policy Framework, which drew on the 2005 UK Sustainable Development Strategy.

Government amendments 76, 19, 21 and 77.

Amendment 3, in clause 80, page 53, line 38, at end insert

“, subject to the condition in subsection (2) of that section;”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 2.

Government amendments 25, 50, 52 to 54 and 57.

[The Solicitor-General]

This is a substantial group that covers a range of issues, from zero-carbon homes to outer space and back again via the right to buy. Let me begin with new clause 3.

In their growth review, published in March 2011, the Government set out their intention to reform the Outer Space Act 1986 by introducing an upper limit on liability for United Kingdom operators. The aim was to help to level the playing field for United Kingdom companies competing for international business. UK space operators have long argued that the unlimited liability placed on them by section 10 of the Act is very difficult to manage in terms of financing. Given the global nature of the space industry, that could result in work being lost to countries from outside the United Kingdom. The licensing regime enables the UK Government—among other things—to offset some of the unlimited liability to which they are exposed under the terms of the United Nations liability convention.

Section 10 of the Act requires licensees to indemnify the Government against any proven third-party costs resulting from their activities. That is an unlimited liability on licensees. As it is not possible to insure against unlimited liability, licensees are required to obtain third-party liability insurance both during the launch and while the satellite is in operation, with the UK Government a named beneficiary. If a claim were to exceed that amount, the Government could seek to recover the balance under section 10 of the Act.

In the growth review, the Government set out their intention of reforming the Act by introducing an upper limit on liability for UK operators. A two-part approach has been undertaken. Part 1—the announcement by the Minister for Universities and Science of a reduction in the compulsory insurance requirement from £100 million to €60 million—was well received. Part 2 involves a legislative change that will cap the unlimited liability at €60 million for the majority of missions. The chosen route for the achievement of that change would give the Secretary of State the power to set or vary the liability limit through the licensing regime, which will provide flexibility, and, we hope, lead to a level playing field. It may also help with the development of smaller satellite technology. CubeSats, for instance, offer lower-cost and possibly lower-risk access to space, along with growth opportunities for the UK.

New clause 6—which deals with mesothelioma—and amendment 19 introduce a power to enable Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to supply, without the need for a court order, the work history of deceased persons to their personal representatives and some dependants. That would be for the purpose of making a personal injury claim for the benefit of the deceased’s estate, or making a claim under fatal accidents legislation. The change will benefit the families and dependants of the deceased. It will enable them more quickly and easily to prove their claim for compensation against the person or organisation liable for the injury or death, including compensation for loss of dependency on the deceased. As I know that that proposal has all-party support, I do not intend to deal with it at greater length, but I will of course be happy to say more about it if that is required.

20:15

New clause 7 forms part of the Government’s good law initiative, and would allow different forms of subordinate legislation to be combined in a single statutory instrument when that is appropriate. Rules, regulations and orders could be combined in one statutory instrument. The rationale is that, currently, different forms of statutory instrument cannot generally be combined unless an Act gives an express power for the purpose. That remains the case even if they implement a single policy, or relate to the same subject matter.

The use of a variety of forms of statutory instruments to give effect to a single policy can result in a bewildering combination of different instruments, and can make things harder for users of legislation. Allowing different forms to be combined should create a much more coherent legislative story and policy narrative, while—we hope—reducing the number of administrative burdens and the amount of parliamentary time that is wasted.

New clause 20 concerns tenancy deposits. At this point, let me thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I have let him down once or twice during the Bill’s passage by not accepting his proposals, but on this occasion I want to thank him for tabling new clause 16. I also thank him for subsequently withdrawing it in favour of the technically correct new clause 20, with which, I understand, he is satisfied.

It was never intended that the tenancy deposit protection legislation should apply to a deposit received prior to the date on which legislation came into force in circumstances in which the tenancy subsequently rolled over and continued as a statutory periodic tenancy.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

For the purpose of clarification, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Let me also make it clear to the Minister that not only am I satisfied with the Government’s new clause, but it is, quite predictably, far better than the one that I originally tabled, and for that I am extremely grateful.

[The Solicitor-General]

I thank my hon. Friend for displaying his customary modesty.

[Philip Davies]

I have much to be modest about.

[The Solicitor-General]

I do not agree. I think that my hon. Friend makes a huge contribution in the House, although I do not always agree with him.

It was made clear in the briefing the Government published in 2007 that there was no intention of affecting prior deposits. It was also never the intention that landlords who had protected deposits and who had given their tenants information about that protection should then have to reissue the same information about the deposit protection each and every time the tenancy was renewed, although the same deposit would continue to be protected in the same scheme from one tenancy to the next. That, however, was the result of the Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of Superstrike Ltd v. Marino Rodrigues. As a result of that decision, a large number of landlords were at risk of court action and open to a financial penalty, despite having done what the sector and successive Governments considered to be the right thing. Our proposals are broadly similar to those made by my hon. Friend, and will protect landlords who follow Government and tenancy deposit scheme advice from financial penalties and delayed possession proceedings by providing a grace period and making other provision.

New clause 21 deals with short-term lets. It is aimed at an outdated, 40-year old law that restricts householders in London from being able temporarily to let out their homes, or even a spare room, for less than three months without having first secured planning permission for change of use. Currently, failure to secure planning permission in Greater London for short-term letting can result in a fine of up to £20,000. That is not the case in the rest of England, where property owners can let out their homes on a short-term basis without needing permission to do so.

During the 2012 Olympics while we were all encouraging visitors to come to London and join in the celebrations, some people who welcomed visitors into their homes were subject to enforcement action from London boroughs. That was not universal, but I do applaud the boroughs that entered into the spirit and encouraged residents to let out their homes or a spare room. Wimbledon is on at the moment, of course, and Londoners have traditionally rented out spare rooms and homes to people visiting the capital for the championships. The new clause enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to give London residents more of the freedoms enjoyed in other parts of the country.

I have discussed this with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). He made the point that sensitive handling is needed to ensure that regulations covering companies that sub-let regularly are not circumvented by these changes. The regulations have to be properly dealt with in a sensitive way.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I entirely agree with what the Minister says about the sensitivity of this matter and the importance of getting it right. The London property market’s problem at the moment is certainly not that it is too long term. With that in mind, does the Minister think there has been sufficient consultation and enough opportunity to consider the full implications, given that the proposal has been brought forward long after all the pre-legislative scrutiny has been finished?

[The Solicitor-General]

Clearly the regulations need to be carefully considered and proper consultation is needed to ensure that the effect of the measure, which is to give more freedom to individual householders, is respected while giving proper recognition in the policy to the difficulties the hon. Gentleman mentions, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington also brought to my attention.

[Mark Field]

I endorse the view stated earlier that a process of consultation began as recently as February on this issue and has not yet come to a close, so it feels a little strange that this measure has been rushed through in this Bill. That is the tenor of the concerns expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) as well. Why does the Minister think there is a different regime for London? Why was that put into place some 40 years ago and why is the time suddenly now right for it to be changed?

[The Solicitor-General]

As I think was said in another part of the country today, London is a super-city: it is an enormous city and it does have unique circumstances. The Government recognise the necessity of working with the London boroughs to design the provision to ensure we achieve the right balance between increasing the freedoms for Londoners and protecting London’s housing supply. We would not want that to be undermined. We are trying to ensure that speculators are not able to buy homes meant for Londoners and rent them permanently as short-term lets.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that central London authorities such as Westminster, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) will know, Kensington and Chelsea, Camden and Islington, backed almost unanimously by the amenity and neighbourhood associations in those boroughs, have all expressed extremely strong reservations about these proposals, precisely because of the fear that they will lead to a loss of residential stock in what are already highly stressed neighbourhoods?

[The Solicitor-General]

Yes, the Government are aware of that, and we have tried to respond, first of all by making the point, as the Department has done, that the London boroughs must be fully involved in the process and also by allowing the regulations to be subject to the affirmative procedure, which means that the hon. Lady and other colleagues will have an opportunity to consider the detail of the changes and whether they are appropriate.

Turning to Government new clauses 22 and 23, the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission are independent bodies established by Parliament and overseen by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. Currently, both bodies have to provide a five-year corporate plan. The Committee has reviewed governance and suggested a five-year corporate plan should be produced in the first financial year of a Parliament, and the duty to update it and produce a new plan on an annual basis should be removed, although the Committee would retain the right to request updated plans outside this cycle. Value for money studies would take place at the beginning of the five-year period, not annually, and provision would be made to allow the Local Government Boundary Commission to appoint independent members to its audit committee and other committees. These changes are supported by the Electoral Commission and the Local Government Boundary Commission.

I shall now turn—briefly—to the subject of poisons and explosives precursors. New clause 24 introduces the new schedule inserted by new schedule 2, which abolishes the statutory requirement for a poisons board under the Poisons Act 1972 and introduces a common licensing system for poisons and explosive precursors to streamline the regimes and bring them into line with the latest EU regulations.

I am sure the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) will wish to comment on new clause 8 and the preserved right to buy and the idea that within one year of Royal Assent a plan should be laid to replace homes that have been sold under right to buy and review the effectiveness of it. Since the revitalisation of right to buy, 19,500 households have achieved their home ownership aspirations, but this is not just about buying; it is also about building. More than £419 million from the right-to-buy sales has been ring-fenced to fund new homes, and I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to keeping the reinvigorated right-to-buy scheme under review.

The impact assessment sets out a wider perspective on right to buy and how the policy will work. The Department for Communities and Local Government publishes quarterly statistics on right-to-buy sales in England and annual statistics on preserved right-to-buy, and live data tables are on the Department’s website. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that, on future stock transfers, the Department for Communities and Local Government has recently published a stock transfer manual. So the Government have set out their position very clearly and the intention is that for transfers completing after 30 September 2014, net proceeds from preserved right-to-buy sales are, within three years, to be used to fund new affordable housing at no greater subsidy cost than under the main affordable homes programme.

[Caroline Lucas]

Not enough of that money is properly ring-fenced, and it has been estimated that only about one in every seven homes sold through right to buy has been replaced by more affordable housing. Is the Minister as shocked as I am to discover that in one London borough a third of the council homes sold in the 1980s are now owned by private landlords, some of whom own dozens of properties that they now rent back at very high rents?

[The Solicitor-General]

Of course we can always ask for more, but the point I would make to the hon. Lady is that that one in seven figure is misleading, because the money we are talking about is from extra sales, over and above the profile, and as far as that is concerned, this very considerable sum has been set aside. We are confident that over the next three years we will get the sorts of results I described.

On new clauses 10 to 14 on Sunday trading, I am afraid this time I am going to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, although I will not go on at great length as I am hoping he might have a chance to speak about this. The interests of smaller retailers, the working hours of employees, the effect of extra lorry traffic and the need to have some family day consideration lead the Government to the view that the current balance does not need changing, although it was for the Olympics, and very successfully so.

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

Does the Solicitor-General agree that with 77% of the public supporting the current regime, it would be madness to change the plans in place now?

20:30

[The Solicitor-General]

I would never describe my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley’s plans as mad, but on this occasion I do not agree with them.

Turning to Government amendment 12 and the amendments to remove clause 17, we had a lively debate about insolvency practitioners in Committee. Of course, the profession deserves a great deal of credit for the good work it does in rescuing struggling businesses that still have a viable future, saving jobs and preserving value in the economy. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said in Committee, the World Bank rates our Insolvency Service the seventh best in the world, and it is a service that other countries admire. This has been achieved through innovative policy developments, and we believe that the one we are discussing now—the system of partial authorisation introduced by clause 17 —is a positive development for the sector, for the profession, for creditors and for insolvent companies and individuals.

The proposed system will reduce barriers to entry by enabling would-be insolvency practitioners to qualify in respect of only corporate or personal insolvency; if they want to, they can continue to do both, but those who wish to specialise will benefit from shorter training periods and lower training costs. That will increase competition and bring down fees, and the profession will benefit too. If a firm decides to fund someone through qualification, it will cost them less than it does now. The amount of money involved is substantial: BPP, the leading provider of professional training, charges £3,470 for each of the three courses needed for the professional examinations, and there are many fees on top of that, so we are talking about significant sums—not hundreds of pounds but thousands. The Government have heard arguments against partial authorisation, but have decided to continue with the policy.

Amendment 85, which would remove clause 30, is misguided. It is intended primarily to halt the Government’s proposed changes to the Planning and Energy Act 2008 and is based on a misunderstanding of what we are doing. It would bring to an end all the excellent work we have undertaken with industry and many interested bodies in the sustainability, access and environmental sectors to rationalise the plethora of local standards by regularising them through the building control system. It would also leave in place the considerable range of excessive and ill-considered costs imposed on the housing industry by some local authorities. These standards are holding back development and are a mess.

On journalistic materials, I did promise earlier that we would introduce extensions to the power of the criminal procedure rules to cover the procedure for making certain sorts of applications, ensuring that journalists do not lose any of the statutory protections they currently have.

I need not address the remaining minor and technical amendments at this stage. I am sorry to have taken up so much of the House’s time, but this is a big group of amendments.

[Toby Perkins]

I begin by drawing the House’s attention to my declaration of interests.

The fact that the Solicitor-General had to whistle through so many new clauses and amendments says a tremendous amount about the Bill and the way the Government have approached it. We have 49 minutes to debate 43 different new clauses, amendments and new schedules. It is an absolute disgrace and an affront to democracy that this House is being asked to whistle through the approval of very important measures that this Government have brought before us at a moment’s notice.

The Bill was originally an unambitious, predominantly inconsequential list of minor changes to the way we sell yarn and chocolate liqueurs that most people would not much mind or particularly appreciate, mixed in with a few substantially more dangerous provisions. However, it has morphed almost daily into a leviathan of a Bill with a multitude of ill-thought-out, scarcely consulted on clauses, the aims of which are unclear, the consequences of which are uncertain, the benefits of which are unproven, and the coherence of which is absolutely impossible to fathom. If this is the final piece of legislation this Government introduce, it will be a fitting climax for them: unloved, owned by no one, with few advocates, whose central purpose has long since been obscured, and who exist now only to be seen to be doing something, in the hope that, if they hang around for a bit, the polls might take a turn for the better.

The ultimate summary of the Government’s approach was heard when the Solicitor-General said in response to the very reasonable criticisms of his previous Bill that we are where we are. In fact, the Deregulation Bill could be the “we are where we are” Bill. Virtually no one is speaking up for it or offering much in the way of support for it.

We oppose clause 17 because we believe it will dumb down the profession. As the Solicitor-General rightly said, we have one of the best insolvency professions in the world. The Bill will de-professionalise what is a very successful profession. It will give an advantage to large insolvency firms, working against the smaller firms and new entrants to the market that Members on both sides of this House profess to support. In Committee, we warned that this change would represent a regulatory move, rather than a deregulatory one. Throughout their response, the Government were unable to come up with any serious support for the Bill.

The Solicitor-General said that the purpose of the Bill—its benefit—was to save money. When he was asked about that in Committee, he said that it costs £4,000 for each of these exams, and if someone only has to do two of them, they will save £4,000. He was also very critical of the insolvency profession, and then suggested that that saving will be passed on to the customers of insolvency practitioners. Many practitioners have been in the industry for some 20 years. The idea that, 20 years later, they are going to give some sort of discount because back then they saved themselves £4,000 bears no scrutiny.

In Committee, the Solicitor-General described responses to the consultation on this change as “mixed”. That was an extraordinarily generous euphemism. Excluding the Secretary of State, just one out of seven recognised professional bodies in the field supports partial licences, and 75% of small firms undertake both corporate and personal insolvency procedures for commercial reasons, so it is the large players that are likely to be able to adopt partial licences. If any of the benefits that the Solicitor-General has laid out actually come to pass—I strongly suspect they will not—they will exclude small players from the insolvency market and make it very much the preserve of large companies. He is setting out to dumb down the profession rated by the World Bank as the seventh best in the world, judged on the basis of the amount returned to creditors and the speed of the process—two key aspects we would expect an insolvency regime to have. When I asked a turnaround specialist from Germany who was working in Chesterfield why he was working in the UK rather than back in his homeland, he told me, “Because your insolvency regime is so much better than ours.” He gave a list of reasons why we should be proud of what we have. Amazingly, this Government are coming to this House to make changes that would de-professionalise something that is tremendously successful and which do not enjoy the support of the industry. The major trade body representing insolvency practitioners calls for clause 17 to be not amended but scrapped, yet the Solicitor-General says he is doing this on behalf of the industry. This is a bizarre set of circumstances.

The Solicitor-General will be creating a three-tier system where, rather than there being one set of exams, people will operate in three different ways. The implications for Scotland, whose insolvency regime is very different, have not been laid out. Our amendment would delete the clause. Even if one accepts the Government’s arguments on personal insolvency specialists not needing corporate insolvency, saying in reverse that people who do corporate insolvency, which will often involve aspects of personal insolvency, do not need to have studied personal insolvency is bizarre. We think the Government are very misguided, as does the industry, and we strongly call on them to do the right thing, support our amendment and drop this clause.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) want to discuss their proposals, and despite the lack of scrutiny that these clauses will get, I will ensure that they get an opportunity to do so. However, I shall quickly speak on those measures from the Front Bench.

On Sunday trading, I support entirely what the Minister said, and I will not be supporting new clauses 10 to 14 for the following reasons: the Government promised that their emergency legislation for the Olympics was not a Trojan horse leading to further liberalisation of Sunday trading hours; the importance of Sunday trading legislation for employees; the broad, cross-party coalition supporting our current legislation in this area; the impact these proposed changes would have on small businesses and the convenience sector, which is very much under pressure; and the fact that these measures are being proposed in the way that they are, without any consultation on an issue that divides opinion tremendously. All those things mean that this Bill is entirely the wrong place for such measures to be introduced.

On new clauses 20 and 21, the Labour party is, as we said previously, absolutely committed to greater security for tenants and a long-term approach to the private rented market. It is revealing that at a time when the Labour party is proposing policies that will give tenants more security and certainty in their tenure, the Government are introducing something that specifically encourages more shorter-term lets. Just because their priorities are wrong, it does not mean that, individually, there is no merit in these new clauses, but they need to be considered carefully. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has made a strong case, and London Members from across the House are deeply concerned that the London letting market does not suffer from the problem of being too long term. I am very concerned that there should be proper consultation on these new clauses.

We think that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion is important. We are very conscious that the Green party leader of Brighton council recently slammed the entire principle of right to buy, describing it as the

“biggest privatisation programme this country has ever seen.”

Right to buy is important. We need to help people who otherwise would not be able to access the housing market, as with so many in Cameron’s Britain; in 1997, it took the average family three years to save for a deposit on a home but now it takes about 22 years. Given that catastrophic record of this Government, in particular, it is important that right to buy is available, but it is also important that these properties are replaced.

As I have said, this group contains a huge number of measures. We will seek to divide the House on amendments 84 and 2. It is entirely wrong that Members have had so little time to discuss this group, but in order to give people the opportunity to discuss their proposals, I will leave my comments there.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We have six speakers and 17 minutes left.

[Philip Davies]

I will be brief and do not intend to put any of my new clauses to the vote. My new clauses 10 to 14 deal with Sunday trading. They would completely liberalise the Sunday trading laws—that is what I would prefer—extend the current arrangements or put them on a more temporary basis. This country’s Sunday trading laws are out of date and absurd—they are completely unjustifiable. People talk about defending small shops, as the shadow Minister did, and say, “This measure helps small shops.” He has to realise that the world has moved on. The small convenience shops that are open on a Sunday are not Mr Miggins’s pie shop or Mrs Miggins’s greengrocers; the small convenience stores being protected by the current Sunday trading laws are Tesco Express, Sainsbury’s Local and Morrison’s Local.

Companies such as Tesco are probably quite pleased with the current arrangements, because they do not have to open their bigger stores, which sell goods at much lower prices. They can close the big stores and force everyone to go along to their small shops, where everyone has to pay a hugely inflated price for their shopping. Companies such as Asda cannot compete. The Labour party keeps saying, “We are concerned about the cost of living.” There is a cost of living crisis in this country, and what does it do? It opposes the measure that would have a massive effect on reducing the prices in the shops for people who shop on a Sunday. People are forced to go to higher priced shops such as Tesco Express rather than shop at a bigger store. It is absurd.

20:45

I would like the arrangements in Scotland to be put in place here. Scotland has full liberalisation. Has the sky fallen in? There are many religious people, including Catholics and Protestants, in Scotland. They seem quite happy with the current arrangements. Has anyone heard of any big issues?

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the choice as to whether someone attends church or goes shopping is the same choice regardless of the number of hours that larger shops can remain open?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know that he is a church warden. Most church services on a Sunday are at 10 or 11 o’clock in the morning when the shops are open.

[Gavin Shuker]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I will press on because various people wish to speak. If we extended the Sunday trading hours there would be more opportunity for people to go to church at 10 or 11 o’clock on a Sunday morning.

[Gavin Shuker]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I will not give way because others wish to speak. I am trying to ensure that other Members can get in.

Then we hear that this is all about protecting the workers. Again, that is an absurd argument. First, what about those people who want to work on a Sunday? I am talking about young people who are desperate to get a foot on the ladder and cannot get a job on a Sunday. The current regulations are depriving them of that. What a ridiculous situation. The Minister and shadow Minister say it is absolutely fine for people who work in a Tesco Express to work every hour that God sends on a Sunday. They can work from 6 am to 11 pm, yet if they worked in a big Tesco, they would have to be protected from working those long hours. It is a completely absurd argument. With the high street facing competition from the internet, we must give our shops the opportunity to compete. People can shop at all hours on the internet—[Interruption.] I will be two seconds, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am coming to a close. People can shop for any amount of time at Waitrose on the internet, or have their goods delivered at any hour on a Sunday, but they cannot go into a Waitrose to shop. Workers can take the orders online, but they cannot work in a shop. It is a completely absurd situation.

My final amendment is about garden centres, which cannot open on a Sunday. I want people to think about that, because most garden centres are very small businesses. They might be big in area, but they are often small one-man bands. I do not see why they should be lumped in with companies such as Asda, Tesco or Morrisons, when they are only small businesses. I will leave my remarks there.

[Caroline Lucas]

I have tabled a number of amendments in this group, but given that we are so pressed for time, I will speak to just one of them, new clause 8, which I hope to press to a vote.

I am deeply concerned about the lack of affordable housing, which is yet another indictment of this Government, who have turned their back on “generation rent”. Housing is undoubtedly at the heart of the concerns of my constituents in Brighton. That message comes across clearly from conversations on our city streets, in my surgeries and from the e-mails and letters I receive.

In addition to tackling things such as letting fees, housing standards and security of tenure in the private rented sector, it is absolutely crucial that we ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing. Yet this coalition’s slapdash, ill-thought-out approach to right to buy is undermining this. The Bill, as currently drafted, would reduce the eligibility period for the right to buy from five years to three years. Giving local authority tenants and some housing association tenants the opportunity to buy their home at a discounted price is not a bad thing in itself, but only on the strict condition that it does not jeopardise affordable housing supply, including the ability of housing associations to build new affordable housing.

The new clause would require the Government to produce a plan to replace affordable homes lost in England as a result of right to buy, review the effectiveness of current policy and ask for an assessment to be carried out of changes since 2012 before further policy changes are made. Around 1.8 million households are waiting for a social home, which is an increase of 81% since 1997. The reality of right to buy is about much more than families being able to own their home. Last year, it was revealed that rich landowners are cashing in, buying up multiple ex-council properties and renting them back to people on endless housing waiting lists. In one London borough, as I said earlier, a third of council homes sold in the 1980s are now owned by private landlords, some of whom own dozens of properties.

Far too often, the rich, not the poor, are the real beneficiaries of housing benefit. Currently, only one in every seven homes sold through right to buy has been replaced, and I find it astonishing that the Government are so complacent that they are not even monitoring the number of homes replaced following the preserved right to buy. Housing associations say that, in fact, the number is likely to be even less than one in seven. It is inexcusable that Ministers have not even consulted housing associations, which provide 2.5 million homes to more than 5 million people.

We are a rich country. If we are serious about tackling the housing crisis, we need a major programme of direct capital investment to build sustainable council housing, and the constraints on borrowing faced by local authorities should be lifted, so that councils can better meet demand for new homes. We must not inhibit the ability of housing associations to build more homes. This would ease pressure on the private market and, in turn, help rent levels and housing prices. Instead, we have the appalling situation where we are paying housing benefit to private landlords at extortionate market rates for good houses that once belonged to the taxpayer. It is a scandal.

Today, house prices speak for themselves. In my constituency, the average one-bedroom flat costs nearly six and three-quarter times the median household annual income, and three-bedroom houses cost more than 12 times. That is why I hope that people will support my new clause.

[Mark Field]

I think I speak on behalf of the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) when I express some concerns about what appears to be the anomalous situation in London with the short-term letting of residential properties. These proposals have caused enormous concern among communities in the heart of our capital.

The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 was originally introduced to ensure that London’s permanent housing stock would be protected from strong market pressure to convert homes into visitor accommodation, and was deemed wholly necessary to deal with the acute housing shortage that London was then experiencing. At that time, London had a population of some 7.5 million and declining. Its population now stands at 8.2 million and, as all London MPs know, increases at a breath-taking annual rate. It needs to be recognised that allowing greater flexibility to change use from permanent residential occupation to short-term letting will have significant implications for London’s stock of permanent housing. It may make it impossible for our local authorities to meet their targets for new homes.

My constituents have very good reason to believe that a loosening of the rules governing short lets, as set out in this somewhat ill-thought-through new clause 21, will make it much harder to keep their buildings safe, secure and well maintained. It risks undermining a sense of community that can be all too difficult to build in an essentially transient urban population. In fact, London’s hyper-mobility and hyper-diversity get greater year by year. It will make it far more difficult for local authorities to deal with noise and antisocial behaviour. Above all, it threatens to make central London homes, already traded by many people as some sort of global currency, into little more than assets to be exploited for maximum profit.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will be a little briefer than I would have ideally liked, but I am extremely obliged to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak to amendment 2, which stands in my name. It would prevent the Government stopping local authorities specifying a higher standard of energy efficiency in new build properties until after the zero-carbon homes policy came into effect. To be clear, the Bill is intended to prevent local authorities from having autonomy, and my amendment would ensure that local authorities must adhere to as high a standard as possible.

The UK’s housing stock is the least efficient in Europe. As a result, we have some of the worst fuel poverty statistics in Europe—only Estonia does worse than we do at the moment—because our housing stock is so old. A great deal of the discussions that take place here are about the challenge of retrofitting, whether through supplier obligations or things such as the green deal. Surely that puts a premium on us to ensure that the new build standards are as high as possible.

The Labour Government introduced the zero-carbon homes policy, with the intention of implementing it by 2016. It was an excellent policy, with a clear implementation framework that allowed the private sector to produce the plans to deliver it. This Government have successfully undermined that policy. The definition was changed substantially some time ago, and that was further diluted in the Queen’s Speech. I am afraid that I do not have a great deal of faith in this Government’s Department for Communities and Local Government to deliver zero-carbon homes, but even if the Government tried to do so, what would happen between now and 2016?

Many people will take a localist view, to which I am sympathetic. The constituency I represent covers a substantial part of the green belt between Greater Manchester and Derbyshire, and if that green belt comes under pressure from new build, I believe we should be able to argue that the standard should be as high as possible for those homes. However, I appreciate that that would widen the debate too much, and I hope that a focus on preventing clause 30 from coming into effect until zero-carbon homes are in operation will command as much support as possible.

Of course, if the Government are sincere in backing zero-carbon homes, they have nothing to fear from my amendment—it would make no difference to a Government committed to delivering an ambitious zero-carbon homes policy in 2016. However, the issues of sustainability, efficient use of energy, and fuel poverty, as well as public acceptance of new build housing, which affects all of us, are so important that I will, with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, seek to divide the House on my amendment, as well as appeal to the other place to give the matter the due attention it deserves.

[Ms Buck]

I want briefly to reinforce the points made by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) relating to concerns about the impact that the relaxation of the rules on short-term letting proposed by new clause 21 will have.

Most of the inner-London local authorities, across the parties, and the amenity and residential associations in Westminster have raised three main objections to the relaxation of the rules. The first relates to the loss of residential stock. As we have heard, the pressure on inner-London residential stock is already acute, and the amount of money involved in the hotel and tourism trade is such that the sector is already eroding extremely rapidly. A further relaxation of the rules is likely to lead to a further diminution of stock in areas such as Lancaster Gate, Bayswater, Maida Vale and St John’s Wood in my constituency and, of course, in south Westminster.

The second issue is the cost involved and the resources needed for enforcement. We already know from Westminster council that, as the rules stand, an average of about 500 enforcement actions have been taken against short-term lets. The Government’s proposed rule change is likely to make it even more difficult and even more expensive for local authorities to enforce the rules. They will have to demonstrate not that a property is being let short term, but that it is in habitual short-term use, which is a much more difficult and higher bar to overcome, and it is likely to lead to a burden on council tax and resources.

The third issue relates to residential properties such as mansion blocks, which are very attractive properties for the purpose of short-term letting. The rapid turnover of tenants resulting from short-term lets means that a sense of neighbourliness and community is being eroded. It also leads to a higher incidence of antisocial behaviour, such as problems with noise and rubbish collection. That is not necessarily because the tenants or holidaymakers are antisocial, but simply, in common with boarding houses, bed and breakfasts and hotels, because the situation generates more of that kind of behaviour. That will also lead to additional problems, and there are real concerns.

Of course, we do not want to have to take enforcement action. The classic example, raised on the back of the Olympics, is that people might want to do a home swap or let their property for a fortnight.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I think that all inner-London MPs will agree with my hon. Friend and her fellow Westminster MP, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field). The consequences may be unintended, but they will put more pressure on the private and rented market, where at the moment nobody is able to get a property with decent rent. This will simply make things more difficult and more complicated in that market.

[Ms Buck]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend—those are exactly what the consequences will be. No one wants enforcement action to be taken against someone who lets their home for a few days or a couple of weeks, or who does a home swap, but there will be unintended consequences in a high-value, high-turnover and high-pressured area such as central London. Kensington and Westminster councils have made it clear that it is not those sorts of letters against whom they would take enforcement action, but the persistent trade in short-term lets. I hope the Government will think very carefully when they draw up the regulations for the enforcement of this particular provision.

[Mr Nuttall]

Whether Sunday is special or not is a personal choice everyone must make for themselves. Let us not forget that for some people, choosing to go shopping on a Sunday evening may be what makes Sunday special for them. Personally, I hope that they will choose to go to church on a Sunday morning, but that is a matter for them. I hope that, regardless of the number of hours that a larger shop remains open, individuals will decide for themselves whether to go to church or to go shopping. It is a matter for them and—

21:00

It being one hour before the moment of interruption, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, 14 May.)

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

New clause 3 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 6

Power of HMRC to disclose information for purposes of certain litigation

‘(1) The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may disclose information held by them—

(a) to a person who is entitled to bring proceedings under the fatal accidents legislation or for whose benefit such proceedings may be brought, for use in connection with the proceedings or in reaching a settlement without the need to bring proceedings;

(b) to a person who is entitled to bring proceedings for damages for personal injury for the benefit of the estate of a deceased person, for use in connection with the proceedings or in reaching a settlement without the need to bring proceedings;

(c) to a person who has made or who wishes to make an application for a payment under the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme on the basis that he or she is eligible for such a payment under section 3 of the Mesothelioma Act 2014 (eligibility of dependants for payments under the Scheme), for use in connection with the application.

(2) “The fatal accidents legislation” means—

(a) the Fatal Accidents Act 1976;

(b) the Fatal Accidents (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (S.I. 1977/1251 (N.I. 18));

(c) section 4 of the Damages (Scotland) Act 2011.’—(The Solicitor-General.)

This amendment allows Revenue and Customs officials to disclose information HMRC holds to persons entitled to make claims under fatal accidents legislation, to persons entitled to bring proceedings for personal injury for the benefit of a deceased person’s estate or to persons claiming to be eligible under section 3 of the Mesothelioma Act 2014 for a payment under the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

Combining different forms of subordinate legislation

‘(1) Any provision that may be made by order, regulations or rules made by statutory instrument may be made by any other of those forms of legislation made by statutory instrument.

(2) Subsection (1) does not affect the procedure for making the instrument.

(3) A reference in any enactment or other instrument to an order, regulations or rules under an enactment (however expressed) includes a reference to provision made under it because of subsection (1).

(4) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to any power of the Welsh Ministers to make provision by statutory instrument.’—(The Solicitor-General.)

This clause allows powers to make an order, regulations or rules to be used to make a combined instrument. At the moment it is sometimes necessary to make several instruments on a single topic because the enabling powers are expressed differently. In appropriate cases, using a single instrument would allow the legislation to be set out in a more coherent way and in one place.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20

Tenancy deposits

‘In Chapter 4 of Part 6 of the Housing Act 2004 (Tenancy Deposit Schemes), after section 215 insert—

“215A Statutory periodic tenancies: deposit received before 6 April 2007

(1) This section applies where—

(a) before 6 April 2007, a tenancy deposit has been received by a landlord in connection with a fixed term shorthold tenancy, and

(b) on or after that date, a periodic shorthold tenancy is deemed to arise under section 5 of the Housing Act 1988 on the coming to an end of the fixed term tenancy.

(2) If, on the commencement date—

(a) the periodic tenancy is in existence, and

(b) all or part of the deposit paid in connection with the fixed term tenancy continues to be held in connection with the periodic tenancy,

section 213 applies in respect of the deposit that continues to be held in connection with the periodic tenancy, and any additional deposit held in connection with that tenancy, with the modifications set out in subsection (3).

(3) The modifications are that, instead of the things referred to in section 213(3) and (5) being required to be done within the time periods set out in section 213(3) and (6)(b), those things are required to be done—

(a) before the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the commencement date, or

(b) (if earlier) before the first day after the commencement date on which a court does any of the following in respect of the periodic tenancy—

(i) determines an application under section 214 or decides an appeal against a determination under that section;

(ii) makes a determination as to whether to make an order for possession in proceedings under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 or decides an appeal against such a determination.

(4) If, on the commencement date—

(a) the periodic tenancy is no longer in existence, or

(b) no deposit continues to be held in connection with the periodic tenancy,

the requirements of section 213(3), (5) and (6) are treated as if they had been complied with by the landlord in respect of any deposit that was held in connection with the periodic tenancy.

(5) In this section and sections 215B to 215D “the commencement date” means the date on which section(Tenancy deposits)of the Deregulation Act 2014 is fully in force in England and Wales.

215B Statutory periodic tenancies: deposit received on or after 6 April 2007

(1) This section applies where—

(a) on or after 6 April 2007, a tenancy deposit has been received by a landlord in connection with a fixed term shorthold tenancy,

(b) the requirements of section 213(3), (5) and (6) have been complied with by the landlord in respect of the deposit held in connection with the fixed term tenancy,

(c) a periodic shorthold tenancy is deemed to arise under section 5 of the Housing Act 1988 on the coming to an end of the fixed term tenancy, and

(d) when the periodic tenancy arises, the deposit paid in connection with the fixed term tenancy continues to be held—

(i) in connection with the periodic tenancy, and

(ii) in accordance with the same authorised scheme as when the requirements of section 213(3), (5) and (6) were last complied with in respect of it.

(2) The requirements of section 213(3), (5) and (6) are treated as if they had been complied with by the landlord in respect of the deposit held in connection with the periodic tenancy.

215C Renewed fixed term or contractual periodic tenancies: deposit received on or after 6 April 2007

(1) This section applies where—

(a) on or after 6 April 2007, a tenancy deposit has been received by a landlord in connection with a shorthold tenancy (“the original tenancy”),

(b) the requirements of section 213(5) and (6) have been complied with by the landlord in respect of the deposit held in connection with the original tenancy,

(c) a new fixed term or periodic shorthold tenancy (“the new tenancy”) comes into being on the coming to an end of the original tenancy or a tenancy that replaces the original tenancy,

(d) the new tenancy is not one that is deemed to arise under section 5 of the Housing Act 1988,

(e) the new tenancy replaces the original tenancy, and

(f) when the new tenancy comes into being, the deposit paid in connection with the original tenancy continues to be held—

(i) in connection with the new tenancy, and

(ii) in accordance with the same authorised scheme as when the requirements of section 213(5) and (6) were last complied with in respect of it.

(2) The requirements of section 213(5) and (6) are treated as if they had been complied with by the landlord in respect of the deposit held in connection with the new tenancy.

(3) The condition in subsection (1)(a) may be met in respect of a tenancy even if—

(a) it replaces an earlier tenancy, and

(b) the tenancy deposit was first received in connection with the earlier tenancy (either before or after 6 April 2007).

(4) For the purposes of this section, a tenancy replaces another tenancy if—

(a) the landlord and tenant under the later tenancy are the same as under the earlier tenancy, and

(b) the premises let under the later tenancy are the same or substantially the same as those let under the earlier tenancy.

215D Sections 215A to 215C: transitional provisions

(1) Sections 215A to 215C are treated as having had effect since 6 April 2007, subject to the following provisions of this section.

(2) Sections 215A to 215C do not have effect in relation to—

(a) a claim under section 214 of this Act or section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 in respect of a tenancy which is settled before the commencement date (whether or not proceedings in relation to the claim have been instituted), or

(b) proceedings under either of those sections in respect of a tenancy which have been finally determined before the commencement date.

(3) Subsection (5) applies in respect of a tenancy if—

(a) proceedings under section 214 in respect of the tenancy have been instituted before the commencement date but have not been settled or finally determined before that date, and

(b) because of section 215A(4), 215B(2) or section 215C(2), the court decides—

(i) not to make an order under section 214(4) in respect of the tenancy, or

(ii) to allow an appeal by the landlord against such an order.

(4) Subsection (5) also applies in respect of a tenancy if—

(a) proceedings for possession under section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 in respect of the tenancy have been instituted before the commencement date but have not been settled or finally determined before that date, and

(b) because of section 215A(4), 215B(2) or 215C(2), the court decides—

(i) to make an order for possession under that section in respect of the tenancy, or

(ii) to allow an appeal by the landlord against a refusal to make such an order.

(5) Where this subsection applies, the court must not order the tenant or any relevant person (as defined by section 213(10)) to pay the landlord’s costs, to the extent that the court reasonably considers those costs are attributable to the proceedings under section 214 or (as the case may be) section 21 of the Housing Act 1988.

(6) Proceedings have been “finally determined” for the purposes of this section if —

(a) they have been determined by a court, and

(b) there is no further right to appeal against the determination.

(7) There is no further right to appeal against a court determination if there is no right to appeal against the determination, or there is such a right but—

(a) the time limit for making an appeal has expired without an appeal being brought, or

(b) an appeal brought within that time limit has been withdrawn.”’—(The Solicitor-General.)

Where the tenancy deposit protection requirements have been complied with by a landlord for a tenancy, this amendment means they do not need to be complied with again for a replacement tenancy. Where those requirements did not apply to the first tenancy, and a replacement statutory periodic tenancy is still in place, the amendment provides extra time for compliance.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

Short-term use of London accommodation: power to relax restrictions

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for circumstances in which the use as temporary sleeping accommodation of any residential premises in Greater London does not involve a material change of use by virtue of section 25(1) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973.

(2) Regulations under this section may also make provision for and in connection with enabling the Secretary of State or a local planning authority to direct that provision included in the regulations by virtue of subsection (1) does not apply to particular residential premises or to residential premises situated in a particular area.

(3) Regulations under this section may amend the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973.

(4) Regulations under this section may—

(a) make different provision for different purposes;

(b) include incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision.

(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(6) In this section, “local planning authority” has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (see section 336(1) of that Act).’—(The Solicitor-General.)

Section 25 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 provides that the use as temporary sleeping accommodation of residential premises in Greater London involves a material change of use of the premises (with the result that planning permission is required). This amendment allows the Secretary of State to make secondary legislation specifying circumstances when this does not apply (so that planning permission is not required).

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

Electoral Commission: changes to facilitate efficient administration

‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (the Electoral Commission) is amended as follows.

(2) Paragraph 15 (five-year plan) is amended as set out in subsections (3) and (4).

(3) In sub-paragraph (1), after “paragraph 14” insert “in respect of the first financial year to begin after the day on which Parliament meets for the first time following a parliamentary general election,”.

(4) After that sub-paragraph insert—

“(1A) The Speaker’s Committee may require the Commission to submit a plan under sub-paragraph (1) when the Commission submit such an estimate as is mentioned in paragraph 14 in respect of a financial year other than one mentioned in that sub-paragraph.”

(5) In paragraph 16 (annual examination of Commission by Comptroller and Auditor General), in sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) after “paragraphs 14 and 15” insert “in respect of any year when both an estimate under paragraph 14 and a five-year plan under paragraph 15 are submitted to them,”;

(b) for “in each year” substitute “before the Committee consider the estimate and plan”.

(6) In the cross-heading preceding paragraph 16, for “Annual examination” substitute “Examination”.’—(The Solicitor-General.)

Currently, there is an annual requirement for the Electoral Commission to produce a five-year plan and for the Comptroller and Auditor General to provide an audit report on the Commission. The new clause alters this so that the requirements to produce a five-year plan and an audit report apply in respect of the first year of a new Parliament and subsequently as required by the Speaker’s Committee.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

LGBC for England: changes to facilitate efficient administration

‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (Local Government Boundary Commission for England) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 5 (committees), for sub-paragraph (3) substitute—

“(3) A committee established under this paragraph to review the economy, efficiency or effectiveness with which the Commission has used its resources, or any sub-committee of such a committee, may include up to two people who are not also members of the Commission (“independent members”).

(4) The Commission may not appoint as an independent member anyone who would be ineligible for appointment as a member of the Commission because of paragraph 1(3).

(5) An independent member must be appointed on such terms and conditions, including terms and conditions as to remuneration, as the Commission may determine.

(6) Except as provided by sub-paragraph (3), only a member of the Commission may be a member of one of its committees or sub-committees.”

(3) Paragraph 12 (five-year plan) is amended as set out in subsections (4) and (5).

(4) In sub-paragraph (1), after “paragraph 11” insert “in respect of the first financial year to begin after the day on which Parliament meets for the first time following a parliamentary general election”.

(5) After that sub-paragraph insert—

“(1A) The Speaker’s Committee may require the Commission to submit a plan under sub-paragraph (1) when the Commission submits such an estimate as is mentioned in paragraph 11 in respect of a financial year other than one mentioned in that sub-paragraph.”

(6) In paragraph 13 (annual examination by Comptroller and Auditor General), in sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) for “For the purposes of paragraphs 11 and 12” substitute “For the purpose of assisting the Speaker’s Committee to discharge their functions under paragraphs 11 and 12 in respect of any year when both an estimate under paragraph 11 and a five-year plan under paragraph 12 are submitted to them,”;

(b) for “in each year” substitute “before the Committee consider the estimate and plan”.

(7) In the cross-heading preceding paragraph 13, for “Annual examination” substitute “Examination”.’—(The Solicitor-General.)

This new clause enables the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to appoint independent members to its audit committee. It also changes the current annual requirement for the production of a five-year plan and an audit report to a requirement in respect of the first year of a new Parliament and subsequently as required by the Speaker’s Committee.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

Poisons and explosives precursors

‘Schedule (Poisons and explosives precursors) introduces a common system for regulating the possession etc of non-medicinal poisons and explosives precursors.’—(The Solicitor-General.)

This amendment introduces the new Schedule inserted by new schedule NS2. This abolishes the statutory requirement for a Poisons Board under the Poisons Act 1972 and introduces a common licensing regime for poisons and explosives precursors in order to streamline the regimes established under the Poisons Act 1972 and under EU Regulation 98/2013 (on the marketing and use of explosives precursors).

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

Replacing homes lost through the Preserved Right to Buy

‘(1) Within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a plan to—

(a) replace the homes lost through the Preserved Right to Buy;

(b) review the effectiveness of the current Right to Buy policy.

(2) Before making any further changes to Right to Buy, the Secretary of State must carry out and publish an assessment of the impact of Right to Buy policy on affordable housing supply since 2012.’—(Caroline Lucas.)

This new clause would require the Minister to produce a plan to replace affordable homes lost in England as a result of Right to Buy, review the effectiveness of current policy and carry out an assessment of changes since 2012 before making further policy changes.

Brought up.

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.

21:01

Division 14

Ayes: 208

---

Labour: 203
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 274

---

Conservative: 232
Liberal Democrat: 42

New Schedule 2

“Poisons and explosives precursors

Abolition of Poisons Board

2 (1) The Poisons Board is abolished.

(2) As a result—

(a) in the Poisons Act 1972, omit section 1 and Schedule 1, and

(b) in Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (other public bodies and offices: general), omit the entry for the Poisons Board.

Establishment of common regulatory system

3 The Poisons Act 1972 is amended as follows.

4 For section 2 substitute—

“2 Regulated substances and reportable substances

(1) This section defines some key terms used in this Act.

(2) “Regulated substance” means a regulated explosives precursor or regulated poison.

(3) A “regulated explosives precursor”—

(a) is a substance listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1A in a concentration higher than the limit set out for that substance in that Part, and

(b) includes a mixture or another substance in which a substance listed in that Part is present in a concentration higher than the relevant limit,

but, in each case, only if the substance or mixture is not excluded.

(4) A “regulated poison”—

(a) is a substance listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1A in a concentration higher than the limit (if any) set out for that substance in that Part, and

(b) includes a mixture or another substance in which a substance listed in that Part is present in a concentration higher than the relevant limit,

but, in each case, only if the substance or mixture is not excluded.

(5) “Reportable substance” means a reportable explosives precursor or a reportable poison.

(6) A “reportable explosives precursor”—

(a) is a substance listed in Part 3 of Schedule 1A, and

(b) includes a mixture or another substance in which a substance listed in that Part is present,

but, in each case, only if the substance or mixture is not excluded.

(7) A “reportable poison” is—

(a) a substance listed in Part 4 of Schedule 1A in a concentration higher than the limit (if any) set out for that substance in that Part, and

(b) includes a mixture or another substance in which a substance listed in that Part is present in a concentration higher than the relevant limit,

but, in each case, only if the substance or mixture is not excluded.

(8) For the purposes of this section, a substance or mixture is “excluded” if—

(a) it is medicinal, or

(b) it is contained in a specific object.

(9) A substance or mixture is “medicinal” if it is—

(a) a medicinal product as defined by regulation 2 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/1916),

(b) an investigational medicinal product as defined by regulation 2 of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 (S.I. 2004/1031),

(c) a substance to which Part 12 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 or Part 6 of the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 applies by virtue of an order under section 104 or 105 of the Medicines Act 1968 (whether applying subject to exceptions and modifications or not and, in the case of an order under section 104, whether the substance is referred to in the order as a substance or an article), or

(d) a veterinary medicinal product as defined by regulation 2 of the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/2033).

(10) A “specific object” is—

(a) an object that, during production, is given a special shape, surface or design that determines its function to a greater degree than does its chemical composition, or

(b) an article that contains explosive substances or an explosive mixture of substances designed to produce heat, light, sound, gas or smoke or a combination of such effects through self-sustained exothermic chemical reactions, including—

(i) pyrotechnic equipment falling within the scope of Council Directive 96/98/EC on marine equipment, and

(ii) percussion caps intended specifically for toys falling within the scope of Council Directive 88/378/EEC concerning the safety of toys.

(11) See also section 9B (which contains power to disapply requirements of this Act in specified circumstances).

2A Power to amend Schedule 1A

‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) amend Schedule 1A (whether to add, vary or remove a substance or concentration limit or make any other change), and

(b) amend section 2 in consequence of any amendment made under paragraph (a).

(2) The power in subsection (1) to add a concentration limit includes power to add a concentration limit in any Part of Schedule 1A (whether for an explosives precursor or a poison).

(3) In determining the distribution of substances as between the various Parts of Schedule 1A, regard must be had to the desirability of restricting Parts 3 and 4 to substances that meet each of the following criteria—

(a) they are in common use, or are likely to come into common use, for purposes other than the treatment of human ailments, and

(b) it is reasonably necessary to include them in one of those Parts if members of the general public are to have adequate facilities for obtaining them.”

5 For section 3 substitute—

“3 Activities prohibited without a licence

(1) A member of the general public commits an offence if he or she does anything listed in subsection (2) without having a licence, or a recognised non-GB licence, to do that thing with respect to that substance.

(2) The things are—

(a) importing a regulated substance,

(b) acquiring a regulated substance,

(c) possessing a regulated substance,

(d) using a regulated substance.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

(a) “acquiring” means taking into your possession, custody or control,

(b) “importing” means bringing into Great Britain from a country or territory outside the United Kingdom,

(c) “member of the general public” means an individual who is acting (alone or with others) for purposes not connected with his or her trade, business or profession or the performance by him or her of a public function,

(d) “possessing” means having in your possession, custody or control, and

(e) “using” includes processing, formulating, storing, treating or mixing, including in the production of an article.

(4) A member of the general public does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if the requirements of this section do not apply to his or her case by virtue of regulations made under section 9B.

(5) This section does not apply to the possession or use of a regulated substance at any time before 3 March 2016.

3A Supply of regulated substances

‘(1) A person commits an offence if the person supplies a regulated substance to a member of the general public without first verifying that the member of the general public has a licence, or a recognised non-GB licence, to acquire, possess and use that substance.

(2) In order to verify that someone has a licence or recognised non-GB licence, it is sufficient for these purposes to—

(a) inspect the person’s licence, and

(b) inspect the form of identification specified in that licence.

(3) A person commits an offence if the person supplies a regulated substance to a member of the general public without first entering details of the transaction (or causing details of the transaction to be entered) in the licence, or recognised non-GB licence, of the member of the general public.

(4) A person commits an offence if the person supplies a regulated substance to a member of the general public without first ensuring that a warning label is affixed to the packaging in which the substance is supplied.

(5) A “warning label” is a label clearly indicating that it is an offence for members of the general public to acquire, possess or use the substance in question without a licence (or recognised non-GB licence).

(6) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1), (3) or (4) if the requirements of that subsection do not apply to the person’s case by virtue of regulations made under section 9B.

(7) Before 3 March 2016, subsections (1) and (5) have effect as if the references to possession and use of the substance were omitted.

3B Supply of regulated poisons other than by pharmacists

‘(1) A person commits an offence if the person supplies a regulated poison to a member of the general public other than in the circumstances described in subsection (2).

(2) Those circumstances are—

(a) the person is lawfully conducting a retail pharmacy business,

(b) the supply is made on premises that are a registered pharmacy, and

(c) the supply is made by or under the supervision of a pharmacist.

(3) A person commits an offence if the person supplies a regulated poison to a member of the general public without complying with the record-keeping requirements before delivering the poison.

(4) The record-keeping requirements are—

(a) the person must make an entry (or cause an entry to be made) in a record to be kept by the person for the purposes of this subsection stating—

(i) the date of the supply,

(ii) the name and address of the member of the general public,

(iii) the name and quantity of the regulated poison supplied, and

(iv) the purposes for which it is stated by the member of the general public to be required, and

(b) the person must ensure that the member of the general public signs the entry.

(5) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) or (3) if the requirements of that subsection do not apply to the person’s case by virtue of regulations made under section 9B.

3C Reporting of suspicious transactions, disappearance and thefts

‘(1) A supplier must report any relevant transaction that it makes or proposes to make if the supplier has reasonable grounds for believing the transaction to be suspicious.

(2) A “relevant transaction” is a transaction involving the supply of a regulated substance or a reportable substance to a customer, whether an end user or a customer higher up the supply chain and whether a business or a private customer.

(3) A relevant transaction is “suspicious” if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the substance in question—

(a) if it is a regulated explosives precursor or reportable explosives precursor, is intended for the illicit manufacture of explosives, or

(b) if it is a regulated poison or a reportable poison, is intended for any illicit use.

(4) In deciding whether there are reasonable grounds for suspecting such a thing, regard must be had to all the circumstances of the case, including in particular where the prospective customer—

(a) appears unclear about the intended use of the substance,

(b) appears unfamiliar with the intended use of the substance or cannot explain it plausibly,

(c) intends to buy substances in quantities, combinations or concentrations uncommon for private use,

(d) is unwilling to provide proof of identity or place of residence, or

(e) insists on using unusual methods of payment, including large amounts of cash.

(5) A person carrying on a trade, business or profession that involves regulated substances or reportable substances must report the disappearance or theft of any such substances if the disappearance or theft—

(a) is from stocks in the person’s possession, custody or control in Great Britain, and

(b) is significant.

(6) In deciding whether a disappearance or theft is significant, regard must be had to whether the amount involved is unusual in all the circumstances of the case.

(7) A duty under this section to “report” something is a duty to give notice of it to the Secretary of State in accordance with such requirements as may be specified by the Secretary of State by regulations made under this subsection.

(8) A person who fails to comply with subsection (1) or (5) commits an offence.

(9) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (8) if the requirements of subsection (1) or, as the case may be, (5) do not apply to the person’s case by virtue of regulations made under section 9B.”

6 Omit section 4.

7 After that section insert—

“4A Licences

(1) The Secretary of State may grant a licence to a person on application by that person in accordance with this section.

(2) The licence may permit the person to do one or more of the things listed in section 3(2) with respect to one or more of the regulated substances.

(3) The term for which a licence is granted must not exceed 3 years, but this does not affect—

(a) a person’s right to apply for a further licence to take effect on expiry of that term, nor

(b) any power of the Secretary of State under the terms and conditions of the licence to vary, suspend or revoke the licence before expiry of that term.

(4) The Secretary of State may charge applicants a fee for processing applications for the grant or amendment of a licence or for the replacement of any lost, damaged or stolen licence.

(5) The amount of any fees to be charged under subsection (4) must be specified in regulations made under subsection (10), and the amount specified must not exceed the reasonable cost of processing such applications.

(6) In deciding whether to grant or amend a licence with respect to a substance, the Secretary of State must have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including in particular—

(a) the use intended to be made of the substance,

(b) the availability of alternative substances that would achieve the same purpose,

(c) the proposed arrangements to ensure that the substance is kept securely,

(d) any danger to public safety or public order that may be caused by possession of the substance, and

(e) whether the applicant is a fit and proper person to possess the substance.

(7) But if there are reasonable grounds for doubting the legitimacy of the use intended to be made of the substance or the intentions of the user to use the substance for a legitimate purpose, the Secretary of State must in any event refuse the application so far as it relates to that substance.

(8) A licence may be granted or amended subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in the licence.

(9) Examples of terms and conditions that may be specified include, for any substances with respect to which the licence is granted, terms and conditions about—

(a) storage,

(b) use,

(c) maximum quantities,

(d) maximum levels of concentration, and

(e) reporting of disappearances or thefts.

(10) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the procedure for applying for and determining applications for the grant or amendment of licences under this section, including provision as to—

(a) who may make an application,

(b) the form and manner in which an application is to be made and any documents or evidence that must accompany it,

(c) the amount and payment of any fees,

(d) the supply of any further information or document required to determine an application,

(e) notice and publication of any decision about an application, and

(f) the procedure for an internal review of any such decision.

4B Recognised non-GB licences

‘(1) The Secretary of State must publish a list from time to time of recognised member States (if there are any).

(2) A member State is “recognised” for these purposes if licences granted by the competent authority of that State in accordance with the Precursors Regulation are recognised in the United Kingdom under Article 7(6) of that Regulation.

(3) References in this Act to a “recognised non-GB licence” are to—

(a) a licence granted in accordance with the Precursors Regulation by the competent authority of a member State that is included in the list (or latest list) published under subsection (1), or

(b) a licence granted under relevant Northern Ireland legislation.

(4) “Relevant Northern Ireland legislation” means—

(a) regulations made under the Explosives Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c.10 (N.I.)) by virtue of the Explosives (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/730 (N.I. 3)),

(b) any legislative instrument that implements the Precursors Regulation in Northern Ireland, and

(c) any legislative instrument that replaces or supersedes (with or without modification) anything falling within paragraph (a) or (b) or this paragraph.

(5) In this section—

(a) references to the Precursors Regulation are to Regulation (EU) No 98/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 January 2013 on the marketing and use of explosives precursors, and

(b) references to a legislative instrument are to—

(i) an Act or instrument made under an Act, or

(ii) any Northern Ireland legislation or instrument made under Northern Ireland legislation.”

8 Omit sections 5 and 6.

9 For section 7 substitute—

“7 Regulations about poisons and explosives precursors

(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations about—

(a) the importation, supply, acquisition, possession or use of substances by or to any person or class of person,

(b) the storage, transportation and labelling of substances,

(c) the containers in which substances may be supplied,

(d) the addition to substances of specified ingredients for the purpose of rendering them readily distinguishable as such,

(e) the compounding of substances, and the supply of substances on and in accordance with a prescription duly given by a doctor, a dentist, a veterinary surgeon or a veterinary practitioner, or

(f) the period for which any records required to be kept for the purposes of this Act are to be preserved.

(2) A person who contravenes or fails to comply with any regulations made under this section commits an offence.

(3) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) if the requirements of the regulation in question do not apply to the person’s case by virtue of regulations made under section 9B.

(4) References in this section to “substances” are to regulated substances and reportable substances.”

10 After section 7 insert—

“7A Proof of lack of knowledge

(1) This section applies to the following offences—

(a) an offence under section 3(1),

(b) an offence under section 3A(1), (3) or (4),

(c) an offence under section 3B(1) or (3).

(2) In any proceedings for an offence to which this section applies, it is a defence for the accused to prove that the accused neither knew of nor suspected nor had reason to suspect the existence of some fact alleged by the prosecution that it is necessary for the prosecution to prove if the accused is to be convicted of the offence charged.

(3) This is subject to subsection (5).

(4) Subsection (5) applies where, in any proceedings for an offence to which this section applies—

(a) it is necessary, if the accused is to be convicted of the offence charged, for the prosecution to prove that some substance or mixture involved in the alleged offence was the regulated substance that the prosecution allege it to have been, and

(b) it is proved that the substance or mixture in question was that regulated substance.

(5) Where this subsection applies—

(a) the accused must not be acquitted of the offence charged by reason only of proving that the accused neither knew nor suspected nor had reason to suspect that the substance or mixture was the particular regulated substance alleged, but

(b) the accused must be acquitted of the offence charged if—

(i) the accused proves that the accused neither believed nor suspected nor had reason to suspect that the substance or mixture was a regulated substance, or

(ii) the accused proves that the accused believed the substance or mixture to be a regulated substance such that, if it had in fact been that regulated substance, the accused would not at the material time have been committing any offence to which this section applies.

(6) Nothing in this section affects any defence that it is open to a person accused of an offence to which this section applies to raise apart from this section.”

11 For section 8 substitute—

“8 Penalties

(1) A person guilty of an offence under section 3(1), 3A(1) or 3B(1) is liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or a fine (or both);

(b) on summary conviction—

(i) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine (or both),

(ii) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).

(2) A person guilty of an offence under section 3A(3) or (4) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under section 3B(3) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under section 3C(8) is liable on summary conviction—

(a) in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine (or both).

(b) in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).

(5) A person guilty of an offence under section 7(2) is liable on summary conviction—

(a) to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, and

(b) in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding one-tenth of level 4 on the standard scale for every day subsequent to the day on which the person is convicted of the offence during which the contravention or default continues.

(6) In the case of proceedings against a person for an offence under section 3A, 3B or 3C, or an offence under section 7(2) in connection with the supply of a regulated substance or a reportable substance, where the act in question was done by an employee—

(a) it is not a defence that the employee acted without the authority of the employer, and

(b) any material fact known to the employee is deemed to have been known to the employer.

(7) Notwithstanding any provision in any Act, or Act of the Scottish Parliament, prescribing the period within which summary proceedings may be commenced, proceedings for an offence under this Act may be commenced at any time—

(a) within the period of 12 months next after the date of commission of the offence, or

(b) in the case of proceedings instituted by, or by the direction of, the Secretary of State, within the later to end of—

(i) that 12-month period, and

(ii) the period of 3 months next after the date on which evidence sufficient in the Secretary of State’s opinion to justify a prosecution for the offence comes to the Secretary of State’s knowledge.

(8) For the purposes of subsection (7)(b)(ii), a certificate purporting to be signed by the Secretary of State as to the date on which such evidence came to the Secretary of State’s knowledge is to be conclusive evidence of that fact.

(9) A document purporting to be a certificate signed by a person specified in subsection (10) stating the result of an analysis made by that person is admissible in any proceedings under this Act as evidence of the matters stated in the certificate, but either party may require the person to be called as a witness.

(10) The persons are—

(a) a public analyst appointed under section 27 of the Food Safety Act 1990, or

(b) a person appointed by the Secretary of State to make analyses for the purposes of this Act.

(11) In the application of this section to Scotland, subsections (7) and (8) have effect as if the references to the Secretary of State were references to the Lord Advocate.

8A Offences by bodies corporate etc

‘(1) If an offence under this Act is committed by a body corporate and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

(b) any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity,

that person, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(2) The reference in subsection (1) to a director, in relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members, is a reference to a member of the body corporate.

(3) If an offence under this Act is committed by a Scottish partnership and is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) a partner, or

(b) any person who was purporting to act in that capacity,

that person, as well as the partnership, is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”

12 (1) Section 9 (inspection and enforcement) is amended as follows.

(2) For subsection (4) substitute—

“(4) An inspector appointed by the General Pharmaceutical Council under article 8(1) of the Pharmacy Order 2010 may at all reasonable times—

(a) enter any registered pharmacy to ascertain whether an offence under section 3A, 3B, 3C or 7(2) has been committed by a pharmacist or a person carrying on a retail pharmacy business;

(b) enter any suspicious premises to ascertain whether either of the following offences has been committed—

(i) an offence under section 3B, or

(ii) an offence under section 7(2) in relation to contravention of any regulations that relate solely to regulated poisons.

(4A) “Suspicious premises” are premises in which the inspector has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence mentioned in subsection (4)(b) has been committed.

(4B) An inspector appointed by the General Pharmaceutical Council under article 8(1) of the Pharmacy Order 2010 may also make such examination and inquiry and do such other things (including the taking, on payment, of samples) as may be necessary for ascertaining any of the things mentioned in subsection (4)(a) and (b).”

(3) Omit subsections (5) to (7).

13 After section 9 insert—

“9A Application of PACE powers

14 After section 9A (inserted by paragraph 12) insert—

“9B Power to disapply requirements or exclusions in specified circumstances

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide—

(a) that some or all of the requirements of this Act do not apply in circumstances specified in the regulations;

(b) that either or both of the exclusions do not apply in circumstances specified in the regulations.

(2) The power in subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to a substance or group of substances, in relation to persons or a class of persons or in any other way.

(3) When exercising the power in relation to a substance or group of substances, the regulations may for example provide that the requirements or exclusions in question do not apply to the substance, or substances in the group, where the substance—

(a) is intended for use for a specified purpose, or

(b) is contained in a specified substance, mixture or article, or

(c) is prepared in a specified manner or form, or

(d) is so intended, contained or prepared and is present in a concentration that is no higher than a specified limit.

(4) Nothing in subsection (2) or (3) is to be read as limiting the provision that may be made under subsection (1).

(5) In this section—

(a) “the exclusions” means the exclusions in section 2 for substances that are medicinal or contained in a specific object,

(b) “the requirements of this Act” means the requirements of section 3, 3A, 3B or 3C or of regulations under section 7,

(c) “specified” includes described,

(d) references to a substance also include a mixture, and

(e) references to a group of substances includes a group comprising all the substances listed in Schedule 1A.”

15 For section 10 substitute—

“10 Regulations

(1) Any power to make regulations under this Act includes power—

(a) to make different provision for different purposes,

(b) to make incidental or supplemental provision, and

(c) to make transitional, transitory or saving provision.

(2) Any power to make regulations under this Act is exercisable by statutory instrument.

(3) An instrument containing regulations under this Act is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”

16 (1) Section 11 (interpretation) is amended as follows.

(2) Omit subsection (1).

(3) In subsection (2), omit the definitions of—

“the board”

“local authority’s list”

“Poisons Rules”

“prescribed”

“sale by way of wholesale dealing”.

(4) In that subsection, insert the following definitions in the appropriate place alphabetically—

““Great Britain” includes the territorial sea of the United Kingdom other than the part adjacent to Northern Ireland;”,

““licence” (other than in the expression “recognised non-GB licence” and in section 4B) means a licence granted under section 4A;”,

““member of the general public” has the meaning given in section 3;”,

““mixture” means a mixture or solution composed of two or more substances;”,

““recognised non-GB licence” has the meaning given in section 4B;”,

““regulated substance”, “regulated explosives precursor” and “regulated poison” have the meanings given in section 2;”,

““reportable substance”, “reportable explosives precursor” and “reportable poison” have the meanings given in section 2;”, and

““substance” means a chemical element and its compounds in the natural state or obtained by any manufacturing process—

(a) including any additive necessary to preserve its stability and any impurity deriving from the process used, but

(b) excluding any solvent that may be separated without affecting the stability of the substance or changing its composition;”.

(5) In that subsection, in the definition of “retail pharmacy business”, for “section 132(1) of the Medicines Act 1968” substitute “regulation 8 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 (S.I. 2012/1916)”.

(6) After subsection (2) insert—

“(3) In relation to a regulated substance or a reportable substance, any reference to the substance is a reference to the substance or the mixture, as the case may be.

(4) References in this Act to supplying something—

(a) include any kind of supply or making available, whether in return for payment or free of charge, but

(b) do not include supply involving export to a person outside the United Kingdom.”

17 After Schedule 1 (which is omitted by paragraph 1 of this Schedule) insert—Hexamine (CAS RN 100-97-0)Sulphuric acid (CAS RN 7664-93-9)Acetone (CAS RN 67-64-1)Potassium nitrate (CAS RN 7757-79-1)Sodium nitrate (CAS RN 7631-99-4)Calcium nitrate (CAS RN 10124-37-5)Calcium ammonium nitrate (CAS RN 15245-12-2)Ammonium nitrate (CAS RN 6484-52-2) in concentration of 16% by weight of nitrogen in relation to ammonium nitrate or higher

“SCHEDULE 1A

Regulated substances and reportable substances

Part 1

Regulated explosives precursors

Name of substance and Chemical Abstracts Service Registry number (CAS RN)	Concentration limit (weight in weight)
Hydrogen peroxide (CAS RN 7722-84-1)	12% w/w
Nitromethane (CAS RN 75-52-5)	30% w/w
Nitric acid (CAS RN 7697-37-2)	3% w/w
Potassium chlorate (CAS RN 3811-04-9)	40% w/w
Potassium perchlorate (CAS RN 7778-74-7)	40% w/w
Sodium chlorate (CAS RN 7775-09-9)	40% w/w
Sodium perchlorate (CAS RN 7601-89-0)	40% w/w

Part 2

Regulated poisons

Name of substance and Chemical Abstracts Service Registry number (CAS RN)	Concentration limit (weight in weight)
Aluminium phosphide (CAS RN 20859-73-8)	—
Arsenic (CAS RN 7440-38-2); its compounds, other than those listed in Part 4 of this Schedule	—
Barium (CAS RN 7440-39-3), salts of, other than barium sulphate (CAS RN 7727-43-7) and the salts of barium listed in Part 4 of this Schedule)	—
Bromomethane (CAS RN 74-83-9)	—
Chloropicrin (CAS RN 76-06-2)	—
Fluoroacetic acid (CAS RN 144-49-0); its salts; fluoroacetamide	—
Hydrogen cyanide (CAS RN 74-90-8); metal cyanides, other than ferrocyanides and ferricyanides	—
Lead acetates (CAS RN 15347-57-6); compounds of lead with acids from fixed oils	—
Magnesium phosphide (CAS RN 12057-74-8)	—
Mercury (CAS RN 7439-97-6), compounds of, the following— nitrates of mercury; oxides of mercury; mercuric cyanide oxides; mercuric thio cyanate; ammonium mercuric chlorides; potassium mercuric iodides; organic compounds of mercury that contain a methyl (CH3) group directly linked to the mercury atom	—
Oxalic acid (CAS RN 144-62-7)	10% w/w
Phenols (phenol; phenolic isomers of the following—cresols, xylenols, monoethylphenols); compounds of phenols with a metal	60% w/w of phenols or, for compounds of phenols with a metal, the equivalent of 60% w/w of phenols
Phosphorus, yellow (CAS RN 7223-14-0)	—
Strychnine (CAS RN 57-24-9); its salts; its quaternary compounds	—
Thallium (CAS RN 7440-28-0), salts of	—

Part 3

Reportable explosives precursors

Hexamine (CAS RN 100-97-0)

Sulphuric acid (CAS RN 7664-93-9)

Acetone (CAS RN 67-64-1)

Potassium nitrate (CAS RN 7757-79-1)

Sodium nitrate (CAS RN 7631-99-4)

Calcium nitrate (CAS RN 10124-37-5)

Calcium ammonium nitrate (CAS RN 15245-12-2)

Ammonium nitrate (CAS RN 6484-52-2) in concentration of 16% by weight of nitrogen in relation to ammonium nitrate or higher

Part 4

Reportable poisons

Name of substance and Chemical Abstracts Service Registry number (CAS RN)	Concentration limit (weight in weight or, where specified, total caustic alkalinity)
Aldicarb (CAS RN 116-06-3)	—
Alpha-chloralose (CAS RN 15879-93-3)	—
Ammonia (CAS RN 7664-41-7 and CAS RN 1336-21-6)	10% w/w
Arsenic, compounds of, the following—calcium arsenites; copper acetoarsenite; copper arsenates; copper arsenites; lead arsenates	—
Barium, salts of, the following—barium carbonate; barium silicofluoride	—
Carbofuran (CAS RN 1563-66-2)	—
Cycloheximide (CAS RN 66-81-9)	—
Dinitrocresols (DNOC) (CAS RN 534-52-1); their compounds with a metal or a base	—
Dinoseb (CAS RN 88-85-7); its compounds with a metal or a base	—
Dinoterb (CAS RN 1420-07-1)	—
Drazoxolon; its salts	—
Endosulfan (CAS RN 115-29-7)	—
Endothal (CAS RN 145-73-3); its salts	—
Endrin (CAS RN 72-20-8)	—
Fentin (CAS RN 668-34-8), compounds of	—
Formaldehyde (CAS RN 50-00-0)	5% w/w
Formic acid (CAS RN 64-18-6)	25% w/w
Hydrochloric acid (CAS RN 7647-01-0)	10% w/w
Hydrofluoric acid (CAS RN 7664-39-3); alkali metal bifluorides; ammonium bifluoride (CAS RN 1341-49-7); alkali metal fluorides; ammonium fluoride (CAS RN 12125-01-8); sodium silicofluoride (CAS RN 16893-85-9)	—
Mercuric chloride (CAS RN 7487-94-7); mercuric iodide; organic compounds of mercury except compounds that contain a methyl (CH3) group directly linked to the mercury atom	—
Metallic oxalates	—
Methomyl (CAS RN 16752-77-5)	—
Nicotine (CAS RN 54-11-5); its salts; its quaternary compounds	—
Nitrobenzene (CAS RN 98-95-3)	0.1% w/w
Oxamyl (CAS RN 23135-22-0)	—
Paraquat (CAS RN 4685-14-7), salts of	—
Phenols (as defined in Part 2 of this Schedule) in substances containing no more than 60%, weight in weight, of phenols; compounds of phenols with a metal in substances containing no more than the equivalent of 60%, weight in weight, of phenols	—
Phosphoric acid (CAS RN 7664-38-2)	—
Phosphorus compounds, the following—azinphos-methyl, chlorfenvinphos, demephion, demeton-S-methyl, demeton-S-methyl sulphone, dialifos, dichlorvos, dioxathion, disulfoton, fonofos, mecarbam, mephosfolan, methidathion, mevinphos, omethoate, oxydemeton-methyl, parathion, phenkapton, phorate, phosphamidon, pirimiphos-ethyl, quinalphos, thiometon, thionazin, triazophos, vamidothion	—
Potassium hydroxide (CAS RN 1310-58-3)	17% of total caustic alkalinity
Sodium hydroxide (CAS RN 1310-73-2)	12% of total caustic alkalinity
Sodium nitrite	—
Thiofanox (CAS RN 39196-18-4)	—
Zinc phosphide (CAS RN 1314-84-7)	—

Note: for circumstances where requirements of this Act do not apply to a specified substance or mixture, see regulations made under section 9B.”—(The Solicitor-General.)

See the explanatory statement for new clause NC24.

Brought up, and added to the Bill.

Clause 17

Authorisation of insolvency practitioners

Amendment proposed: 84, page 11, line 18, leave out clause 17.—(Toby Perkins.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

21:13

Division 15

Ayes: 213

---

Labour: 204
Plaid Cymru: 3
Scottish National Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Green Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 273

---

Conservative: 232
Liberal Democrat: 41

Amendment made: 12, page 14, line 33, after “(general))” insert “—

() in subsection (1) (fees for grant or maintenance of recognition of professional body), in paragraph (b) (power to refuse recognition, or revoke order of recognition, where fee not paid), after “391(1)” insert “or (2)”;”.—(The Solicitor-General.)

This amendment allows the Secretary of State to revoke or refuse recognition of a professional body recognised for the purpose of authorising partially authorised insolvency practitioners, where the body has not paid a fee in connection with the grant or maintenance of its recognition.

Clause 30

Optional building requirements

Amendments made: 79, page 24, line 14, leave out from “State” to end of line 17 and insert

“in relation to England may include a requirement that applies only where a planning authority makes compliance with the requirement a condition of a grant of planning permission.”

Clause 30 confers power on the Secretary of State in making building regulations to include requirements (referred to in the clause as “optional requirements”) that apply only where a local planning authority decides they should apply. The amendment means that such a requirement will apply only where a planning authority make compliance with it a condition of a grant of planning permission. See also amendment which inserts a definition of “planning authority”.

Amendment 80, page 24, line 25, leave out from ‘‘before’’ to end of line 26 and insert

“a planning authority may make compliance with an optional requirement a condition of the grant of planning permission.”

This amendment is consequential on amendment 79.

Amendment 81, page 24, line 27, leave out “local”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 79.

Amendment 82, page 24, leave out lines 40 to 42 and insert—

“ “planning authority” means—

(a) a local planning authority within the meaning of that Act (see section 336(1));

(b) the Secretary of State (in the exercise of functions of granting planning permission);”.

This amendment defines “planning authority” so as to include both a local planning authority (as defined by section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) and the Secretary of State. This ensures that, where the Secretary of State is exercising functions in relation to the grant of planning permission, he can provide for an optional requirement to apply.

Amendment 83, page 24, line 42, at end insert—

“ “planning permission” has the same meaning as in that Act (see section 336(1)).”—(The Solicitor-General.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 79. It defines “planning permission” as having the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Amendment proposed: 2, page 24, line 42, at end insert—

‘(2) This section and section 31 shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has laid a Zero-Carbon Housing Strategy before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Jonathan Reynolds.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

21:25

Division 16

Ayes: 209

---

Labour: 204
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Green Party: 1

Noes: 272

---

Conservative: 231
Liberal Democrat: 40
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Clause 59

Criminal procedure: powers to make Criminal Procedure Rules

Amendments made: 16, page 43, line 24, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“() in paragraph 7, after “paragraph 4 above” insert “that relates to material that consists of or includes journalistic material”;

() in paragraph 8, for “such an order” substitute “an order under paragraph 4 above that relates to material that consists of or includes journalistic material”;

() in paragraph 9, for “Such a notice” substitute “Notice of an application for an order under paragraph 4 above that relates to material that consists of or includes journalistic material”;

() in paragraph 10, for “this Schedule” (in each place where it occurs) substitute “paragraph 8”.”

Clause 59(3) allows Criminal Procedure Rules to supply the procedure on an application for a production order under Schedule 1 to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This amendment, with amendment 17, excepts any application which relates to material that consists of or includes journalistic material, as defined by section 13 of the 1984 Act, and ensures that the procedure for such applications continues to be dealt with in Schedule 1.

Amendment 17, page 43, line 2, at end insert

“, other than proceedings for an order under paragraph 4 above that relates to material that consists of or includes journalistic material.”—(The Solicitor-General.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 16.

Clause 70

Power to spell out dates described in legislation

Amendment made: 18, page 49, line 13, at end insert

“or by the National Assembly for Wales constituted by the Government of Wales Act 1998.”—(The Solicitor-General.)

This amendment ensures that the power to spell out dates described in legislation cannot be used to amend subordinate legislation made by the National Assembly for Wales.

Clause 79

Extent

Amendments made: 76, page 53, line 26, after “(10)” insert

“,(Short-term use of London accommodation: power to relax restrictions)”.

This amendment provides for the new clause inserted by amendment to extend to England and Wales.

Amendment 19, page 53, line 27, after “Sections” insert

“(Power of HMRC to disclose information for purposes of certain litigation)”.

This amendment provides for the new clause inserted by amendment NC6 to extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 20, page 53, line 27, after ‘Sections’ insert ‘”54,55,”.

This amendment extends clauses 54 and 55 (TV licensing) to the whole of the United Kingdom.

Amendment 21, page 53, line 27, after “70” insert

“, (Combining different forms of subordinate legislation)”.

This amendment ensures that the new clause mentioned in it extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendment 22, page 53, line 28, at end insert—

‘( ) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions of section 55 to extend, with or without modifications, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.”—(The Solicitor-General.)

This amendment allows the provisions of clause 55 to be extended to the Channel Islands or Isle of Man.

Clause 80

Commencement

Amendments made: 77, page 53, line 30, after “Sections” insert

“,(Short-term use of London accommodation: power to relax restrictions)”.

This amendment provides for the new clause inserted by amendment (which confers a power to make regulations) to come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed.

Amendment 24, page 53, line 39, after “35” insert

“and (Removal of restriction on investigation of tramway accidents in Scotland by RAIB)”.

This amendment has the effect that the new clause inserted by amendment NC4 will come into force 2 months after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Amendment 25, page 54, line 4, after “70” insert

“, (Combining different forms of subordinate legislation)”.

This amendment ensures that the new clause mentioned in it comes into force 2 months after the Bill is passed.

Amendment 26, page 54, line 8, after “Parts” insert “A1,”—(The Solicitor-General.)

This amendment has the effect that the new Part added to Schedule 9 to the Bill by amendment 51 will come into force 2 months after the Bill receives Royal Assent.

Schedule 6

Insolvency and company law

Amendment made: 50, page 92, line 18, at end insert—

‘(1) The following repeals are made in consequence of paragraphs 18 and 19.

(2) In the Insolvency Act 1986—

(a) in section 1(2), omit “or authorised to act as nominee,”;

(b) in section 2(4), omit “, or authorised to act as nominee,”;

(c) in section 4(2), omit “or authorised to act as nominee,”;

(d) in section 7(5), omit “or authorised to act as supervisor,”;

(e) in Schedule A1—

(i) in paragraph 28(1), omit “, or authorised to act as nominee,”;

(ii) in paragraph 31(2), omit “, or authorised to act as nominee,”;

(iii) in paragraph 33(1), omit “, or authorised to act as nominee,”;

(iv) in paragraph 39(6), omit “, or authorised to act as supervisor,”.

(3) In the Insolvency Act 2000, omit section 4(3) and (4).

(4) In Schedule 6 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, omit paragraph 31(2).”—(The Solicitor-General.)

This amendment makes amendments that are consequential on the repeal (by Part 6 of Schedule 6 to the Bill) of provisions allowing individuals to be authorised to act solely as nominees or supervisors in voluntary arrangements.

Schedule 12

Other measures relating to animals, food and the environment

Amendments made: 52, page 140, line 29, after “subsection (1)” insert

“(like the power in subsection (1) of section one of this Act)”.

The amendment equates the Bill’s existing amendment to the Destructive Imported Animals Act 1932 (making explicit that the power to make control orders for other destructive non-indigenous animals under section 10(1) includes power of revocation and amendment) to the power to make similar orders for musk rats under section 1(1).

Amendment 53, page 141, line 12, leave out “The Secretary of State” and insert

“Lantra (the company registered in England and Wales with the company registration number 2823181)” .

Following a DEFRA consultation (undertaken with the Scottish and Welsh Governments), this amendment makes Lantra (the UK’s Sector Skills Council for land-based and environmental industries), rather than the Secretary of State, the successor to the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas as an appointer of a member of the Farriers Registration Council.

Amendment 54, page 141, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (3).—(The Solicitor-General.)

This amendment is consequential on amendment 53. As the Secretary of State is no longer to have the power to appoint a member of the Farriers Registration Council, this amendment removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to consult the Scottish Ministers before making an appointment.

Schedule 15

Schools: reduction of burdens

Amendment made: 57, page 155, line 21, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—

2 (1) Omit sections 110 and 111 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (which require the governing bodies of certain schools to adopt home-school agreements), and the italic cross-heading before those sections.

(2) In consequence of sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) in section 138(4)(a) of that Act, omit “, 110(10)”;

(b) in the Learning and Skills Act 2000, in Schedule 9, omit paragraph 85;

(c) in the Education Act 2002, in Schedule 7, omit paragraph 9;

(d) in the Education Act 2011, in Schedule 13, omit paragraph 10(9).”—(The Solicitor-General.)

Paragraph 2 of Schedule 15 currently provides for the requirement that governing bodies of certain schools (maintained schools, city technology colleges, city colleges for the technology of the arts and Academy schools) adopt home-school agreements to cease to apply in England. The amendment substitutes a new paragraph 2 which provides for the requirement to cease to apply in both England and Wales.

Third Reading

Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.

21:36

[The Minister for Government Policy (Mr Oliver Letwin)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I start by thanking all those responsible for bringing the Bill in good order through Committee, in particular my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General, my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, and all those who participated. I specifically acknowledge the role played by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), who helped to draft the amendment on BBC licensing, and by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), who helped enormously with the section on the Defamation Act 2013.

Before saying a few words about the Bill, I will say something that I know the Solicitor-General would have liked to say at the end of Report, before he was timed out. I see the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) is in his place, and he will know that the Queen’s Speech outlined the steps we will take to deal with zero-carbon homes and establish allowable solutions. We are aware that within that framework, the decision on the commencement date for amendments to the Planning and Energy Act 2008, which restrict the ability of local authorities to impose their own special requirements, must be made in such a way that the ending of those abilities to set special requirements knits properly with the start of the operation of standards for zero-carbon homes and allowable solutions. I hope that will make the hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, my hon. Friends who are concerned about the same question of timing—rest easy.

The Bill goes to the House of Lords in a condition which, despite the splendid rhetoric from those on the Opposition Front Bench, is similar to that in which it entered this House. There have been significant discussions in Committee and on Report—some things have been added, some things changed, and some dropped—but broadly the Bill goes as it came, and does what it set out to do, which, as I explained on Second Reading, is not in any way to substitute for the enormous amount of work that has been going on across Government for the past three or four years to lessen the burden of regulation by removing regulations from the statute book, improving regulations, changing guidance, and reducing the complexity of bureaucracy that surrounds guidance, orders, codes of practice and so on. Nevertheless, this Bill makes a contribution to that process and helps in a significant way to reduce costs. I remind the House of some few items in the Bill that are of great significance.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but does he not accept that a Bill that is so ideologically based—it is essentially evidence-free, simply saying that all regulation is bad and that the free market is always good—does not do justice to protecting people or the environment?

[Mr Letwin]

The hon. Lady makes an odd point, in the sense that if the purpose of the Bill were to suggest that all regulation were bad, it would have a much wider scope than it does. There will remain after this Bill many thousands of pages of regulation, much of which is well intentioned and well aimed. Our contention remains that there is, alas, a certain amount of regulation that is burdensome, bureaucratic and sometimes counter-productive and that often has adverse effects on growth and—this matters very much to the hon. Lady—the ability of our country to satisfy social and environmental concerns.

I draw the House’s attention briefly to measures such as clause 1, which gives self-employed people the ability not to be governed by health and safety at work laws under most circumstances; the sensible measures on taxi and private hire vehicles, which were widely welcomed by those around the country who are being unnecessarily constrained; the significant changes being made to alcohol and entertainment licensing; and the considerable advances on poisons that have just been made on Report.

I want to end with a word on poisons. A part of my personal journey in the red tape challenge began when I discovered that in this country we operated a system—this is germane to the hon. Lady’s point—whereby someone would pay a small fee and send a piece of paper to an office; there the paper was stamped, which cost the taxpayer a certain amount; it was then sent back and the person was allowed to sell all sorts of very poisonous substances. However, people had to send the same piece of paper and the same fee if they wanted to sell things such as household bleach. It was an entirely purposeless exercise, which had gone on for years and years. It neither served the purpose that we wish it to serve—that of regulating properly the sale of extremely dangerous substances—

[Kelvin Hopkins]

rose—

[Mr Letwin]

I am terribly sorry, but I need to bring my remarks to a close.

That system did not stop the sale of extremely dangerous substances properly, but it did impede the ability of corner shops to sell perfectly innocuous substances easily, so we are changing that. One of the measures introduced on Report will help to do that by getting rid of the poisons board. I therefore hope that the House will welcome a modest but highly useful contribution to the enormously important task of making this country an easier place to do business, so that we can fulfil our long-term economic plan.

21:43

[Chi Onwurah]

I echo the Minister’s thanks to all those involved in bringing the Bill to Third Reading, particularly colleagues involved in trying to give it the proper scrutiny it deserves.

This Bill has given a fascinating insight into the Government’s priorities and how they develop policy. On Second Reading I described it as a Christmas tree Bill, but one without the presents, and indeed, the Minister is an unlikely Santa Claus. By Committee stage, so much had been added to the Bill that a colleague said to me that it was more like the Blackpool illuminations than a Christmas tree, and since then there has been yet another festooning—I believe the Government are trying to go for Las Vegas.

My understanding is that when they were putting this Bill together, Cabinet Office Ministers were hawking themselves around Whitehall for regulations that were supposedly choking the economy. What they came back with, however, was a Bill that deregulated the sale of knitting yarn, but was more about removing burdens from Ministers than from the entrepreneurs and business people we seek to support, and of course it had the customary attacks on working people’s rights that we have come to expect from this Government.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

My hon. Friend has described the Bill kindly as a Christmas tree. I think “a dogma-driven ragbag” would be better. The Minister just suggested that household bleach is not a poisonous substance; I would like to see him convince us of that argument.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Minister shows a lack of understanding of what is considered poisonous by many in households across the country, and that goes with a lack of understanding of what the country actually needs to improve the situation of working people.

When the Bill was introduced to Parliament, Ministers estimated that it would save business £10 million over 10 years—20p for each and every business in the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) observed on Second Reading:

“It takes four fifths of a second for the British economy…to generate that potential saving”.—[Official Report, 3 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 97.]

Over the weekend, the Prime Minister’s enterprise adviser, Lord Young said:

“Of course there’s a cost of living crisis”,

so it has taken him four years to come round from “They’ve never had it so good,” to “Of course there’s a cost of living crisis.” We Opposition Members have been saying it for years, and I hope the Prime Minister will now listen.

We need a Bill to help businesses that cannot get the finance they need and to help people who are struggling with energy bills and the cost of living. Families have lost £1,600 a year since the general election, yet this Bill, by its own estimate, will benefit each person in this country by 18p. I think Britain deserves better. It deserves better than a Bill contrived to meet the Prime Minister’s vainglorious goal to leave government, come what may, with fewer regulations than when he entered government—not fewer zero-hours contracts, not fewer youth unemployed, but simply fewer regulations.

On its way through the House, we have seen various measures tacked on to the Bill. Despite a comprehensive and ongoing process of scrutiny of the area, we had three new clauses rammed into the Bill over a 10-day consultation and far too much that we could not discuss today. We had 49 minutes to debate 43 amendments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) put it: there is certainly much that we will need to return to in the other place.

[James Duddridge]

Given the need to return to the subject a number of times, would the hon. Lady support an annual deregulation Bill, perhaps driven off the back of Law Commission work? I know from having served on the Joint Committee over 11 months ago that there seem to be a number of other issues that the Government have not been able to include even at late notice, but that should be included in future.

[Chi Onwurah]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Law Commission excellently pursues the identification of regulations that are obsolete and need to be removed, but given what the Government have placed in this Bill, I dread to think what sort of a ragbag of unthought-through measures would appear in an annual Bill. It is clear that this Government have run out of ideas. This zombie Parliament is not short of time—in fact, we have so much of it that I hear rumours that the recess may be moved by a week yet again—so it is particularly strange that Ministers are rushing through proposals in this way.

We will continue to oppose several other clauses in the other place. Clauses 1 and 2 are unwarranted attacks on employee rights, and Ministers have been unable to produce any evidence or facts to make an economic case for the provisions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) suggested, it is simple dogma. Also, clause 1, which deals with health and safety regulations, will create unwelcome confusion that may endanger lives. Clause 17, on insolvency practitioners, is another clause that we oppose. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield made many excellent points about it earlier, and I shall not repeat them.

Despite those misgivings, we shall not vote against Third Reading, as we remain hopeful that the problems that I have highlighted will be rectified in the other place. However, it is clear that the electorate will have to wait until 2015 for a Government who will take action to end the cost-of-living crisis, improve child care, build the houses that we need, end the abuse of zero-hours contracts, and give guarantees of work to young people and the long-term unemployed. That is where our policy development has focused: not on ad hoc tinkering with knitting yarn, but on real action that will deliver real prosperity for hard-working people in this country.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Three hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. It would be good if all of them could be accommodated, but we shall see. Economy is required.

21:50

[Andrew Bridgen]

Having worked on the Löfstedt review of health and safety reform and served on both the Committee that subjected the Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny and the Public Bill Committee, I can tell the House that no one is happier than I am to see it reach its final stages. It will serve as a further lever to economic growth, and it builds on the Government’s enviable reputation for reducing obsolete, redundant and unnecessary legislation. I am thinking particularly of the duty of care for non-financial regulators to take account of economic growth as a game-changer. It will change the relationship between business and the regulators, and will lead to better regulation. Health and safety reform is good news for our economy, for our wealth creators and for jobs. The “use of land” provisions have brought about an accord between landowners and ramblers which has been welcomed on all sides and which should streamline the process of moving public footpaths for the benefit of both landowners and those who use these greatly valued rights of way.

Clauses 51 and 52 were originally tabled as new clauses in my name and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. My original proposal was supported by 149 Members on both sides of the House, who formed a coalition across the political spectrum—a rainbow coalition. Such a number of supporters for a Back-Bench amendment to a Government Bill is unprecedented in recent years, and I thank all the Members involved. Of course, I also thank the Government for adopting the measure.

For 20 years, the Magistrates Association has been calling for the decriminalisation of non-payment of television licence fees. It believes that a higher level of compliance can be achieved without recourse to the courts. The BBC itself said that it did not want people to go to prison, but the fact remains that last year 51 people did go to prison, as opposed to 48 the previous year. An e-mail that I received from a barrister stated:

“During my time in Court I was struck by the number of poor people up before the bench who were receiving a criminal conviction for not paying their television licence. Most of them were guilty only because they were very poor. They did not seem to be feckless people, just people who were down on their luck. Prosecuting them was (and is) shameful and remains a blot on our legal system.”

The BBC has responded to the proposal for decriminalisation by saying that it will lead to an increase in evasion and a reduction in its income, so I hope that the review will include consideration of the experience of Scotland, where the number of prosecutions for non-payment decreased from 2,827 in 2004-5 to just 34 in 2012-13, owing to greater emphasis on alternatives to prosecution such as fiscal fines as a result of the Criminal Proceedings etc. (Reform) (Scotland) Act 2007. I understand from the latest evasion figures issued by TV Licensing that the number of evaders in Scotland is 66,000, and the rate of evasion is 5%—exactly the same as it is in England, although we criminalise 180,000 of our fellow citizens every year. The BBC has been guilty of spin on this topic, and trying to spin politicians is a dangerous game to play.

Let me sum up the debate by saying that the Bill builds on the Government’s achievements in cutting the needless red tape that has been allowed to build up on the statute book for many years. I hope that, in the case of BBC licence fee non-payment, it will remove a blot from our legal system.

21:54

[John McDonnell]

I thank the Minister for his courtesy and for the constructive way in which he dealt with the development of amendments 16 and 17, meeting representatives of the National Union of Journalists, editors and others to avoid what could have been a disastrous incursion into the freedom of speech and of written material. None the less, I oppose the Bill overall and will be shouting against it. I will seek to vote against it, if only with a few others, for three reasons.

I believe that the health and safety legislation with regard to the self-employed means that people will be put at risk. It will cause absolute confusion. Only during the debate did we receive from the Minister a list of supposedly dangerous categories of employment, where people who are self-employed will still have the health and safety legislation applied to them, but whole areas of employment were left out, including the docks and some parts of the maritime sector, which are particularly dangerous. I think this will cause absolute confusion and will, sadly, result in loss of limbs and loss of life.

I am also opposed to the Bill because of its reforms relating to taxis and public hire vehicles which, as has been said today, will put the travelling public at risk. There will be no effective control over who will be plying that trade. Last year there were 200 incidents of attacks on people travelling in private hire cars in London, where this type of legislation already applies.

Thirdly, it is a disgrace that we are tearing up legislation introduced by a Conservative Government that ensured there was a proper investigation into the sinking of the Derbyshire and brought at least some comfort to the relatives of the victims. What we are doing now is ensuring that if another such accident occurs, the decision whether or not an inquiry is opened or reopened will be based on the whim of a Minister. That is a step backwards, and it means we have not learned the lessons the Conservative Government did learn in 1995, when they put this legislation in place.

For those reasons, I will seek to oppose this Bill at every possible opportunity.

21:56

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I want to say a few words about clause 44, which gives individual schools the ability to set their own term times and potentially reduce summer holidays from six to four weeks. I understand the rationale for that measure both from an educational point of view and from the perspective of giving schools greater autonomy, but there is concern that the measure could have a significant adverse impact on the tourism industry, in particular on family seaside attractions such as Pleasurewood Hills and Africa Alive! in my constituency.

Such businesses tend to be concentrated in specific areas, very often on the coast, and they are an important component in the local economy. A good summer season is vital to the viability and profitability of many such businesses. Cutting the traditional summer holiday by a third could be extremely damaging to many local economies around the country. To properly assess the impact of the proposal, will my right hon. Friend the Minister consider carrying out an impact assessment while the Bill is being considered in the other place?

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

21:58

Division 17

Ayes: 190

---

Conservative: 159
Liberal Democrat: 31

Noes: 6

---

Labour: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Green Party: 1

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Business without Debate

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That—

(1) the matter of the Government’s Legislative Programme as outlined in the Queen’s Speech as it relates to Wales be referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for its consideration;

(2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Wednesday 16 July at 9.30am and 2.00pm to consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and

(3) the Chair shall interrupt proceedings at the afternoon sitting not later than two hours after their commencement at that sitting.—(Mr Lansley.)

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That James Morris be discharged from the Communities and Local Government Committee and Alec Shelbrooke be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Stephen Barclay be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr David Burrowes be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

Ordered,

That Priti Patel be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Mr Nigel Evans be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Severe Eating Disorders (North-East England)

Monday 23rd June 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

22:09

Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) Severe eating disorders are a significant and growing issue for too many of our constituents. I pay tribute to the all-party parliamentary group on body image and the Backbench Business Committee for the excellent debate in February on severe eating disorders, which helped raise awareness about this terrible group of mental illnesses. I am also indebted to the many concerned people who have written to me, some with heartbreaking testimony; to the campaigning group, the North East Eating Disorder Action Group; and to the charity, NIWE eating distress service, for sharing their concerns.

This evening, I will focus my remarks on the treatment of severe eating disorders in the north-east, and in particular on the proposed closure of the Richardson unit in the Royal Victoria infirmary hospital in my constituency, the impact it is having on sufferers and their family and friends, and the sorry catalogue of mistakes and omissions by NHS England, which has brought us to the point where very ill and vulnerable patients from Tyneside are being forced to go for treatment to Norwich, Glasgow and London while suitable beds go empty in Newcastle.

The term “eating disorders” refers to a range of conditions, including, though not limited to, anorexia, bulimia and binge eating. They affect 1.6 million people in the UK, more than 90% of whom are women, although the incidence in men is on the rise. Severe eating disorders carry the highest mortality of any mental illness. We should think of that when we consider the situation of those suffering from these disorders, and the emotional turmoil that places on their carers. Do they really deserve to have the stress of travelling hundreds of miles added to that?

Unfortunately, eating disorders are on the increase. The number of hospital admissions is rising across the country, but in the north-east, at 6.5 per 100,000, they are 30% above the national average.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this really important debate. The point she is making reflects the concerns of a few of my constituents who have contacted me. A couple wrote to me and said:

“No one associated with the unit can understand the decisions being taken at a time when the incidence of eating disorders is increasing. Our daughter relies on the excellent treatment and support provided by the dedicated team at the RVI’s unit. We have no doubt that her own health and those of others would suffer if this service was withdrawn.”

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Again, the testimony of those most intimately involved speaks to the excellence of the unit and the concern of people in Tyneside.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Like her, I have had many letters of support from constituents who have been helped by the Richardson eating disorder service, and also from individual nurses and doctors, such as Dr Caroline Reynolds, the consultant psychiatrist at REDS, who have provided assistance to people with this terrible disease. Does the hon. Lady think it would be right for the mental health trust and NHS England, together and collectively, to review their decision and, going forward, address how they will recommission the service when the present contract ends?

[Chi Onwurah]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I certainly believe that the decision should and must be reviewed. It is clear that a number of hon. Members have been contacted by concerned constituents. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who cannot attend this debate, asked me to say that he also had constituents who are affected.

Given that admissions in the north-east are 30% above the national average, and that the Royal College of Psychiatrists recommends that six beds per million of the population are needed for average admission rates, the north-east’s 2.8 million people need 23 beds. I will return to that figure, but first a word about the threatened unit that hon. Members have already referred to.

The Richardson eating disorder service is operated by Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust. It is in the centre of Newcastle, with excellent transport links. It is acknowledged to be an outstanding unit, rated excellent by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Care Quality Commission. It has just won Beat’s clinical team of the year award. A stable, vastly experienced staff has been treating adult in and out-patients since 1997, and it has saved many lives. One sufferer said:

“I have suffered from anorexia nervosa for over 12 years and unfortunately during that time I have required many admissions to medical and eating disorder units”.

She names a number of them before going on to say:

“The admission to the Richardson was by far the most successful. I made such huge strides towards recovery and was the healthiest I have been since this all began.”

[Mrs Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

In the light of what my hon. Friend says, and the fact that the unit’s model of partial hospitalisation of out-patient services has been so successful, does she not agree that NHS England should look at that model and perhaps reconsider its decision on the specification of specialised services?

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Indeed, if the criteria on which this decision was made were publicly available, we could perhaps tell which models NHS England considered and what it hoped to achieve. Unfortunately, there is no transparency, which is one of the key issues.

Problems started in 2010, when commissioned adult eating disorder in-patient beds were tendered and the contract was awarded to Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust, although it did not then operate an in-patient unit. It quickly established a 10-bed unit in Darlington, but on a site with poor transport links to the north. For clarity for those Members who may not be familiar with the north, Newcastle is to the north of Darlington.

The award was a shock to many people, not simply because of the result, but because of the lack of consultation. I should like to ask the Minister a specific question: against what criteria were proposed services considered to be better than award-winning ones already on offer in the Richardson? If he does not know, I hope that he will promise to find out. Was cost the driving factor? What was the evidence basis for the centralising of these critical mental health services?

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines specifically state that for severe eating disorders patients should be treated near their homes, with the support of family and friends. These are often young, vulnerable people, who are not yet independent of their family, either financially or emotionally. As one told me,

“Seriously ill anorexics are often cognitively impaired as a result of severe starvation and separation from loving support, together with that the challenge to dangerous and entrenched behavioural traits is often too much to bear.”

Given the lack of consultation, the north-east specialised commissioning group was instructed to strengthen its relationships with stakeholders and report any other substantial changes or developments to the NHS scrutiny committee.

NEEDAG, formed by carers and patients concerned about the threat to the Richardson, hoped that at least five of the beds in the Richardson would continue to be used by those in the north of the region, given overall regional demand. However, in April 2012, the commissioner increased the number of beds at Darlington to 15—again, without any consultation, scrutiny or performance data by which to make judgments. When challenged, I am told that the commissioner said they were not obligated to consult anyone. I hope that the Minister will correct them on this point. It is possible that the top-down reorganisation of the NHS instituted by this Government may have led to them forgetting their obligations under the NHS constitution.

When Darlington was full, commissioners started sending very ill patients out of the area, instead of to the Richardson, saying that every commissioned bed in England, no matter where it was, had to be filled before a patient from Tyneside could be sent to Newcastle. That is how we have arrived at the ridiculous and tragic situation of our national health service sending vulnerable Tyneside patients to Glasgow, Norwich and London when there are empty beds in the Richardson unit in the centre of Newcastle.

The impact on vulnerable young people of being separated from their families undoubtedly makes it more difficult to recover—hence the NICE guidelines. The cost of visiting for families is enormous, both financially and emotionally. One parent wrote:

“This will then have an effect on our family’s mental health as we are all struggling to come to terms with the condition and to help M recover. I would refuse to let M be admitted so far away from home and would rather give up my full time job to look after her in the familiar and safe surroundings of home.”

Another parent who fought to win a place for their daughter at the Richardson said:

“We were very angry to have been put in the position of having to fight for a bed for our dangerously ill daughter at a time when all our energy was needed to comfort and support her through a very difficult time. The added pressure and anxiety it caused the whole family was dreadful.”

It has been announced that the unit will be closed down, because it was said—cynically and cruelly—that it was not being used locally. If it was not being used locally, it was because NHS England was sending local people hundreds of miles away. Freedom of information requests submitted by NEEDAG show that Darlington’s 15 beds are full; that there are eight in-patients from the north-east in London, Sheffield, Leeds, Glasgow and Norwich; and that five patients have managed to win beds in the Richardson.

[Guy Opperman]

We all understand the need for and importance of centralised specialist services, whether they be stroke services or those under discussion, but given the number of people per capita in the north-east who suffer from this terrible disease, is there not a genuine case to be made for the two services to co-exist?

[Chi Onwurah]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That is indeed the case. The number of in-patient admissions in the north-east as a result of severe eating disorders is 30% above the average, which suggests that about 23 beds are required. It would be possible to meet the NICE guidelines and retain the services in Darlington and in Newcastle, yet not meet the increasing demand for in-patient beds. There are a total of 28 in-patients from the north-east, but NHS England says that only 15 beds are needed; that clearly goes against the 23 calculated in accordance with guidelines.

NHS England argues that it is investing in the north-east, and that it is opening an intensive day unit in Newcastle that will reduce demand for in-patient care, but it has provided absolutely no evidence to support its claim. One parent said:

“For my daughter the thought of going back to the local community mental health teams fills her with dread.”

A day centre does not address the issues of isolation and support when in-patient care is needed.

Patients are so worried that two of them have decided to take both the trust and the commissioners to judicial review, based on the lack of consultation transparency. They are applying for legal aid, so we will be in the ridiculous situation of spending public money to both defend and attack a decision taken without the most basic public consultation.

Having written to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), on the subject in the past, I know that he is sympathetic to the plight of sufferers of severe eating disorders and their families and friends. Both he and the Secretary of State have criticised sending patients hundreds of miles for treatment. I want the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), to answer the questions I have already asked and the following two in particular.

First, does the Minister support the concentration of mental health services? In the case of heart surgery for children, we are told that concentration saves lives, because surgeons must be operating on many patients to retain their skills, but the mind does not physically work in the same way as the heart. Does he believe that there is something to be gained from making mental health into a production line? Why is it not possible to maintain beds in Darlington and Newcastle? Why is NHS England not following NICE advice? If the aim is to save money, is this truly a cost saving, or merely moving costs from the NHS to the sufferers of this terrible condition and their family and friends? Is it not outrageous that NHS England should be moving costs on to the most vulnerable and risking lives by doing so?

Secondly, on transparency, how can the Minister possibly support a process whereby there is no consultation on decisions that are so important to the lives of patients and their carers? Is that not in itself a reason to reverse the decision, given that the commissioners did not consult the people to whom they are accountable and in whose interests they are paid—and often paid very well—to commission services?

I will leave the last words to someone more intimately concerned with this than I am, who wrote to me:

“My friend’s beautiful and talented daughter has battled this terrible condition for many years with the help of the Richardson and the support of friends and family every single day that she has been in there. I truly believe that if the unit near to home closes and she feels far from this lifeline of support, she will give up her fight and that could be the end not only of her dream to take up her place at University but possibly, it’s not too dramatic to say, her life.”

22:27

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing the debate and not only raising important issues about the provision of services for people with eating disorders in her constituency, but doing so in the context of an important national debate, because many of us are aware that there has not always been a genuine parity of esteem between mental and physical health. If we are to have a holistic health service that focuses on better supporting people in their own communities, mental health will play an important part. In the north-east and elsewhere, it is vital that we try, in the first instance, to prevent people who have anorexia or other eating disorders from becoming so unwell that they need to be admitted as in-patients. That clear priority is not mutually exclusive to this debate, because it is clearly what good medicine and health care—whether for physical or mental health—is all about.

Eating disorders mainly affect young people, and I shall say a little about that as I address the specific concerns in the north-east that the hon. Lady outlined. Anorexia particularly affects women under the age of 25, from the early teens onwards. Research tells us that there might be more than 1 million people in the UK who are directly affected by an eating disorder.

Worse still, as the hon. Lady highlighted, anorexia kills more people than any other mental health condition, and the longer a patient is unwell with anorexia, the more likely the condition is to be fatal. Even before people begin to lose weight, they are failing to put on the bone mass that will sustain them as adults, and the disease is linked to osteoporosis and other conditions in later life associated with bone fracture. As the disease progresses, it becomes life threatening, particularly due to the muscle wasting that occurs to the internal organs, especially the heart. There can come a point, sometimes quite quickly, when as muscle mass deteriorates, it is lost preferentially from the heart. That increases the risk of heart attacks, which can often, tragically, be the cause of death in such cases.

We are also aware that eating disorders afflict young women at perhaps the most formative period of their lives. The peak age of onset of anorexia is 15. For bulimia it is two or three years later. On average, people with anorexia will recover, if they recover at all, after about six years of care. That highlights the importance of good out-patient services in delivering better care. If we can stop people getting to the stage where they become so unwell with anorexia, with better support through talking therapies and other interventions as part of good community-based care, that is a clear priority for mental health services and one that commissioners are taking very seriously in the hon. Lady’s part of the country, as she outlined.

Eating disorders span the transition between child and adolescent and adult services. This has sometimes led to unacceptable variations in care and fragmented services, as we heard. So how do we deal with this? Early diagnosis is key. We have to make sure that treatment is available to minimise the effect of these distressing conditions. But alongside this, and perhaps before this, we need to attack the causes as well. Eating disorders are often blamed on the social pressure to be thin, as young people in particular feel they should look a certain way. In reality, the causes are much more complex than that.

There are several risk factors—having a family history of eating disorders; depression or substance misuse; being criticised for eating habits, body shape or weight; being overly concerned with being slim, particularly if combined with pressure to be slim from society or for a job; and having an obsessive personality or an anxiety disorder. Other key causes of eating disorders are sexual or emotional abuse, the death of people who are close and other stressful situations. There are also issues specific to particular eating disorders, which I will not go into today. There are clear differences between anorexia, bulimia and binge eating disorder. Binge eating disorder has the added complication of the binge eating cycle, leading to increased blood sugar and potential links to diabetes.

It is important that such disorders are not looked at in the context of the mental health service in isolation. When we know that the cause of death may often be due to cardiac arrest in the case of anorexia, and when we know that there may be links between binge eating disorder and diabetes, it is important that an holistic approach is taken to the care of people who become very unwell. There is a link between the physical and the mental health services that are available to patients, and I know from conversations that local commissioners are looking at that in the way they deliver care.

Last year, the Home Office launched a report of its body image campaign, which highlighted the need to ensure that young people have healthier and happier futures where a wider spectrum of healthy male and female body shapes is represented. I am sure we would all support that.

I assure the hon. Lady that children and young people’s mental health, particularly in the north-east, is a priority for the Government. That is why we have invested £54 million in the four-year period from 2011 to 2015 in the children and young people’s improving access to psychological therapies programme, or children and young people’s IAPT services. This provides training in a number of evidence-based psychological therapies, not just the more common cognitive behavioural therapy or CBT, but systemic family therapy and interpersonal psychotherapy.

Given the complexity of the causes of eating disorders, that more holistic basis to the way that children and young people’s IAPT services work to get early intervention in place, and the £54 million supporting that deployment in the north-east and elsewhere, will, we hope, make a difference in the years ahead. We must recognise that we are coming from a baseline where there was no parity of esteem in terms of how the NHS prioritised eating disorders or how the NHS commissioned services for eating disorders. This investment in that early intervention will bring real improvements to the quality of care of people with eating disorders in the north-east and elsewhere. We know that early intervention is key. It is also important that we get a firmer understanding of the scientific basis and the research that underpins good treatment. The South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust has conducted a £2 million programme of research specifically on the treatment of anorexia, which will improve treatment and care throughout the country.

In the north-east, child and adolescent mental health services have been transformed by the introduction of the children and young people’s IAPT services, which I outlined earlier, in the areas covered by three CCGs, namely Teesside, Newcastle, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Easington. Between them, they commission CAMH services for 61% of young people in the region already under other CCGs, and the other CCGs have agreed to follow them. Steps are being made in early intervention, in providing better support for people with eating disorders in the north-east.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I recognise the similarities between what is happening in the north-east and in the south-west. We have young people being discharged from services when they reach the 18-week threshold or because they have reached a body mass index of 18, yet the Minister has accepted that this is a complex condition which sometimes takes five or six years to recover from.

[Dr Poulter]

That is absolutely right, and it is important that there is a strong link between what happens in the community and what happens at the specialist centre. We know that there are advantages to commissioning specialist beds for eating disorders. We know that there is good evidence supporting the fact that that delivers better care for patients. But it is important that there is a strong link between that and what happens to the patient and the young person when they are discharged from that care, and that there is proper support in the community for those people afterwards. That is what will be supplied in this context by the newly commissioned services at Benfield House, which specifically focuses on providing high-quality day services and real support for young people and their families.

[Chi Onwurah]

I considered the importance of continuity of care and the unique nature of in-patient care requirements, and the Richardson unit had both out-patients and in-patients, and that continuity of care was very important. Please will the Minister address the issue of the Richardson unit?

[Dr Poulter]

In the brief time available to me now, I will come on to the Richardson unit specifically. The hon. Lady outlined the decisions made in 2010 and why they were made. We must recognise that under the criteria brought in by this Government, there are now strengthened criteria for public engagement in future decisions about commissioning. In future, they will have to be clinically led by local clinicians and made on the basis of strong public engagement. I would hope that those decisions would not necessarily have been taken in the same way had they been made under the criteria introduced by this Government.

I invite the hon. Lady to have a further meeting with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), when she will be able to raise more of those concerns with him directly, but it is important to recognise that there is now a change in the way in which consultations are carried out. That was not there at the time, and that is part of the reason why there was not the transparency that the hon. Lady wanted and desired; transparency that we would all find desirable, but unfortunately the criteria were laid down by the previous Government. People often felt done to, rather than done for and cared for. That is why we have changed and improved the criteria.

As well as offering that meeting with my hon. Friend, I want to say that it is completely unacceptable for patients to be travelling long distances for their treatment and care at specialist centres and units. That is not good health care. We know that part of the recovery for people with eating disorders is having a community-based package where there is a strong link with family support. On the basis of that, my hon. Friend and I will raise with NHS England the specific issues arising from this debate, and I would also like the hon. Lady to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further. I hope she finds that reassuring, and that she also finds reassuring the important early intervention measures that have been put in place in her constituency.

Question put and agreed to.

22:39

House adjourned.

Written Statements

Monday 23rd June 2014 Written Statements

Monday 23 June 2014

Foreign Affairs Council/General Affairs Council

Monday 23rd June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 June, and I will attend the General Affairs Council on 24 June. The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, and the General Affairs Council (GAC) will be chaired by the Greek presidency. The meetings will be held in Luxembourg.

Foreign Affairs Council

Introductory remarks

Baroness Ashton is expected to cover the 8 June elections in Kosovo, which took place in an orderly and transparent manner, and to acknowledge a historic moment in Afghanistan’s history, with the second round of the presidential elections having taken place on 14 June. Ministers are expected to agree a new EU civilian strategy for Afghanistan, focused on supporting the Afghan Government over the next three years. We do not expect substantive discussion of these topics.

Ukraine

Ministers will have a substantive discussion on the situation in Ukraine following the presidential elections of 25 May, which were conducted largely in accordance with international standards in the face of great odds. The UK will stress the importance of continued, co-ordinated, political and practical support to President Poroshenko and the Government of Ukraine and, in parallel, continued pressure on Russia to stop provoking instability in eastern Ukraine. The Foreign Secretary will encourage member states, in line with recent G7 statements, to stand ready to intensify targeted sanctions, and implement significant additional restrictive measures to impose further costs on Russia should events so require. Ministers will reaffirm non-recognition of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea and endorse the progress already made by the Commission in delivering the package of consequences responding to this illegal annexation: the UK will encourage the Commission to pursue the remaining elements of the package in a timely fashion.

The UK will seek to agree the EU crisis management concept on establishing the civilian common security and defence policy mission that the UK, Sweden and Poland advocated at the April FAC. The mission is intended to address both urgent and longer-term stability-related needs, including in the fields of security sector reform, support of police, and rule of law. Ministers will look forward to signature of the EU/Moldova and EU/Georgia association agreements on 27 June, and their hope to sign the remaining chapters of the EU/Ukraine association agreement. We expect Ministers to emphasise continued support for these countries, and the need for a robust response should Russia take retaliatory action following the signature of these agreements.

Southern Neighbourhood

The UK’s objective is to ensure that member states remain united on a political solution to ending the crisis in Syria. We will emphasise the need to maintain pressure on the regime, support the opposition and address the humanitarian situation. On the political track, the UK strongly believes that the Geneva principles and process are the only viable, internationally agreed mechanism, endorsed by the P5 and Arab League, for a settlement to end the conflict. We will urge member states to hold to the principles of the Geneva process while making a practical effort to change the regime’s calculations, including by using sanctions. On humanitarian aid, in support of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2139, the UK will encourage member states and the institutions to ensure aid can be delivered across borders to those who most need it. The UK will also seek to discuss the 30 June deadline for the regime to destroy its chemical weapons, and to emphasise the importance of member states working closely together to curb foreign fighters.

Ministers will discuss the situation in Libya ahead of the 25 June elections. The UK will encourage member states to do all they can to support a lasting, inclusive political settlement and fair, transparent and accountable elections. We will encourage member states to support international efforts to respond to the Libyan Government’s request for assistance in addressing the destabilising impact of weapons proliferation.

Iraq

Ministers will discuss the situation in Iraq. The UK is gravely concerned at the deteriorating security and ongoing violence. The UK will emphasise the importance of a united response to this threat from Iraq’s leadership, and call for member states to offer increased humanitarian assistance to Iraq, given the hundreds of thousands of people fleeing the violence. The UK will also call for member states to show solidarity with the Government of Iraq as it combats terrorism, and for member states to make a strong statement about the threat from Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL). Conclusions are expected to express serious concern over the situation, support the fight against terrorism, and call for the rapid formation of a new Government which can work together to address the challenges Iraq faces.

General Affairs Council

The General Affairs Council will focus on: the enlargement and stabilisation and association process; a report on following up European Council conclusions; the preparation of the 26 and 27 June European Council; the European semester process; the EU strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian region; the application of article 10 of protocol 36 to the treaties; and the forward-looking 18-month programme of the Council.

Enlargement and Stabilisation and Association Process

The GAC will consider the recommendation from the Commission to agree EU candidate status for Albania. The UK remains a strong supporter of EU enlargement to all the countries of the western Balkans, including Albania, once conditions have been met. We are looking very closely at the reforms Albania continues to pursue, including in the areas the Council set out in December 2013. We will take a final view on Albania’s progress just ahead of the June GAC.

Report on following up European Council conclusions

The GAC plays an important role in ensuring that the actions mandated in European Council conclusions are delivered. We expect the Greek presidency to deliver a report on the implementation of European Council conclusions during their presidency. This will likely cover all strands of EU business, from the economic, to energy and climate, and defence, trade and foreign policy. Areas such as the Single Market Act I, are likely to be singled out for their adoption during the Greek presidency.

Preparation of the June European Council

The GAC will prepare the 26 and 27 June European Council, where the Prime Minister and other EU leaders will attend a dinner in Ypres on 26 June to commemorate the outbreak of the first world war, before travelling on to Brussels for the Council meeting on 27 June.

The June European Council agenda is expected to include: the future justice and home affairs programme; economic issues, including conclusion of the European semester and better regulation; climate and energy including a Commission report on EU energy security; and external relations issues (likely to include Ukraine). We also look forward to signature of the EU/Moldova and EU/Georgia association agreements at the European Council, and hope to sign the remaining chapters of the EU/Ukraine association agreement. The issue of the EU’s strategic priorities and institutional changes is also likely to be discussed by leaders.

European Semester

The GAC will consider the country specific recommendations (CSRs), published by the Commission to all non-programme EU member states on 2 June, as part of the European semester process. CSRs will also be considered by the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council on 19 June and the Economic and Financial Affairs Council on 20 June.

The advice to the UK is to continue reducing the deficit, tackle youth unemployment, reform the housing market and invest in infrastructure. This is generally in line with the Government’s long-term economic plan and reflects the advice of others.

EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian region

The GAC will receive a presentation by the Commission of its communication and action plan for the EU strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian region. The strategy will be considered in more detail during the Italian presidency.

Application of Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Treaties

Current plans are for the General Affairs Council to consider an item on protocol 36 of the treaty of the functioning of the European Union. This relates to the UK’s decision to opt out of all police and criminal justice measures adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, and subsequent discussions.

18-month programme of the Council

The GAC is expected to take note of the presidency programme for the next 18 months. The new presidency trio of Italy, Latvia and Luxembourg will begin on 1 July with the Italians holding the presidency until 31 December 2014. The Italians are due to publish their presidency programme shortly; the programme is expected to be partly shaped by the inherited Greek agenda.

There is a good degree of convergence between the UK’s priorities and those of Italy. The first six months of the programme will be dominated by institutional refresh of the European Parliament and Commission. Three priorities have been identified for the Italian presidency: “Growth”, “Migration” and “Mediterranean”.

We welcome areas of the anticipated programme that reflect the growth and jobs agenda, such as progress on the digital single market, better regulation and trade agreements.

Latvia and Luxembourg have yet to release details of their presidency programmes.

Under any other business, the presidency will seek views on whether there should be sessions of the General Affairs Council where the agenda is dedicated to cohesion policy in order to allow greater scrutiny at a political level of its implementation over the 2014-20 financial perspective and its contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy.

Roads Reform

Monday 23rd June 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

In our response to the consultation on transforming the Highways Agency into a Government-owned strategic highways company (April 2014), Government committed to publishing further details about the governance regime for the new company, to provide important context to the roads reform legislation in the Infrastructure Bill.

Today I am publishing a suite of documents that set out details of the key elements that together will form a cohesive and robust governance framework for the new company. This will allow it the autonomy and flexibility to operate, manage and enhance the network on a day-to-day basis and deliver more efficiently, while ensuring it acts transparently, remains accountable to Government, road users and taxpayers, and continues to run the network in the public interest.

The documents being published today are:

“Transforming our strategic roads—a summary”—An introduction to roads reform that summarises the reasons for change, what this involves, how the new regime will work and the benefits the change will deliver for road users and the nation as a whole.

“Strategic Highways Company: draft Licence”—An outline draft of the licence for the company, in which the Secretary of State will issue statutory directions and guidance, setting objectives and conditions around how the company must act.

“Setting the Road Investment Strategy: Now and in the Future”—A draft description of the elements that will form a road investment strategy (RIS), and further information about the process for developing the first and future RIS documents.

I am also publishing further information about the purpose and content of the framework document and articles of association for the company and how these will be developed. These elements are not directly relevant to the legislation, but will form important parts of the governance regime for the new company.

Taken together with the measures in part 1 of the Infrastructure Bill, this governance regime will provide a strong, certain framework for managing our roads. It will strengthen accountability, drive efficiency and increase transparency and create far more certain conditions for investment, enabling the supply chain to gear up for the Government’s ambitious plans for the future. This will support the economy, promote jobs and skills and ultimately transform the quality of our national infrastructure and the quality of service for road users. We look to move to the new model with minimal disruption.

As the Bill remains subject to parliamentary approval, these documents remain subject to change.

A copy of each of these documents will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses

and will be available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/roads-reform.

Personal Independence Payment

Monday 23rd June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

Section 89 of the Welfare Reform Act 2012 commits the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to publish two independent reports on how the personal independence payment (PIP) assessment is working. The first is due within two years of PIP starting in April 2013. On Thursday 10 April 2014, I announced that Paul Gray CB had been appointed to carry out the first independent review of the PIP assessment. The terms of reference for this independent review were published on gov.uk on 21 May.

Today the Government will publish a call for evidence to inform the first independent review of the PIP assessment, being undertaken by Paul Gray.

This call for evidence will be one of several methods used to gather information during the review. Evidence submitted will be used to inform Paul Gray’s report to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which will be laid before Parliament before the end of 2014.

This call for evidence seeks evidence from both organisations and individuals who have information that is relevant to how the PIP assessment is operating.

The call for evidence runs until Friday 5 September 2014.

I will place a copy of the call for evidence in the Libraries of both Houses. It will also be available on the Government’s website: www.gov.uk/DWP later today.

House of Lords

Monday 23rd June 2014 Lords Chamber

Monday, 23 June 2014.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.

Deaths of Members

Monday 23rd June 2014 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:37

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)]

My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the deaths of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, and of the noble Lord, Lord Jacobs, both on 21 June. On behalf of the House, I extend our deepest condolences to the noble Lords’ families and friends.

Independent Schools

Monday 23rd June 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked by

[Lord Lexden]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of independent schools on the British economy, in the light of the report The impact of independent schools on the British economy, published by the Independent Schools Council in April.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, we have made no specific assessment of the contribution that independent schools make to the United Kingdom economy, although we welcome its reported significant size. The Government’s policy is to focus their energies and resources on raising standards for pupils in state-funded schools. We welcome in particular the contribution that private schools make to the state-funded school system, in support for academies and free schools and in partnerships with state schools.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend has read this report with great care, even if no assessment has been formed. Would she agree that, at nearly £10 billion, the total amount provided by independent schools to our national economy is extremely impressive, exceeding that of the BBC? Would she also agree that the largest section of this report sets out the wide range of schemes being undertaken by independent schools in partnership with their local communities and state schools, a partnership that is growing in extent all the time? Would she agree, finally, that this report gives the lie to those who maintain that there is some form of Berlin Wall separating the independent and state sectors?

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I have read this report with enormous interest, and my noble friend is right to point out the contribution of independent schools to the UK economy. At £9.5 billion, it is very substantial. As we know, many of these schools are outstanding, but I also know that my noble friend is passionate about social mobility through education and therefore the role that the independent sector can play in that. It is good to see in this report that more than 80% of the Independent Schools Council member schools are involved in partnerships with state schools, seeking to improve standards and outcomes for all pupils.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, had the state in Britain taken responsibility for provision of schools and high-quality technical education, instead of leaving education to the churches, Dr Arnold of Rugby and the comfortably off, with their predilection for exclusive and expensive boarding schools for their male offspring, might we then have not thrown away our lead in the Industrial Revolution? Does not that early failure to make public provision of good schools for all, and of technical education in particular, continue to haunt our economic performance? I declare an interest as having been educated at Rugby School.

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord is a great credit to Rugby, no doubt. He will know from his history that these schools were often set up—if you look at Shakespeare—for poor boys, not girls, in the past, and they evolved over time, as he indicated. The church indeed became involved. In terms of our lead in the Industrial Revolution, it would have been astonishing had other countries not joined us in that, but clearly those countries that joined us had a stress on science that was critical to what then happened. We need to make sure that all our schools, and our state schools in particular, emphasise a science education.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister mentioned the large number of independent schools that have links with schools in the maintained sector, but could she say how those links are assessed for the purposes of gaining charitable status? Could she say, too, how many independent schools take part in teacher training—because, of course, they all benefit from state-trained teachers?

[Baroness Northover]

The report indicates that 80% of ISC schools are engaged in some sort of partnership with state schools. I suggest that the noble Baroness looks at that point: indeed, she probably already has. The Charity Commission looks at the contribution those schools are making to the local community, and this issue is part of that. The report mentions a number of instances of independent schools assisting in teacher training and teacher support, but it is not quantified.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

In order to promote this synthesis between the maintained and private sectors of British schooling, will the Government consider withdrawing charitable status from private schools and using the estimated £100 million that would be saved annually to reduce class sizes in the maintained sector, for instance?

[Baroness Northover]

As the noble Lord knows, this issue has been long discussed. The previous Government chose not to do what he suggests and we have no plans to do it. However, I remind noble Lords that the private sector constitutes a very small proportion of our education system. It is extremely important to make sure that the quality of our state education system is second to none because, as the noble Lord will know, we face global competition of an acute order. We focus on that, as did the previous Government, and that is where our emphasis should be.

[Baroness Warnock (CB)]

My Lords, I have not yet read the report in detail, but will do so, and therefore cannot say whether it gives the lie to the theory of the Berlin Wall. However, is not the perception of a Berlin Wall particularly damaging and plausible when people are becoming so disengaged from politics and are bitterly aware of the number of privately educated people at the top of it?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Baroness is right about the disproportionate number of such people at the top of absolutely every profession, including politics, if you call it a profession. Therefore, it is exceedingly important that we focus on making sure that the state sector does a better job in ensuring that students are able to flourish and fulfil their potential. That is key.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, although I believe that the success of independent schools has helped our economy, what progress has been made by Teach First, whose students have often attended independent schools, and what contribution is it making to our education system? Will the noble Baroness comment on today’s news that the Government may be considering “Teach Last” as well, which would help to improve the school curriculum as regards subjects such as maths?

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend’s last point is very interesting and I will feed that into the department. It is encouraging to see the number of recent graduates who are coming into teaching; it has grown enormously. The proportion with, for example, firsts and 2:1 degrees reached 74% in 2013-14, compared with 66% in 2011-12, which is very encouraging.

[Lord Morris of Handsworth (Lab)]

My Lords, in order to measure the gap in respect of the contribution that the independent sector is making to the national economy and elsewhere, can a similar study be done on the contribution of state schools so that any deficiencies can be remedied?

[Baroness Northover]

There are numerous and ongoing reviews as to what our education system does. They happened under the previous Government and have happened under ours. That is why we are taking forward and ring-fencing education. We will have increased schools funding by £3.6 billion, which includes the pupil premium. We are acutely aware of the importance of strengthening that. We are also aware of the foreign students who come into the independent sector, and the earnings that the UK economy gets from them.

Mental Health: Social Work

Monday 23rd June 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:46

Asked by

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the provision of mental health social work, given the incidence of mental health problems among the population.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government recognise that improving mental health services remains a significant challenge. Social workers play a vital role in delivering high-quality mental health services, and the Chief Social Worker for Adults is taking forward a number of initiatives with the sector to help address these challenges. Along with the College of Social Work, we recently launched The Role of the Social Worker in Adult Mental Health Services.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

I thank my noble friend for his Answer. Does he share my concern about the shortage of good social workers who are able to work effectively in mental health settings in many places in the country? What further steps are the Government taking to address this? What specific plans do they have to ensure that social workers working in integrated health and social care teams feel valued by their medical colleagues and that their professionalism is indeed recognised?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend makes some excellent points, and I acknowledge her role as a member of the programme board for the Think Ahead programme, which is designed to attract, in particular, new graduates into social work, and specifically into mental health social work. Good-quality social work can transform the lives of people with mental health conditions. It is an essential part of multidisciplinary and multiagency working. As we move forward into new ways of working, particularly in the context of integrating care, my noble friend’s point about other professionals understanding and appreciating the value that mental health social workers can give will be key, not just in terms of earlier intervention but by building resilience, reducing and delaying dependency and ensuring that people have all the information and enabling support that they need to look after themselves better.

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I note my health interests. What is the Government’s assessment of the scale of shortages of mental health social workers? In particular, what assessment has been made of the capacity to respond to requirements under the Mental Health Act, particularly Section 135, for approved social workers?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we need more social workers, particularly in mental health. The Think Ahead programme is certainly one way in which we hope to improve the numbers. Social work is not always seen as an attractive career option. We know that there is a growing appetite among graduates to work in mental health; unfortunately that enthusiasm has not filtered through to the social work profession. We need to focus on that. Much will depend also on finding a greater number of placements in social work, particularly relevant to mental health, so that there is on-the-job training for those trainees.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the very least we must do for social workers operating in this very complex area of work is to ensure that they all have the appropriate training, which is not just about classic mental health problems but about the abuse of drugs and alcohol, and indeed now extends into the great impact that dementia has on patients and their relatives?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is quite right. The importance of mental health knowledge across social work in its entirety—adults, children, adolescents and families—is vital. Mental health is a key factor for people with substance abuse problems and other complex social and health needs that defy neat categorisation. The Chief Social Worker for Adults, Lyn Romeo, is working with the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families, Isabelle Trowler, to produce a statement of the knowledge and skills required across children’s and adult services and the need for students and qualified social workers to be able to work with mental health issues in all contexts.

[Baroness Trumpington (Con)]

My Lords, what is the Minister’s solution to the situation that arises when a social worker moves from one district to another without necessarily taking their portfolio of work with them? I speak having been a Minister when a social worker was murdered when the person who killed her had changed district but the social worker had not been informed of the move.

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend makes an extremely important point about continuity of care. Not only is this important in terms of sheer administration; it is vital for the health of the service user or patient, as the social worker is very often the key point of contact for vulnerable people living at home and maybe on the brink of being admitted to NHS in-patient care. My noble friend makes a very good point. If I can amplify those remarks in any way I will write to her.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, will the noble Earl join me in saying that, important though they are, it is not only patients with mental health issues who need help and support? Many young people in particular live at home with people who previously may have been inside a hospital and now quite rightly are being treated in the community. Those children and young people are in many cases coping with circumstances where adults would find it impossible to work. Will the noble Earl ensure that, in looking at this, the needs of those young people are borne in mind, not least because many of them fail in school because of the pressure they are under at home?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness makes a series of extremely well put points. That is why we are looking at a number of ways to bolster the services that children receive from mental health services and professionals. We have the Children and Young People’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme, as she knows. We are taking forward options for a new survey on how many children and young people have mental health problems, which is of course important for planning. New guidance published last week by the Government will help teachers to better identify underlying mental health problems in young people, and NHS England is currently reviewing children and young people’s in-patient mental health services so that we can see where there are pressures in the system and how money is being spent.

Mental Health: Parity of Esteem

Monday 23rd June 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:54

Asked by

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made to measure the success of their policy No Health Without Mental Health, which undertook to give mental health “parity of esteem” with physical health within the National Health Service.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, our commitment to parity of esteem is explicit in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. As stewards of the system, we hold the NHS to account for the quality of services and outcomes for patients through our mandate to NHS England and the NHS outcomes framework.

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that the picture is fairly gloomy. There has been a real-terms 1% drop in investment in mental health services for adults of working age, and mental health trusts have reported a real-terms reduction of 2.36% over the past two years. Investment across the three priority areas—crisis resolution, early intervention and assertive outreach—has seen a £30 million drop for the first time. Funding for older people in mental health services has seen a 1% real cash-terms drop, and 67% of councils have stopped child and adolescent mental health services funding. These cuts have come in at a time when more people—almost 8 million—are experiencing mental health problems. In addition, 30% are suffering from a long-term physical health problem, the number of deaths by suicide is increasing and mental health ward occupancy levels are at over 100%. This Government promised parity of esteem and we were assured that that would be in the Health and Social Care Act. Does the Minister agree that we are far from meeting our obligations on this simply because of the cuts and what has happened to these vulnerable people?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, mental health and mental well-being are priorities for the Government; I want to make that clear to the noble Lord. We have legislated for parity of esteem between mental and physical health, and we mean business on this. Our new mental health action plan, which has been well received, sets out our priorities for essential change. We have the Crisis Care Concordat, which guarantees that no one experiencing a mental health crisis should ever be turned away. We are rolling out choice in mental health, which is an extremely important step forward, and a whole range of other measures, including IAPT and the children’s mental health measures that I outlined a moment ago. I hear what the noble Lord says about funding. We have debated that matter in the House before. We are currently scrutinising local CCG spending plans to make sure that mental health gets the priority that it needs.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure that everyone welcomes the fact that mental health has emerged at last to receive the attention that it should be getting. However, will the Minister confirm that the Government are paying particular attention to the number of women in prison with a mental health problem? In previous decades, that was not addressed at all.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, yes, we are doing so. We are paying attention not just to women in prison but to women and men in prison and in the criminal justice system more generally. We have committed £25 million to introduce a new liaison and diversion scheme in England to identify and assess the health issues and vulnerabilities of all offenders when they first enter the criminal justice system, which I think is the crucial moment. We are building on liaison and diversion services to improve the quality of those services and their coverage across England, and we are trialling a core model in more than 20 areas over the next two years with the aim of moving towards comprehensive rollout by 2017.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that one in 10 children between the ages of five and 16 has a mental health problem and may continue to have problems into adulthood? What are the Government doing to ensure that child and adolescent mental health services are properly funded by NHS England and CCGs?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we are investing £54 million over the four-year period from 2011 to 2015 in the Children and Young People’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies, CYP IAPT, programme. That, along with the measures that I referred to earlier, will, I hope, give a sense of the priority that we attach to children and young people’s mental health services.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister gave us a long list of things that the Government are doing. However, he does not mention research into mental health. Is not one of the key problems that clinicians are never able to identify the disease phenotype, and that makes further and better treatments impossible? Should there not be much more emphasis on the need to research mental ill health throughout the country?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is quite right about the importance of mental health research. Unfortunately I do not have the figures in my brief, but I will gladly write to him on the research that is currently under way which my department is helping to fund.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister do what he can in government to lock in the policy of the programme that he has announced today? I remind him that—I think it was in 2004—the former Social Exclusion Unit published a seminal report on mental health and social exclusion, with 27 action programme recommendations. As Ministers come and go and as civil servants get recycled, things go off the boil and we have to start doing it all over again. That does not serve the citizens of the country on an issue such as this, which transcends all our other divisions. We need to concentrate on it so that we do not lose it as people come and go.

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord is right and I can say to him that the coalition Government have tried as far as possible to continue the good work on mental health of the previous Administration. One has to keep renewing the momentum on this. Situations do not stand still, and that is why our new mental health action plan Closing the Gap reminds everyone in the system of the most important gains to be made in 25 areas where people can expect to see and experience the fastest changes. I am glad to say that that document has been well received by all stakeholders.

Devolution and Decentralisation: Constitutional Commission

Monday 23rd June 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked by

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have considered setting up a United Kingdom constitutional commission to examine further devolution and decentralisation within the United Kingdom.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, since taking office the Government have established two constitutional commissions—the McKay and Silk commissions. The Government have also noted the recommendations of the Calman commission. The Government have implemented those recommendations through the Scotland Act 2012 and have implemented the recommendations of Part I of Silk’s report for the Wales Act. Ministers are considering recommendations of the McKay commission. The Government have not at present contemplated a further, broader convention.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Is the Minister aware that all these commissions caused the problem because there is growing concern about the piecemeal nature of constitutional reform in the United Kingdom and the consequent English democratic deficit? That has resulted in the setting up of an all-party group pressing the Government to look at it in a comprehensive way. Each of the three parties seems to be moving in this direction. Would it not be sensible for the Government now to announce that a constitutional commission will be set up to look at constitutional change throughout the whole of the United Kingdom in a comprehensive and coherent way, and preferably before 18 September?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am a veteran. I was a young academic 40 years ago when the Kilbrandon commission, which took four years, looked at the overall balance of the United Kingdom including the Crown dependencies. It is not felt at present that a commission of that length would help. It has been the tradition in this country to move piecemeal, part by part and to establish conventions. We are moving with the English question through the city deals—the noble Lord may have noticed from this morning’s announcement on the northern hub that we are moving towards decentralisation within England. So a number of things—not just with Scotland but with Wales, Northern Ireland and, at last, with England—are beginning to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, should not our efforts be concentrated at the moment on maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom before any further constitutional tinkering? Does my noble friend agree that if further powers are to be devolved to Administrations throughout the United Kingdom, it is a matter for the United Kingdom as a whole, not just for Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland? In that context the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has a point.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, England is the most centralised industrial democracy at present. It has become more centralised over the past 40 or 50 years. That is one of the issues that remains outstanding. Graham Allen in his debate in the other place last week suggested, as chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, that all three parties should be using this last year before the election to contemplate how we approach putting the different parts of our devolved settlement together.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that whatever the outcome of the referendum in Scotland—whether it is a yes vote or no vote—the status quo is unlikely to be the final resting point of the argument? That being so, surely a piecemeal approach is not acceptable, particularly when in Scotland the Government appear to be offering taxation powers that were recommended by Silk for Wales, but which the Government have rejected for Wales. On what possible basis can there be coherent progress when that is the Government’s approach?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, Part II of the Silk report has only just been published and the Government are currently considering it. Given the amount of constitutional change and devolution over the past few years, the idea that we are in a status quo situation is not fair. We are moving and will have to move further. The question of how we move—whether we go to a UK-wide commission or, indeed, a convention, as the committee in the other place suggested—is one we all need to consider. The Government will certainly be thinking about this in the light of the September referendum, which, as the noble Lord rightly suggests, involves the future of Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions altogether.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it will be important to move on quickly in the event of a no vote in the Scottish referendum to deliver on the cross-party consensus for strengthening the Scottish Parliament among the three parties which do not support independence? My right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael has announced a conference on the new Scotland to meet shortly after the referendum to help bring that about. Does the Minister further agree that it will be necessary for a new Government, with a new mandate and a new Parliament after 2015, to provide a holistic review of what the refreshed union will be post-referendum? That is why cross-party support for a conference on the new union, concerning the relations between the nations and Westminster and the operation of Whitehall departments, will hopefully be important in bringing about an overall review, which will serve the strength of the United Kingdom in which we surely all have an interest.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, that is an interesting idea which we should all consider debating further. The northern parts of England have interests in common with Scotland in wanting to counter the dominance of London, which is a part of the problem as well as a huge advantage for the United Kingdom in economic terms. It is a part of the dialogue that we all need to have.

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

My Lords, Professor Anthony King has quite rightly described the current constitution of this country as a mess. Would not a constitutional convention help to clear up the mess by clarifying the muddle over asymmetrical devolution, by clearing up the devo-max in Scotland that dare not speak its name, by reasserting the authority of the Westminster Parliament and, above all, by at long last doing something about England and showing that it is not simply a bad football team?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

We will leave the football team to one side. Constitutional conventions have, on the whole, taken place after revolutions—for example, in the United States, France and elsewhere. To go as far as a constitutional convention for the whole of the United Kingdom would be a radical and rational step. I encourage the noble Lord, as a rational radical, to pursue that. However, currently there is no public demand for it and I have not yet heard any major political party suggest it.

Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2014

Monday 23rd June 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:08

Moved by

[Baroness Jolly]

That the draft order laid before the House on 13 May be approved.

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on Tuesday 17 June

Motion agreed.

African Legal Support Facility (Legal Capacities) Order 2014

Monday 23rd June 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

Moved by

[Baroness Northover]

That the draft order laid before the House on 6 May be approved.

Relevant document: 27th Report, Session 2013-14, from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on Tuesday 17 June

Motion agreed.

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [HL]

Monday 23rd June 2014 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

15:09

Moved by

[Lord Astor of Hever]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)]

My Lords, the welfare of our service personnel is one of the most important responsibilities of government. In enshrining the principles of the Armed Forces covenant in legislation this Government have signalled their determination to meet their obligations to our service men and women, their families and veterans. A fair, effective and efficient system for handling internal complaints in the Armed Forces is an essential part of our duty to service personnel, and it underpins operational effectiveness.

The unique nature of military service means that members of our Armed Forces do not have the same opportunities for redress on employment issues as civilians. For example, they cannot always make claims to an employment tribunal in the same way that civilians can. I am sure we all understand why this is so, but it does mean that we have a duty to ensure that there is a fair, effective and efficient system in place to deal with any complaints and grievances that service personnel may have in relation to their service. This is not just right as a matter of principle, it supports operational efficiency; having unresolved complaints impacts on morale and breeds discontent, which can undermine our fighting capability. Having a system that is not fair or effective could also lead to a perception that the concerns of Armed Forces personnel are not taken seriously. This could ultimately lead to problems with recruitment and retention as well as morale. A robust complaints system is therefore not a “nice to have”, but an integral part of the relationship between the society our Armed Forces serve and those who are willing to lay down their lives to defend it.

Before going on to discuss the main changes to the service complaints system which are being introduced by the Bill, it might be helpful if I set out some of the underlying principles behind the new system. First, I believe it is right that it should be the Armed Forces that are responsible for dealing with any complaints from service personnel. I cannot emphasise this point strongly enough. It is for the chain of command to ensure that complaints are dealt with fairly and that the appropriate redress is given where complaints are upheld. It is important that, where something has gone wrong, it is the organisation itself that should put it right. That is its responsibility and no one else’s. The role of the ombudsman in dealing with complaints should therefore be about making sure that the systems we have in place are working and that complaints are properly dealt with. The ombudsman’s oversight of the system will also provide us with lessons for further improvement that will benefit individual service personnel and our overall effectiveness.

Secondly, it might be worth setting out what is and what is not covered by the complaints system, and therefore this Bill. Service men and women, who include reservists when they are subject to service law as well as regulars, can make a complaint about any issue connected with their service. Although the issues that attract media attention tend to be around bullying and harassment, the majority of the complaints raised relate to pay and terms and conditions of service, so it is important to realise that complaints cover a very wide range of issues. It is also worth being clear about what is not covered by the complaints system. Matters relating to potential criminal offences such as sexual or physical assaults would be dealt with through the service justice system rather than the complaints procedure. There are also matters that are likely to be excluded by the regulations from consideration under the complaints process, as they are now, because they have their own separate procedures. This would cover things such as pensions and court martial decisions.

We want the new process to be quicker while retaining the principle that complaints are resolved at the lowest level possible in the chain of command. A new feature is therefore that a complaint will be assigned quickly to the person or group of people who have the authority to deal with it instead of it being escalated up the chain of command until it reaches that point, as is the case now.

I would like to turn to the proposals covered by the Bill. The current service complaints system was set up by the Armed Forces Act 2006. We have worked hard since then to make that system operate as fairly, effectively and efficiently as possible and many service complaints are dealt with promptly and successfully. However, the Government recognise that performance is still not good enough and have concluded that it can be significantly improved.

That view is supported by Dr Susan Atkins, the current Service Complaints Commissioner, who has frequently characterised the system as ineffective, overloaded and beset by delay. In her annual report on service complaints for 2013, which was published on 27 March 2014, Dr Atkins said that she could still not provide an assurance that the current system was working and was critical of how long it took to resolve complaints, particularly those relating to bullying, harassment and improper behaviour. She also raised the issue of the level of manpower needed to support the system.

The House of Commons Defence Committee has also taken a close interest in these matters over many years, and published a report on the work of the Service Complaints Commissioner on 12 February 2013. The report raised concerns about the workings of the complaints system and recommended the creation of an Armed Forces ombudsman.

We have been operating the current system for six years. Over that time we have developed our understanding of what works well and, in particular, what can cause undue delay. With that information, and the invaluable independent insight provided by the commissioner in her annual reports and by the Select Committee, we have worked closely with Dr Susan Atkins on the most appropriate way to reform the service complaints system. I would like to express our gratitude for her work on the current system over those six years and for the advice and assistance she has given more recently on developing a new and improved system. Dr Atkins’s unstinting efforts in support of our Armed Forces were recognised by the award of a CB in this year’s Birthday Honours.

The Government’s intentions for reform were set out in a Written Ministerial Statement on 13 March this year, and this Bill makes the legislative changes needed to take forward those reforms. The changes set out in the Bill are aimed at strengthening and streamlining the service complaints system. They are supported by the Service Complaints Commissioner and by the services. I would like to emphasise the support of the Armed Forces for these reforms because it is a concern that has been raised with me by a number of noble and noble and gallant Lords.

The services fully support the need for reform of the service complaints system and have been fully involved in drawing up the proposals in the Bill. The service chiefs’ particular concern was to ensure that the chain of command was preserved under any new system, and they are content that that is the case. The services therefore support the proposals in the Bill, which strike the right balance between creating strong and independent oversight and maintaining the authority of the chain of command.

Clause 1 creates a new Service Complaints Ombudsman to replace the existing Service Complaints Commissioner. The ombudsman will be appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State. Clause 2 replaces the existing service complaints system with a new statutory framework, while retaining important elements such as the requirement for independence in handling certain types of complaint.

A central feature of the new framework is that the Service Complaints Ombudsman will have a power to consider whether a service complaint has been handled properly, once it has completed its normal internal stages. The ombudsman will also have strong new powers to compel the production of documents or other material. This contrasts with the arrangements for the Service Complaints Commissioner, who cannot become involved in the handling of an individual complaint other than to monitor its progress. Under the new system, where the ombudsman finds no evidence of maladministration the complaint would remain closed.

However, if the ombudsman considers that there has been maladministration—and potentially injustice—in the handling of a complaint, he or she would make recommendations to the Defence Council for action to be taken to put things right. This could include, for example, reconsidering the complaint afresh or rerunning a particular part of the process.

The Defence Council would remain responsible for the decisions taken in response to the ombudsman’s recommendations, thereby maintaining the authority of the chain of command, with the ombudsman being informed of those decisions and the reasons for them. Cogent reasons would need to be given for rejecting any recommendation.

Service personnel will have a new right to apply to the independent ombudsman if they believe that the handling of their complaint has been subject to maladministration, instead of having the right to pursue further appeals within the internal complaints process. The reduction in the number of automatic appeal levels will also shorten and speed up the process while remaining fair.

The ombudsman will, in turn, be able to concentrate attention on the cases of potential maladministration, including those which may have systemic implications. The reforms also include a new process of assigning a complaint to someone who has the authority to deal with it and grant appropriate redress. It replaces a process that, under the current system, is inefficient and can add considerably to the time taken for a complaint to reach a conclusion.

The ombudsman would also have a new role at an earlier stage of the complaints procedure. Where the chain of command has decided not to allow a complaint to be considered within the service complaints system, because, for example, it is out of time or excluded on other grounds, a service person could ask the ombudsman to determine whether that decision was correct. A decision by the ombudsman will be final.

At the same time, the ombudsman will maintain the vital role which Dr Atkins performs today of offering an alternative route for a service man or woman or other person who does not wish or is not able to approach the chain of command directly to have their concerns fed into the system. This remains an important safeguard, especially where allegations of bullying or harassment are involved. Finally, the requirement for an annual report to be laid before Parliament would continue, taking account of the new functions of the ombudsman.

The proposals that I have outlined represent a significant change to the way that service complaints are handled. The aim is to reach conclusions more quickly while maintaining fairness. The creation of the new role of the ombudsman will also strengthen the level of scrutiny and independent oversight that complaints are subject to.

Clause 4 deals with financial payments to charities and other organisations which support the Armed Forces community. One of the best signs that the Armed Forces covenant is working is the extent to which groups in the voluntary and community sector are involved in supporting our service personnel, veterans and their families. Many of these groups are small, locally based and run by dedicated volunteers. They help bind the services to our communities and provide the sort of active, caring and focused support that is needed. I am sure that we would all wish to pay credit to the invaluable work that they do.

The Government need to work in partnership with such organisations and that includes providing financial assistance where appropriate. During the past four years, the Government have committed £105 million to delivering the commitments of the covenant. The Armed Forces covenant grant fund has distributed £55 million through both the community covenant grant fund, which strengthens ties and understanding between the Armed Forces and the wider community, and through funding which backs projects supporting the broader aims of the covenant. A further £10 million of the community covenant funding, and a one-off payment of £40 million in support of veterans’ accommodation, is set to be distributed this year. We are also developing proposals for management of the future Armed Forces covenant fund, which is set at £10 million per year from this year onwards. It is essential that the Armed Forces community gets the maximum benefit from these significant sums of money.

The funding covered by Clause 4 is aimed at organisations rather than individuals. Organisations working with the Armed Forces community are based throughout the United Kingdom and we want them to be able to benefit from these funds wherever they are located. However, the use of covenant funding is currently constrained by two pieces of legislation: Section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003 confines payments to local authorities to England and Wales while Section 70 of the Charities Act 2006 limits financial assistance to charities and other benevolent institutions which provide a direct or indirect benefit to England. We have got around these restrictions on a temporary basis by making payments under the Appropriation Act but this is not a long-term solution. Clause 4 would therefore enable financial assistance to be given to organisations that support the Armed Forces community wherever they are based.

I very much look forward to the debate on the Bill this afternoon. Today’s Armed Forces are committed to ensuring that complaints from service personnel are taken seriously and handled fairly and effectively, and that lessons are learnt when things go wrong. No member of our Armed Forces should lack confidence in the system for dealing with their complaints. The proposals set out in the Bill will both streamline and strengthen that system. The Bill will support the interests of complainants and create a strong and independent ombudsman. The measures in it underline the commitment of this Government to the principles of the Armed Forces covenant and the obligations we owe our service personnel, veterans and their families. I beg to move.

15:26

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the wide-ranging and very balanced way that he introduced the debate this afternoon. I commend the Government for listening to the wide range of voices, whether representative of the Armed Forces, the Defence Select Committee in another place or—perhaps most importantly—the commissioner in the annual reports she has given the Government since the 2006 Act was introduced. Her continual message has been that, although it is important to have complaints, the system was not and is not working satisfactorily. We owe a debt to Dr Atkins and her very small team for their work over the last years and the support they gave in drafting this Bill.

I can well understand the reservations that noble and gallant Lords might have about elements within the Bill and—perhaps—the conflict within the chain of command. However, having read the Bill, I do not think that that problem is there. Certainly, the Defence Council assures me on that. It is actually quite a narrowly drawn Bill. Had the complaints systems worked well, as we all hoped, we would not be discussing this Bill today but we are where we are. The system has not worked. As the Minister rightly said, we have to consider the welfare of our Armed Forces personnel and how they see the complaints system working for them. All the surveys confirm that it has not worked. Therefore we have the Bill today. I welcome it very much indeed. It simplifies the decision-making.

This House has a reputation for improving Bills when they come to us. I look forward to discussing a number of areas within this Bill. One or two changes may be necessary. For instance, the Bill permits those who may have left the services and are no longer covered by services law to bring a complaint within a specific time period. Is the intention within that to permit, perhaps in a situation where an individual former member of the services has died, that his or her family can bring a complaint? Would that be within the remit of the Bill? If a member of the Armed Forces makes a complaint and subsequently passes on, will it be possible for that complaint to be fulfilled to the end and a decision made on it?

Much in the Bill is left to regulation. The Secretary of State can draw up various aspects of what will and will not take place. As we all know, regulation is normally decided after the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. It leaves an awful lot to confidence that the regulations will meet what was intended under the Bill, and we need to probe that during the Bill’s stages in the House.

Independence of an ombudsman covering whatever field—whether the people covered by the complaints system see the ombudsman as independent—is very important. During the Bill’s passage, I want to probe how independent the ombudsman will be. For example, in the course of her work, she will accumulate a lot of data, a lot of information. Will the ombudsman have the authority and remit to be able to conduct research, which might be most helpful in some cases, bullying being one that comes to my mind?

The Bill provides for the method by which an individual applies to have a claim of maladministration dealt with. We would hope that it is not so complicated as to put people off—in other words that they are not required to cite this or that particular clause or article in their written submission.

The Minister dealt with financial support at the end of his presentation. I was very pleased to see that in the Bill, although one could argue that it is an entirely separate issue. It is a very good innovation to add it to the Bill, and I welcome it very much. Apart from the money that the charities raise and spend so well in supporting our Armed Forces veterans and their families, it helps to spread the message in our communities about the good work that our Armed Forces do in a way that is not “official speak”, but showing the lives that our service personnel give to their country. I very much welcome that aspect of the Bill.

I close where I started, and underline my view that the Bill will not interfere with the chain of command. That would be damaging to the Armed Forces. We must maintain that while ensuring that our Armed Forces personnel feel that any complaints they have can be dealt with fairly, in a balanced way and, perhaps most of all, expeditiously. That will enable us to discharge our responsibility to our Armed Forces, together with the annual report that will go to the Secretary of State, who will then lay it before Parliament to judge whether this method is succeeding.

I wish the Bill well and look forward to the discussions that we will have on it.

15:31

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Bill. We have already heard a detailed explanation of it from the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. I certainly do not intend to repeat what they said.

The Bill deals with three matters: the creation of a Service Complaints Ombudsman; the reform of the service complaints system; and ensuring financial assistance to charities and other organisations which support the Armed Forces community. The heads of the three Armed Forces have, as we have been told in this debate, publicly stated their support for the Bill, but I look forward to meeting the representatives of the service chiefs and the current commissioner between Second Reading and Committee, so that I and other noble Lords can have their first-hand assessment before we reach Committee on this very useful Bill. I am sometimes wary of public statements when we do not get to grips with the actual person who made the statement. There is no suspicion that what we have been told is not the case, but that would be useful.

I shall concentrate on the ombudsman and the service complaints system. I hope that my noble friend Lady Garden will deal with Clause 4, so I will leave that for the moment, and that my noble friend Lord Thomas will share with the House his vast experience of military court advocates, which have a bearing on the Bill.

The current Service Complaints Commissioner stated, as we have heard, that she could not provide an assurance that the current system was working in its present format. She was also critical of the length of time that it took to resolve complaints, particularly those relating to bullying and harassment. I am pleased that the Bill makes the legislative changes required to take forward the needed reforms. The current Service Complaints Commissioner has also stated that the Bill will bring,

“substantial improvements to the fairness of the complaints system, the time it takes for complaints to be resolved and increase the level of confidence Service personnel have in the process”.

One criticism that has been made is that the ombudsman will not apparently have the power to undertake on her own initiative a thematic inquiry into issues of the public interest. I agree that the Bill is correct in leaving the power to investigate the substance of individual complaints within the current internal system, thus not intruding into the chain of command. However, the question is: if there are substantial systemic issues, which always happen in any organisation, should the new ombudsman have the power to highlight these issues and make recommendations to the Defence Council? I hope that when he replies, my noble friend the Minister might deal with that aspect.

My attention has been drawn to the office of the Canadian ombudsman—as the old adage says, “Don’t reinvent the wheel”. Could the Minister comment on why the UK ombudsman will not have two powers held by the Canadian equivalent? First, there is the ability in compelling circumstances to deal with the substance of the complaint as distinct from only investigating the process. Secondly, there is the power to issue reports concerning any investigation considered to be in the public interest—the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, referred to that to some extent. I see that as being when the system is not working and when it goes beyond dealing with the faults in the process of any individual case.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to explain why new Section 340L makes no reference to the sanctions which would apply if the ombudsman’s investigation shows maladministration. What compensation should the aggrieved party receive? Would the complainant receive the compensation, or would the guilty party just be fined by the Defence Council? I have seen so much of this in local government, where an ombudsman may find against the local authority, or whatever, and the local authority is fined a modest sum for some maladministration but the complainant is often left high and dry and thus has to go to some other court to get some solution.

There appears to have been general approval of this Bill, which we do not often get in this Chamber, but there is a lurking fear that an opportunity may be lost by not including in compelling circumstances an empowerment to look at the underlying complaint. That is noticeably missing from the ombudsman’s powers.

15:38

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

My Lords, in approaching the Bill I have perhaps an unsurprising ambiguity towards it, wishing on the one hand that there was no need for it yet recognising on the other that that wish is not entirely realistic. My hope for the Bill is therefore that its implementation will be done well. Implementation will be the key to the Bill’s success. As the Minister said in introducing the Bill this afternoon, whatever happens must not prejudice the integrity of the chain of command. I am extraordinarily encouraged to hear that the Chiefs of Staff have been consulted closely for their views on this and that this particular, key point is recognised.

However, there is one lurking concern: that the ombudsman process provides an alternative route if the main complaints procedure is not followed. I would hope, first, that this route would be followed rarely and in extremis. Perhaps the existence of that alternative process might be an encouragement to the chain of command to make sure that it deals as properly as it can with complaints as they come up through that chain

Secondly, in terms of implementation, the new arrangements must be properly resourced. The current Service Complaints Commissioner has done an extraordinarily good job over the past six years and I wish to associate myself with the compliments and congratulations that have been offered towards her. However, there is no doubt that her work has been made more difficult by the very small team that she had to support her and the comparative lack of resources made available to her.

The main target for the successful implementation of the Bill is to attack delay. It is well known that in many circumstances justice delayed is justice denied, and in recent years delay has been the focus of much work within the chain of command. Many of the new powers within the Bill will allow delay to be tackled, particularly in dealing with cases at the most appropriate level. It has not been satisfactory in the past that cases could not be dealt with at what would seem to be the logical level and have been taken up higher up the chain of command than need have been.

Delay has been attacked vigorously over the past few years, and in theory has been reduced. It does not appear to be so in all circumstances, though, because the number of cases of complaint has increased. I think that is so for two reasons: first, the fact that awareness of the complaints process and procedure has increased, and therefore more people are aware of the ability to complain about something; and, secondly, the wider litigious environment in which we find ourselves. That said, delay must be tackled; that is the key to the success of the Bill and is the key point as far as implementation is concerned.

I also welcome the fourth clause in the Bill regarding financial assistance. Anything that can be done to improve the integration between the public, private and charitable sectors in the way in which we support our veterans and their families has to be welcome. People often say, “Surely the Government should do more”, to which my reply invariably has been, “The British way in looking after our veterans and their families has been for the public, private and charitable sectors to come together”. This is a recognition that the Government, the public sector, can do more in that triumvirate, that trinity of activity, and I therefore welcome the clause.

15:41

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Association of Military Court Advocates, which had the opportunity of discussing the Bill a week ago at a seminar at the Honourable Artillery Company premises in the City.

Dr Susan Atkins was right to draw attention to the scandals involving personnel in the BBC, the NHS and the police service in her 2013 report. They do not need repeating, but the lesson to be drawn is the reputational damage to a national organisation that fails to confront the problems in its midst and fails to deal with them fairly and promptly. She might have added Parliament itself and the political parties to her list.

It is very disturbing that the commissioner could not give an assurance that the service complaints system was working efficiently, effectively or fairly. A major concern of hers was the apparent increase in bullying and harassment of personnel in the Army, and she called for a system that would make the zero-tolerance policy in the services a reality. She also pointed to delay, as the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, did a moment ago, as the principal reason for unfairness in the system, particularly in the Army and the Royal Air Force, and said that problems remain in the monitoring, handling and recording of service complaints. Importantly, she drew attention to the way in which slow, ineffective and unfair systems can exacerbate the wrong complained about, including damage to mental health.

Sadly, these problems were only too vividly illustrated by the tragic suicide of Anne-Marie Ellement, who suffered bullying and workplace abuse. At the inquest in March this year, the coroner referred to the fact that her reports to the chain of command of being bullied were not investigated. The announcement of the creation of an ombudsman came only weeks after that verdict was delivered, but I assume that there was work in progress since in its report on the work of the Service Complaints Commissioner, published in February 2013, the House of Commons Defence Committee gave wholehearted endorsement to Dr Atkins’s call for those powers to be that of an ombudsman. She had made detailed proposals for such a role in April 2013.

I therefore give a very cautious welcome to this Bill because I am not convinced that the proposals meet the criticisms of the previous system, and I shall be anxious to explore in Committee the weaknesses which I believe it contains. I am grateful to the Minister for his meeting with Peers last week and for his assurance that a meeting will be arranged with Dr Atkins and with the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff to thrash out any difficulties.

I very much welcome the strong powers, equivalent to those of a High Court judge, which the Bill gives to the ombudsman to call for documents and witnesses. The major stumbling block to reform is always the reluctances of the services to admit any outside interference in the running of military affairs. There was resistance to the reforms proposed to the military justice system in 2006, which are now largely accepted. It is not long since we were debating the concept of “lawfare”. I understand the high importance of the integrity of the chain of command, but, as I pointed out in our meeting with the Minister, everybody is subject to the rule of law, including the services.

The Armed Forces covenant is not a legal document, but its key principles were enshrined in law in the Armed Forces Act 2011. Under the covenant, the Armed Forces have a responsibility to maintain an organisation which treats every individual fairly, with dignity and respect, in an environment which is free from bullying, harassment and discrimination. Section C15 states that individuals must,

“have means of recourse open to them, if they believe that they are not being treated in a fair and appropriate way”.

In his report into Deepcut in 2006, Mr Justice Blake made that point. He said:

“It will be difficult for the Armed Forces to satisfy the public that they have nothing to hide in the running of their discipline and complaints system if there is a perception of unwillingness to accept meaningful independent oversight, which is increasingly seen as a necessary counterweight to the powers and prerogatives of military life”.

It must be remembered that the services compete for, and are concerned to keep, skilful and intelligent recruits in a competitive market. It is essential that those who are subject to military law and discipline should have confidence that their grievances will be properly addressed in accordance with the military covenant. As the Minister pointed out a moment ago, commanding officers control the lives of those under their command in a way that does not happen in civilian life and may subject them to punishment, and even imprisonment, for service offences. Employment tribunals have been kept at bay, save in discrimination cases, but the Armed Forces are not merely an employer; they are landlord, healthcare provider, social worker and much more.

To my mind, the most significant limitation of the Bill is that it confines the role of the ombudsman to an investigation of an allegation of maladministration in connection with the handling of a service complaint. This is covered in new Section 340H. This means that the ombudsman cannot investigate the substance of the initial incident that generates the complaint or any injustice arising out of it. His role is limited to discovering whether there are any procedural defects in the way in which the complaint was handled within the chain of command.

If the procedure was correctly followed, the ombudsman has no power to put right a decision on the merits of the complaint, no matter how perverse it appears to him to be. On the other hand, if the procedure was incorrect, the remedy is merely to return the complaint for a fresh decision within the chain of command, causing further delay and frustration to the complainant. Is it not as vital to ensure that the right decision was taken on a complaint as that it was simply procedurally correct?

Ombudsmen were introduced in the 1960s to investigate only complaints of maladministration—that is their 1960s history. However, their powers have developed. As Liberty points out in its very helpful briefing on the Bill:

“The Scottish Public Service Ombudsman, the Local Government Ombudsman for England and the Prisons Ombudsman are all empowered by statute to investigate ‘service failure’ in addition to maladministration. In its 2011 report on public service ombudsmen, the Law Commission observed that it could see no reason why the Parliamentary Ombudsman … should not have its powers increased to investigate service failure too”.

I therefore echo the thoughts of my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, who asked whether it was possible that the Bill goes further than the individual complaint. The Minister said in opening today that the ombudsman can look at complaints that have systematic implications. Can he explain what he means by that? Can the ombudsman go beyond the individual complaint?

In its 2011 report the Law Commission also drew attention to the distinction between the findings of the ombudsman on an investigation into the facts surrounding an incident, and his recommendations. Over time, the practice has developed whereby an ombudsman makes findings of fact and of the existence of maladministration that is causing injustice to individuals, and then recommends action that the public body should take to remedy the injustice. The Law Commission concluded that recommendations should be seen in a different light. They are part of the political process, since compliance with recommendations may require the reallocation of a significant amount of public funds. However, the findings of fact are properly the province of the ombudsman.

New Section 340L deals with the ombudsman’s reports. First, it requires that the report sets out his findings, and, secondly, it requires him to set out his recommendations as a separate matter. Subsection (3) provides that the recommendations may include appropriate remedies for dealing with maladministration and with any injustice which may have been sustained. Can the Minister say whether it should be made explicit that the ombudsman may recommend compensation for the victims of maladministration or injustice? Is that to be implied in the wording of the Bill, or will it be necessary to improve and strengthen the Bill by giving the ombudsman the power to recommend compensation in an appropriate case?

In new Section 340M the Bill is silent on the issue of the ombudsman’s findings. It should be made explicit that the Defence Council is bound by those findings—it cannot open up the facts again and find differently to the ombudsman who was put in charge of an investigation. As for the recommendations, it should be made clear that the Defence Council will follow the ombudsman’s recommendations unless there are cogent reasons not to do so. At the moment, the clause is drafted in such a way that the Defence Council may quite arbitrarily reject the recommendations. Can the Minister confirm that the reasons in writing that the Defence Council may give for rejecting them may be challenged by judicial review?

The noble Lord, Lord Astor, said that the majority of complaints relate to pay and conditions. That may be so, but the public interest and concern is about allegations of bullying and harassment that fall short of criminal offences. It is important that the system deals with such allegations properly and is properly resourced with men and money to make sure that the ombudsman can do his work.

15:54

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill, but have some reservations about it. First, I am surprised—although maybe there is a simple explanation—that Clause 4 is not in a separate part. It does not seem to have anything in common with complaints or ombudsmen. Nevertheless, welcome support has already been given to service charities and others from the £35 million LIBOR funds that have been allocated. I welcome the Minister’s information about further funds being set aside for future years. What assurances can he give the House that these welcome funds will not be reduced or forgone, whether they come from LIBOR or from the defence budget?

I turn to the principal issue of the Bill. There has been systemic evidence that the complaints system has not moved with the times, and a commendable expectation that complaints about maladministration and issues such as bullying and sexual harassment should be dealt with fairly and in a timely manner. As the complaints commissioner’s annual reports make clear in citing examples of poor handling of complaints, much still needs to be done to improve the way in which the Army and the Royal Air Force deal with complaints. The Royal Navy seems to be showing the way, with a reasonable recent record. What is not clear—and maybe the Minister can help us on this—is how much of the difficulties being faced by the Army and Royal Air Force are due to a lack of adequate resources or to conflicting issues that make a quick and timely resolution of a complaint unachievable. Are there barriers to better performance that lie beyond the control or decision of the chain of command? The complaints commissioner herself has reported that more resources are required within the services. Is she right on this?

Unless these problems are tackled and resolved, the changes in this Bill—the substitution of an ombudsman figure for the complaints commissioner and the reduction in the appeals process from three levels to just two—will prove not to be the answer to the problem but more expensive than its predecessor. Will it turn out to be no more than costly cosmetics, because the practical difficulties faced within the services for dealing with complaints cannot be or have not been resolved?

As has been made clear by the Minister, the Government recognise the importance of retaining the responsibilities of the chain of command, even to the extent of not giving the ombudsman the final say in the outcome of his or her investigation and report. I welcome this approach because, as I have said on other occasions in this House, the whole ethos and trust between those in command and those they command are so essential to the operation, employment and day-to-day activity of the forces.

Much of the detail in the Bill will not emerge until the many regulations specified in it are published. One in particular about which it would be helpful to have further information is the reference on page 2, on lines 18 and 19, to matters of a description about which a complaint may not be made. The Minister has given the House some indication what those no-go areas might encompass, but more information would be helpful.

Another example that would benefit from further information is the procedure for the ombudsman investigations in new Section 340I on page 7. New subsection (2) states:

“The Secretary of State may make regulations about the procedure to be followed”,

but new subsections (3) and (4) seem to give the ombudsman freedom to make up his or her mind on how to proceed, albeit constrained by whatever the Secretary of State has set out in his regulation about procedure. It would be helpful to our understanding all the intricacies of the regulations referred to in this Bill if drafts for regulations for more major issues could be made available before we reached Committee. Would that be possible?

The Bill introduces arrangements that may help to speed up resolution of a complaint by reducing the number of levels of appeal and setting out timescales for the submission and discharge of appeals. I welcome the latter and the intention to have a cut-off point beyond which claims cannot be made or continued. The downside to this is that future claimants may feel that their rights have been eroded. Provided that the new arrangements—not only those covered by this Bill but, most importantly, the improvements in service procedures for dealing with complaints—are seen to work well, the reduction in appeal opportunities seems reasonable and I for one conditionally accept it.

15:59

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friends Lord Astor—the Minister—and Lady Jolly for the information and briefings on the Bill that they have made available to Members of the House.

Although this is a short Bill, its two parts could make a significant difference to the culture and well-being of members of the Armed Forces. As we have heard, the first three clauses—the ombudsman clauses—are in response to recommendations from the Service Complaints Commissioner, the Royal British Legion and others that not all complaints are appropriately addressed under the current system. I agree with others that, in scrutinising these clauses, it will be important to take into account the calls for increased powers for the ombudsman alongside the role of the military chain of command, which has traditionally been the main route for service complaints to be addressed. Legislation should not remove from commanding officers the responsibility and authority to deal with complaints at a local level. I welcome my noble friend the Minister’s assurances on that. However, the need for independent oversight has become apparent. The Bill looks to improve that function for service personnel and, by association, their families.

As my noble friend Lord Thomas alluded to, the Armed Forces are rare in that those serving in them often depend on their service for their jobs, homes and a range of public services. Not many other walks of life call for such a range of dependencies in personal lives, and carry such consequences if things go wrong.

Clause 4 interests me greatly. As my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill indicated, it extends the agreement under the Armed Forces covenant for the MoD to give financial assistance to the Armed Forces community. Those of us who have worked with service charities know at first hand the enormously valuable work they do in giving financial support to those in need, but also moral support, advice and friendship. In adding to the money that they raise, this ongoing financial assistance from the Secretary of State will be welcome. I hope that the Bill will give us the opportunity to clarify how these funds are managed, particularly in relation to service charities, and to seek reassurances that the applications, selection procedures and administrative costs are proportionate and do not duplicate those elsewhere. We hope to hear from those who will be involved in implementing these measures, including the service charities, to ensure that the best possible use is made of the Secretary of State’s fund—money which is much needed by the service community.

We look forward to further briefings as we go into Committee and to scrutinising all the provisions in the Bill as we proceed.

15:59

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

I, too, welcome the Minister’s opening remarks about the paramountcy and importance of the chain of command. I also associate myself entirely with the remarks of my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig, including those on the importance of analysing why the Army and the Royal Air Force appear to be lagging behind the Navy in implementing the 2006 measures.

What I would like to contribute to the debate at this stage is stirred by the mention by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, of the problems of the ombudsman having statutory powers on occasion. If ever there is a clash between the chain of command and anything statutory, we have to remember that there are two conditions in which the Armed Forces find themselves—their normal day-to-day existence, when different circumstances can prevail, and active service, when there is no room for anything other than an operational chain of command if operations are to proceed correctly.

I add two cautionary tales to explain why I am opposed to the commissioner being advanced to an ombudsman. In 1992, I was Adjutant-General, personnel director of the Army, and was sitting in the Principal Personnel Officers’ Committee with my opposite numbers from the Navy and the Air Force, when the Second Permanent Under-Secretary said to us, “You have got to decide where industrial tribunals figure in the service disciplinary chains”. Naively, I asked whether they came before or after Her Majesty the Queen, who is, of course, at the summit of it all. I was told that that was completely irrelevant because the Bill instructing that this should happen had already been given its First Reading in the House. “What Bill?”, we asked.

It eventually appeared that there was a Bill about industrial tribunals that had its origins in Brussels. When a copy came, I gave it to the director of Army Legal Services and said, “Run your eye over this, please, and come and tell me if there is anything difficult in it”. Within half an hour, he was back and he said, “This is absolutely disastrous. There is a clause in here which says that if an employee is ordered into a place of danger, he can take his employer to an industrial tribunal”. If carried to its logical conclusion, that would mean that a company could take its commanding officer to an industrial tribunal if ordered to, for example, capture a hill. I then asked the Second PUS what the offices of the German, French and Italian armies had done about the Bill. He said, “They claimed exemption for their armed forces”. I said, “Why on earth can we not do so, because all armed forces do the same thing?”. I say that merely because I suspect, having read the clauses in the Bill—many of which have been outlined, particularly by my noble and gallant friend—that the implications of the proposed powers of the ombudsman in relation to the chain of command may not have been properly thought through.

My second cautionary tale concerns coroners. We all welcome the fact that inquests will now happen more quickly, because there is nothing worse than a family having to wait for years and years before the full knowledge of the circumstances of the son’s, or whoever’s, death is known. Recently—in the past five years or more—there have been examples of coroners who, rather than just doing their job, have started to interfere with command decisions and question them in court. I submit that orders given by people on the battlefield should not be a matter for public questioning by coroners in a coroner’s court. There is a danger that the business of them doing that has undermined confidence in the whole coronial system in the Armed Forces, which is thoroughly unfortunate. I sincerely hope that the chief coroner will correct this.

I mention those examples because, while I am not opposed to there being a commissioner for complaints who is absolutely committed, first and foremost, to the rule of law in the Armed Forces—and those of us who operated on the streets of Northern Ireland, armed with our yellow cards, know how intrusive that can be—we must have a proper complaints system in which everyone has trust and which functions quickly and effectively. If that is not the case, then we must see why. I am most unhappy, however, at the thought of someone being introduced into the system with more powers than currently exist, because of the possible implications for the paramountcy of the chain of command, on which the Minister opened his address.

15:59

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for introducing his Bill. It is clear that the old system was flawed but, like my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, I am not convinced that the new one will cure the problem. It is of course heart-warming that the Government have found time for the Bill. Before saying anything substantive, I remind the House that I am still a commissioned officer in the TA, although I am not very active for a variety of reasons.

My worry is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in that, under the new system, the chain of command might concentrate on procedure to satisfy the ombudsman at the expense of resolving the grievance using skill and experience. For instance, one of the draft letters in JSP 831 looked to me to be rather formal. In certain cases, a more relaxed style might be more effective, and a good assisting officer could be helpful in this regard. Slavishly adhering to procedure can have serious disadvantages.

Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, have commented on delays in the system. There are time limits for the complainant and the CO respectively to make a formal complaint and for it to be determined. There does not appear to be any time to be disregarded as a result of being on operations, a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. Surely when deployed a complainant will have other things to worry about—as, indeed, will other parties.

For certain types of complaint the CO has 120 days to determine the matter; that is just for level 1. It seems to me, from reading JSP 831, that there is rather too much time. There appears to be no provision to require higher authority for the CO to exceed certain time limits. Where is the pressure on the system to conclude these matters speedily? It seems to me that the CO and the chain of command have to determine bullying and harassment cases quickly, no matter how painful for the parties involved. I do not understand why it appears to take so long to gather the facts. Is it just too difficult to make the decision?

If a complaint is found to be unfounded, under JSP 831, quite properly, no record is made in the respondent’s file. As we know, many of these cases are hard to determine because it is often one person’s word against that of another. What, then, happens if a new complaint is made against the original respondent by someone who does not know the original complainant and never knew a problem with the respondent had arisen before? The new CO will investigate with an open mind. However, if the CO knew that this was not the first time that this problem had arisen with this particular respondent, a different conclusion may well be reached. How is that pitfall to be avoided, both now and in future?

It is easy to think that officers and the chain of command are absolutely heartless. This is certainly not my experience, at all levels. I have always had full confidence in the chain of command. However, the problem is sometimes down to money. JSP 831 chapter 5 paragraph 5.2 indicates that the second PUS’s views must be adhered to by the defence council. Therefore, a situation can easily arise in which the complaint is well founded but the system is unable to correct it—in other words, the chain of command cannot resolve the problem. I have two questions for the Minister to write to me about. First, have I read that correctly? Can it be just that the second PUS can effectively direct the defence council? Secondly, if the complaint is well founded but to remedy it would not be good use of money available for the defence, can the grievance system find in the complainant’s favour but agree either that it would cost too much to remedy the complaint or that it would create an undesirable precedent? In many cases, just an acknowledgment that the complainant is right might be enough.

I wish the Minister well with his Bill and I hope that he can allay my concerns and those of other noble Lords in Committee. I hope we can meet the current Service Complaints Commissioner as soon as possible. I do not propose to speak to the next, more general debate because over the past few years I have not been so closely involved in defence matters.

16:14

[Lord Boyce (CB)]

My Lords, the financial assistance aspects of the Bill seem a welcome piece of tidying up. However, would the Minister like to confirm that COBSEO, the Confederation of Service Charities, has been informed about what is going on? I get the impression that it has not been cut in on the loop, so I should be grateful for an answer on that.

I am less sanguine about the service complaints part of the Bill concerning the introduction of a new Service Complaints Ombudsman to replace the existing Service Complaints Commissioner. I am unpersuaded by the Minister’s opening comments that an ombudsman vice the complaints commission is needed. I am quite sure that the £500,000 or so that I believe it is going to cost would be better spent on such recommendations as were made by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig, who talked about how he might get better resources for the Army and the Air Force to speed up their processes.

The Armed Forces are a highly disciplined organisation with their own Armed Forces Act and quite different from any other organisation because of the powers vested in the command chain. I can understand the desirability of having a Service Complaints Commissioner, but I am at a loss to understand why an ombudsman is seen as necessary, and I am very concerned about the powers that are being suggested, which seem set to undermine the command chain which is fundamental to fighting efficiency. I have a suspicion that there is more than a degree of political correctness in driving this, at the expense of the ultimate goal of our fighting services, which is to fight and win.

In my general unease at what is being proposed, I have a very specific concern about new Section 340K, which allows the putative ombudsman to cut into the command chain directly and, without any recourse to the command chain, to bring to court anyone who it feels is obstructing the execution of its investigative duties. I fundamentally disagree with the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that the Bill does not interfere with the command chain in this respect. This role is one that, if necessary, the Defence Council can exercise already. The refusal of an order passed downwards from any part in its command chain is, in Armed Forces law, an offence which, when flouted, will see a person being subject to internal disciplinary proceedings.

I stress that that differentiates the Armed Forces from any other body where an ombudsman exists, and the adoption of the measures in new Section 340K puts the services under even further legal siege and encroachment—something that I believe the Secretary of State for Defence has previously, rightly, expressed anxiety about. In view of that, it is difficult to understand why he should support new Section 340K. It is certainly ill aligned with the Written Statement that he made to Parliament on 13 March 2014, when he said:

“The Defence Council would remain responsible for the decisions taken in response to the SCC’s recommendations, thus maintaining the authority of the chain of command”—[Official Report, 13/3/14; col. WS 188.],

and thus indicating his attachment to the chain of command.

I also draw attention to the Government’s response to the House of Commons Defence Committee’s eighth report, where they say that changes,

“cannot be at the expense of maintaining the primacy of the chain of command”.

Perhaps the Minister can comment on that and, specifically, on whether new Section 340K has the explicit support of the Chiefs of Staff. My understanding is that it emphatically does not, and absolute clarity on this from the Minister would be welcome. I find it interesting that the memorandum from the MoD for today’s debate in the House of Lords is silent on new Section 340K. Would it be reasonable to suppose that this section has been included in the Bill after consultation with the services? Perhaps the Minister would like to comment on that and reflect very carefully indeed before he does so.

New Section 340J, concerning the service ombudsman asking for documentation, seems to be right and is associated with new Section 340K. However, I most strongly and passionately believe that new Section 340K is ill advised and unnecessary. It should be deleted from the Bill.

16:19

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

With your Lordships’ leave I would like to speak briefly in the gap. I hesitate to speak in a debate in which so many noble and gallant Lords have spoken because my own military experience is but nothing compared with theirs. When I was a Territorial Army officer in the 1970s the idea that there would be an independent complaints process was so far away from the reality of how we saw things that people would have laughed. If you did not like what was done you would just leave and not turn up at the drill hall next time. I realise that things have moved on and that we live in a much more litigious society, and I am very well aware of that in my present honorary role as an Honorary Air Commodore of 600 (City of London) Squadron Royal Auxiliary Air Force.

I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for introducing this debate. I, too, took considerable comfort from his assurances that complaints should be heard and determined at the lowest appropriate level, and that nothing should be done that would weaken the absolute integrity of the chain of command. I readily acknowledge that service complaints panels, including the use of independent members, have been found to be useful and have provided for more transparent decision-making. Service complaints panels are generally not thought to have undermined the chain of command. Is my noble friend absolutely certain that the ability of the putative SCO—the ombudsman— to direct the Defence Council will not have the potential to undermine the chain of command? I must admit that I fear that the upgrading of the commissioner to an ombudsman does of itself seem to challenge the essential premise that the Armed Forces should retain responsibility wherever possible for handing their own complaints within the services.

The Bill changes the process in other ways. It reduces three appeals within the service to just two chances. I am persuaded that streamlining the process is necessary but I wonder whether that will be helpful. I think that it will have the effect of reducing the amount of judgment of decision-making that is done within the service and increasing the amount that is done independently outside the service. Again, on the face of it that would seem to undermine the power of the chain of command. How can a service preserve the ability to hold a service complaints panel without referral to the ombudsman or without there having to be maladministration of the service complaint? Will the service have discretion to determine the level at which a service complaint is best dealt with? Oral hearings are useful to clarify disputed facts. Will there be provision in the new system for oral hearings? The ombudsman’s costs will rise as a result of additional work necessary to enable her to determine whether there has been maladministration of a service complaint.

Clause 4 is very welcome. The extent to which the main established military charities, in addition to providing assistance to their Second World War and other veteran communities, now provide direct help to the serving Armed Forces is not widely appreciated or understood. The RAF Benevolent Fund, which I had the privilege to chair for eight years has provided more than £20 million to fund childcare centres on all the principal RAF stations. In addition, we provide substantial sums for games areas and Relate counselling for those whose relationships are under strain, often as a result of separation. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, told the House, this is a completely different subject. Nevertheless, I very much welcome it.

16:24

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, while we support the Bill, a number of points have been and will be raised in this debate which will require either a response from the Government or probing further as we progress through the different stages of the parliamentary process. My noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, in particular, has already raised a number of points which I wish to re-emphasise.

The key feature of the Bill is the intention to replace the existing Service Complaints Commissioner with a Service Complaints Ombudsman. We have been calling for an Armed Forces ombudsman for more than a year to strengthen independent scrutiny of service complaints following a number of frank reports from the Service Complaints Commissioner, including in 2011 when she described the system as,

“not efficient, effective or fair”.

The system has not improved since then. We promised that we would introduce a cost-neutral reform through simplification of the present system to create a more powerful ombudsman. Following this pressure from ourselves and others, including the Commons Defence Select Committee and the commissioner—who has rightly been complimented today on the invaluable work that she has done—the Government finally announced that they would introduce a Service Complaints Ombudsman, and today’s Bill is the result.

We have also been campaigning strongly for the protection and promotion of our Armed Forces community inside and outside their service. For example, we campaigned for the military covenant to become part of UK law, giving members of the Armed Forces legal rights and entitlements. We have announced that we will increase protections against discrimination of the Armed Forces community in public through the Armed Forces (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill, and we have continually pushed the Government to tackle bullying, harassment and sexual assault in the armed services.

The Bill also includes a power to make payments to charities, benevolent organisations and others for the benefit of the Armed Forces community. This raises questions about how the current LIBOR funding has been allocated and spent, and therefore how any future funding would be allocated, and whether or not those in receipt of LIBOR funding have had to meet specific criteria, including on levels of performance. These are points on which we would welcome a response from the Minister and which we will be pursuing in more detail during the consideration of the Bill.

The Service Complaints Commissioner was established in 2008 by the previous Government under the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006 following, in particular, the concerns arising from the Deepcut review by Nicholas Blake QC into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four trainees at an army training establishment. The current role of the Service Complaints Commissioner is to refer complaints received direct into the system and to make inquiries if a complaint is not resolved within 24 weeks. The Service Complaints Commissioner also provides an annual assurance of the complaints system to the Secretary of State for Defence and Parliament but does not have the legal power to review the handling of individual cases.

However, the commissioner has been critical of the present arrangements and how in practice they work. Indeed, in her most recent annual report, the commissioner says that for the sixth year she is unable to give an assurance that the service complaints system is working efficiently, effectively or fairly and that delay remains the principal reason for unfairness in the system. Overall, the Navy resolved 78% of new 2013 service complaints within the 24 weeks target; the Army met the target of resolution of complaints within 24 weeks in only 25% of cases; and for the RAF the figure was 23%. The commissioner also stated that she was unable to provide an assurance that the data contained in her report provided by the Army and the RAF on how complaints were handled were reliable. She also stated that service personnel lacked confidence in the system.

The current system does not offer all complainants the assurance of an independent person overseeing their complaint outside the chain of command in any effective way. No one currently has powers to recommend necessary changes when a complaint has not been handled properly. Service personnel have no recourse to other ombudsmen on matters such as housing, medical care or police services where these are provided by the Armed Forces.

Under the terms of the Bill, the service complaints ombudsman will have the legal power to review individual cases where a serviceperson feels their complaint has not been handled properly and to report its findings with recommendations for correcting any default or maladministration found. What it appears the ombudsman, like the current commissioner, will not be able to do is instigate an investigation himself. The present commissioner has apparently never been asked by the Secretary of State to report on a particular area of concern she may have outside her normal annual reporting cycle. It is not apparently because the commissioner has no areas of concern. She told the Commons Defence Select Committee that she would look at,

“cases of bullying, which include assault, and the issues to do with mental health, access to services, race [...] and the handling of those cases”.

During visits to units, she had been informed of issues that would not come to her as complaints and thought that some work needed to be done on them. She told the Defence Select Committee that ombudsmen have this broader view, and:

“They can pull together in an informed and responsible way evidence across the piece and put it forward in a way that is very valuable to the organisation that they oversee”.

The comments and views of the commissioner, including on the failings of the current complaints system, are particularly pertinent in the light of sexual assault, rape and bullying in the Armed Forces hitting the headlines when Corporal Anne-Marie Ellement committed suicide after complaining of suffering from bullying following an allegation of rape against two male colleagues, a case to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred.

The 2013 Armed Forces Continuous Attitudes Survey found that 10% of those surveyed believed that they,

“have been the subject of discrimination, harassment and bullying”,

in a service environment in the past 12 months, but only 8% of them had made a formal complaint. The reasons given for not making a complaint included:

“I did not believe anything would be done if I did complain”.

That was given by 54%, while 52% gave the reason:

“I believe it might adversely affect my career or workplace”.

I believe that 28% cited being,

“worried there would be recriminations from the perpetrators”.

The Commons Defence Select Committee said that it believed there would be value in the commissioner being able to undertake research and to report on thematic issues in addition to her annual reports.

As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, has also said, my understanding is that the Canadian forces ombudsman can initiate thematic inquiries into problems faced by sections of the Canadian armed services. Can the Minister say whether the Government have considered giving this power to the Service Complaints Ombudsman? If not, will they consider doing so, and if they have, what are the reasons for declining to go down this road?

A complaint will be considered in the first instance by the person in the chain of command who is able to decide the case and take action to put things right. There will be one level of appeal which will continue to include an independent element, as under the current system. If a complainant believes that his or her complaint has not been dealt with properly after the appeal, the complainant can ask the independent Service Complaints Ombudsman to review the case. The role of the ombudsman will be to consider whether there has been maladministration in the handling of a service complaint. This means that the ombudsman would consider whether there has been a failing in the process by which a decision has been made in the internal service complaints system, which has not been rectified, sufficient to result in an unjust outcome. A decision that the complainant dislikes, but where he or she cannot fault the process by which it has been reached, would not count as maladministration.

The Bill provides for time limits within which complaints must be raised. We will want to look at these to see whether they are reasonable and do not unfairly limit the ability of Armed Forces personnel to pursue a legitimate complaint. The Service Complaints Ombudsman’s recommendations will not be legally binding. It would be helpful if the Minister could set out why the Government believe that such recommendations will carry weight and what will happen if they are ignored, bearing in mind that the Service Complaints Commissioner in particular has not been impressed by the effectiveness of and respect for the current arrangements. It is difficult to understand why, if collectively those at the very highest levels had felt it a priority to ensure that the current arrangements worked much more effectively than they have, that would not have been the outcome.

Where are the teeth, or who will provide the teeth, to ensure that complaints are dealt with expeditiously and that recommendations made by the Service Complaints Ombudsman have some real bite and cannot be ignored without good reasons that are openly and transparently expressed? This is important. Service personnel have to obey legal commands. They do not have the rights of an employee. They are not employees with a contract of employment. They should be entitled to have access to an effective and independent means of redress against the possibility of any unacceptable and inappropriate use of power, and to have confidence in that process and procedure.

The Service Complaints Ombudsman will retain the ability to receive complaints and pass them on to the chain of command where a complainant is anxious about approaching the chain of command directly.

Service personnel will also be able to appeal to the ombudsman if their complaint is ruled to be an excluded matter or out of time. This is particularly important for people who have recently left the services but wish to complain about a wrong they feel was done during their service life. Under the current system, if the complaint is ruled excluded because it is out of time, they have no means of pursuing the matter if they are no longer serving at the time that the decision to exclude the complaint is made. In future, if the ombudsman rules that it should not have been excluded, the services will be obliged to consider it. Can the Minister say if this change would also apply in respect of a member of service personnel who had died by the time that the decision to exclude the complaint was made?

How well the Service Complaints Ombudsman system will work, only time will tell. If it is not supported by senior military personnel and Ministers, it will not secure the necessary changes and strengthened objectives that the current Service Complaints Commissioner clearly believes the new ombudsman, if provided with adequate numbers of staff, should be able to deliver. As the commissioner says in her 2013 annual report:

“Communicating the new system across the Services and educating NCOs and Officers in how to manage complaints will be key to success”.

I appreciate that these are early days, but I hope that the Minister will be able to say something today—or if not today, during the passage of the Bill—about how the new system will be communicated and what form the education in how to manage complaints, to which the commissioner referred, will take and how extensive it will be, bearing in mind that the education in managing the current arrangements does not appear to have been as successful as it might.

I note that the commissioner also said in her 2013 annual report that, while she hoped that the new system could be implemented early in 2015, in the mean time it was necessary to ensure that people with complaints to make still got the best possible treatment, with a complaint resolved within the current 24-week target. Can the Minister say, either today or subsequently, what progress is being made in increasing the percentage of complaints being resolved within the 24-week target, particularly in respect of the Army and the RAF? An improvement here might provide some positive evidence that the ombudsman will receive the support and backing to be able to deliver a new system that is of more benefit to both individual service personnel and the services themselves.

The Bill sets out the structure of the new system, including the relevant powers, role and functions of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, the Secretary of State and the Defence Council. However, it does not provide the details, which will be crucial since they could enhance or weaken the position of the ombudsman. These details will be set out in regulations. For example, Clause 2 refers to a person being able to make a complaint about,

“any matter relating to his or her service”,

but goes on to say:

“A person may not make a service complaint about a matter of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State”.

Clause 2 also provides for the Defence Council to make regulations,

“about the procedure for making and dealing with a service complaint”.

These regulations, known as “service complaints regulations”, will be vital, even though the Bill covers a number of factors or issues for which they must make provision.

Clause 2 also provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations about persons and panels deciding service complaints and about the procedure to be followed in ombudsman investigations, both of which are matters that, once again, could be of considerable significance in relation to the independence of the complaints procedure and the exercise of the ombudsman’s powers. We need an opportunity to see the proposed regulations before we reach Committee in this House, since they are such an integral part of the Bill and whether it will achieve its objectives, and I hope that the Minister will be able to give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that this will be the case.

The hope and expectation is that under these new arrangements for a Service Complaints Ombudsman, our service personnel will benefit from a simpler and faster system for resolving complaints within the scope of the ombudsman’s remit, in which they can have confidence. They deserve nothing less.

16:38

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we have had a constructive and helpful debate and I am very grateful for the excellent contributions from all sides of the House.

It is clear from the debate that there is a general agreement about the need to reform the service complaints system. I think we all appreciate the importance of having a system that is fair and effective. Although the current system is satisfactory, we can—and must—do better. It is essential that our service men and women have the confidence that any complaint they raise will be taken seriously and that it will be dealt with quickly, which is not always the case at present. Having a robust complaints system is both an integral part of the covenant and a key part of ensuring operational effectiveness. The new streamlined system proposed by the Bill will ensure that complaints are properly investigated at the appropriate level and with clear avenues of appeal. The system proposed by the Bill strikes the right balance between having strong and independent oversight of the complaints process and maintaining the authority of the chain of command, as stressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean.

The measures set out in the Bill represent a significant improvement to the complaints system. It is clear from today’s debate that some noble Lords feel that we should go further. A number of very good points have been raised and I am sure that they will provide us with a good basis for our consideration in Committee.

I turn to some of the points raised by noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords. I may not be able to answer all questions, but, where I do not, I shall undertake to respond in writing before Committee.

The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, asked what happens to a service complaint when the complainant dies. It is the usual practice that a complaint ceases if the complainant dies before it has been concluded, but much depends on how far it has progressed and the extent to which a complainant’s evidence has been dealt with. It is only fair that all parties are able to challenge allegations made against them; for example, in complaints of bullying. Even if the complaint has to cease, it is open to the chain of command to take what lessons it can and whatever actions might be possible.

The noble Baroness asked what alternative mechanisms are available for families of deceased servicepeople to raise issues with the chain of command. Families can approach the chain of command or Ministers at any level about any matter that is of concern to them. The welfare of all personnel is of paramount concern to all in command and they therefore take such approaches very seriously. The chain of command can then decide on the appropriate action to take, which might include, for example, conducting a service inquiry to investigate in more detail.

The noble Baroness and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked when draft regulations would be available. An initial draft of the regulations will be available by Lords Committee stage. As the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said, implementation will be key.

The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, asked how detailed applications to the ombudsman need to be. We want the process to be simple for everyone to operate. The complainant will need simply to set out what they say has gone wrong in the handling of their complaint. Regulations will set out the minimum information that will need to be provided. They will not be onerous requirements. Advice and guidance published by the ombudsman are likely to be provided to help individuals, as with other ombudsmen.

My noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill asked why new Section 340L does not make reference to sanctions. The ombudsman’s role is to make findings on maladministration and injustice and to make appropriate recommendations. Their role is focused on the procedure followed rather than on the merits. It is for the Defence Council to grant all appropriate redress.

I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, that the existence of the ombudsman will focus the chain of command’s attention more consistently on dealing with complaints more effectively. To that end, the ombudsman will have a positive impact overall.

The noble Lord pointed out that the new ombudsman needs to be properly resourced and I entirely agree. We are discussing with the commissioner how the ombudsman’s office should be structured and resourced when these changes are implemented. There will be more staff in the ombudsman’s office. We expect their number to increase from the current nine to around 20.

The noble Lord asked why the number of complaints has increased. As Dr Atkins acknowledged, we can never be sure whether the number has risen because of a greater number of incidents or wrongs, or because personnel have increased confidence in the process. However, that rise is helpful in giving the chain of command the chance to rectify matters.

My noble friend Lord Thomas asked me to confirm that the Defence Council’s reasons for rejecting the ombudsman’s recommendations can be judicially reviewed. I can confirm that, yes. My noble friend commented that the ombudsman should be able to recommend compensation. The ombudsman will have wide powers to recommend action to put right a procedural wrong if he or she finds one. That could include that compensation be made. The Defence Council will be required to consider that fully and provide written reasons if it refuses to implement recommendations.

My noble friend asked if the ombudsman could go beyond looking at an individual complaint to look at systematic issues. The ombudsman can only consider the matter raised by the complainant but, when investigating a complaint, he or she may identify wider issues connected with that complaint from which we should learn. That is a valuable benefit of this new role.

My noble friend said that the ombudsman cannot investigate the substance of a complaint, but is limited to maladministration and binding recommendations. Ombudsmen have very strong powers to scrutinise the effectiveness of the handling of service complaints. It is expected that their findings will be followed. While we expect the Defence Council to follow the vast majority of recommendations and they will clearly have some legal effect, the scope of recommendations is potentially very wide. It is right for the Defence Council to be able to decide not to implement recommendations but only where there are very good reasons: for example, where significant resource implications are involved. The Bill does not provide for this explicitly. That is in accordance with other, similar legislation. There is well established case law on the legal effect of findings and recommendations.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked what matters can be excluded. Matters that can be excluded will be very similar to the current list of excluded matters in the Armed Forces (Redress of Individual Grievances) Regulations 2007. That would include complaints about decisions made under the service justice system. The noble and gallant Lord also asked how much of the delay is due to a lack of resources. It is impossible to identify whether a lack of resource is an issue. What is clear is that inactivity, whether by the complainant or the chain of command, is too often the cause of delay—which we must tackle. Positive behaviours when handling a complaint are as important as the process being followed. We reinforce that continually.

My noble friend Lady Garden was concerned to ensure that administration costs for financial payments do not duplicate those elsewhere. We have an existing system in place to guard against this, and will ensure that we retain that in managing the £10 million that the Government have allocated for Armed Forces covenant commitments.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked for an assurance on future funding. The current scheme is purely discretionary. The requirement to report publicly on spending in support of the Armed Forces community, for example in the fields of healthcare and housing, will help guard against adverse changes.

My noble friend Lord Attlee asked whether time in operations could be disregarded from time limits proposed for the complaints system. All time limits, as under the current system, will be subject to extension where that is, for example, just and equitable under the circumstances. My noble friend was concerned that the chain of command might concentrate on procedure rather than the substance of a complaint. A complaint is a sign that something is wrong and needs to be put right. Procedure is key to make sure that complaints are handled well, but we encourage an informal approach, too, so that matters are nipped in the bud quickly. Dr Atkins acknowledged that the Army has done this increasingly in recent years, particularly for complaints about bullying.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, was concerned that the Armed Forces were blindsided on the changes. I can assure him that the Armed Forces have been fully involved in developing the changes. That was the very first question I asked when I was briefed, and I was assured that they are completely behind the proposed reforms. We are looking to set up a briefing for all Peers with the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff before Committee, and that will enable noble—and noble and gallant—Lords to hear from the services themselves their views on the Bill.

The noble and gallant Lord asked about new Section 340K—the contempt powers. The information and contempt powers in new Sections 340J and 340K are a common feature of ombudsman legislation. The ombudsman must have fully effective powers to scrutinise the handling of service complaints. It cannot be right for the ombudsman to have to rely on the chain of command to get the information they need to do their job properly. Without those powers, we would be criticised for creating a toothless watchdog.

The noble and gallant Lord asked: has COBSEO been informed and has it been consulted? The purpose is not to change the schemes by which assistance is given to the Armed Forces community through charitable or other organisations, but to ensure that there is proper parliamentary authority for such expenditure.

My noble friend Lord Trenchard and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, were concerned that the ombudsman’s role undermines the chain of command. Although the ombudsman has strong powers to make findings and recommendations, the final say rests with the Defence Council. If it has very good reasons to depart from the ombudsman’s recommendations, that will be enough.

My noble friend Lord Trenchard asked: will the service have discretion about who handles a complaint? A key reform of the process is that a complaint will be assigned to a person or group of people who have authority to grant appropriate redress. Service complaints panels as currently defined will go from the process, but their function is retained. That includes the need for independent members to be involved, for example, in complaints of bullying.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out that the ombudsman must have the power to undertake reports and investigations that would detect and deal with another Deepcut. The ombudsman is undoubtedly in a good position to spot when concerns arise about a particular location or individual. However, it does not follow that the ombudsman is best placed to investigate further. However, the ombudsman can alert the chain of command at whatever level he or she considers appropriate in the circumstances—or Ministers—so that action can be taken, and refer to the matter in the annual report, giving it public and parliamentary visibility. That has a powerful effect which should not be underplayed.

The ombudsman’s focus in producing an annual report as set out in the Bill is on the way that the complaints system has operated in the preceding calendar year and on the exercise of his or her functions during that period. The Bill also provides for the ombudsman to cover any other aspect of these areas that he or she considers appropriate—or, indeed, that the Secretary of State may direct. This gives scope for the ombudsman to report on any matter that he or she considers relevant.

The noble Lord asked: what criteria have organisations had to meet to get funding, and how is funding decided? There is a rigorous application process, with decisions on funding taken by a panel of experts drawn from the service charities and government. The specifics vary slightly for each of the funds, and each project is monitored against an agreed set of terms and conditions, so there is due diligence.

The noble Lord asked a very pertinent question: how will the changes be communicated to members of the Armed Forces? There will be comprehensive communication across all three services, delivered in ways that are appropriate to each service’s needs. I hope that I have now answered most of the questions. As I said, I will write regarding any that I have not answered.

This Bill provides the legislation that we need to reform our service complaints system and ensure we can provide financial assistance to charities that support the Armed Forces community. These measures, on which there is a large degree of consensus, should be taken forward quickly and I therefore ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Armed Forces

Monday 23rd June 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

16:55

Moved by

[Lord Astor of Hever]

That this House takes note of the role of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)]

My Lords, it is one of the great privileges of my job that I am able to listen to advice from noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords with so much expertise and experience, so I will be listening very carefully to all the speeches today. I am very much looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards.

The year 2014 is a year of commemorations. Three weeks ago, we marked it being 70 years on from the D-day landings and as Defence Minister for commemorations my office oversaw these ceremonies, working with the Royal British Legion and the Normandy Veterans Association, to which I pay tribute for their very hard work towards these successful events. I also pay tribute to all members of the Armed Forces for their handling of this extremely moving occasion. A good number of noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords have told me that they watched it on the television and were hugely impressed by what they saw. There were more than 1,700 service personnel on the ground supporting veterans, attendees and carers, led by Force Troops Command. It was an enormously valuable opportunity not just to remind ourselves of that hugely proud moment in our history but to meet the veterans who made it all possible: seemingly ordinary men with extraordinary tales of courage to tell.

Thirty years before D-day, British forces were also setting sail for France to take part in the Great War. This year marks the centenary of the start of that momentous conflict. I have attended a number of ceremonies to mark the First World War, both here and on the continent, and have laid a wreath at St Paul’s Cathedral in honour of those who died in the ill fated Gallipoli campaign. The scale of the commemorations reflects the fact that almost every family in Britain was touched by those events. Our Prime Minister’s great-great-uncle died near Ypres in 1915—the first of five members of his family to be killed in the Great War. Several members of my own family also fought in that conflict; some never returned.

Commemoration is important on a number of levels. First, it is a way of preserving the memories of the millions who sacrificed their lives to safeguard our peace and prosperity. Secondly, it is a way of bringing communities together around our shared British history—and on that note, I am greatly encouraged to see thousands of schools signing up to the battlefield tours in France and Belgium. Thirdly, it is a reminder of the huge value of our Armed Forces and of the vital role played by them in keeping us safe and secure, not just in the past but in the present, too.

This year will mark another historic milestone, as we draw to an end our combat operations in Afghanistan. On 1 April, the UK disbanded its Task Force Helmand headquarters. Camp Bastion is now the UK’s last base in Afghanistan, which is down from 137 bases at the height of operations, and UK force levels have reduced to around 5,200. By the end of this year there will be no British forces left in a combat role in the country. However, we must never forget what our Armed Forces have achieved there, nor the selfless sacrifice of those who died so far from home or of those who have been very seriously injured. Their legacy is not just a country with millions more children now in school, over one-third of them girls, a democratically elected Government—a final election result is expected in a few weeks’ time—and capable Afghan security forces able to provide security for their own people, but a country that is neither a safe haven nor a launch pad for those terrorists who seek to destroy our way of life. Our commitment to supporting the development of the Afghan National Security Forces through the Afghan National Army Officer Academy near Kabul remains.

The end of our Afghan mission heralds a move from the era of enduring campaigns to an age of contingency. Yet the appalling events in Iraq and Syria and closer to home, such as Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, remind us that the world will continue to be a dangerous place, and that the importance of our Armed Forces will remain undiminished. To ensure that UK defence continues to deliver the maximum effect for its budget in future, we have had to face down the problems of the past. Our restructure has ensured that we remain a first-class player in defence, with a defence budget that is the biggest in the EU and the second largest in NATO, and Armed Forces that are the best trained and equipped outside the United States.

We are planning to spend £164 billion on equipment and equipment support over the next 10 years. That means that the Royal Navy can look forward to full-spectrum capability, including seven Astute-class submarines, six Type 45 destroyers, Type 26 global combat ships, four tankers and three new offshore patrol vessels. The force will be enhanced by a new aircraft carrier, the “Queen Elizabeth II”, the largest ever built in Britain and due to float out next month. We can also look forward to the first flights in the UK of the F-35 Lightning aircraft, one of the most capable combat aircraft anywhere in the world. That is just one of the new bits of equipment augmenting the RAF armoury alongside more investment in Typhoon, Mark 6 Chinook helicopters and the new Voyager tanker transport aircraft, A400M transport aircraft and Rivet Joint surveillance aircraft.

Meanwhile, thanks to our reforms, the Army is welcoming back into our core programme more than 2,000 protected mobility vehicles procured through our urgent operational requirement system. They include our Jackal, Coyote, Husky and Warthog platforms. Future Force 2020 will benefit not just from enhanced weapons capability but from a reinvigorated reserve force. After years of neglect our reserves are being reformed and revitalised, with £1.8 billion being invested in better training and equipment to fully integrate them with the rest of the Armed Forces. This is not a case of replacing regulars like for like; it is a core part of building the whole force concept, with regular and reserve forces fully integrated, training and in many cases deploying together, halting the neglect and the decline in our reserves experienced in previous decades.

Our restructure recognises that in an era of contingency, it makes sense to hold certain niche specialist capabilities in reserve, from logistics through to cyber. We are introducing enhanced financial incentives to attract service leaders to join the Army Reserve, maintaining a cadre of experienced personnel. Some seem to expect that increasing the trained reserve to 35,000 will happen overnight. It will not, but we are taking the right action to achieve our targets. The application process has been simplified, medical clearance procedures have been streamlined and the Army is running a high-profile recruitment campaign. The latest figures show that the reserves are now growing in size for the first time in nearly 20 years, and the programme remains on track to deliver by the end of financial year 2018.Our Armed Forces remain vital to the future of this country, and we are doing everything we can to ensure that we retain our formidable, cutting-edge capabilities to respond rapidly to situations across the globe.

At the same time, we recognise that valuing defence goes beyond the Ministry of Defence, war memorials and even homecoming parades. This is especially the case as we draw down from Afghanistan and Germany. Many veterans are making the transition from service life to civilian life. One area we are looking at very closely is the lifetime care of those few men and women who are very seriously wounded in the line of duty. We are aware that provision can sometimes be patchy for those who leave the Armed Forces, although we have been working very closely with our colleagues in the Department of Health and the NHS to provide consistent quality of care across the country. Veterans whose medical condition relates to their time in the Armed Forces are now entitled to priority access to NHS care. Millions have been invested in 24 specialist veterans’ prosthetic centres and from next summer every part of the country will have GPs specially trained to respond to the physical and mental health needs of veterans.

Giving our service personnel everything they need requires more than just joining up different bits of government. All of society has a duty to give serving and former personnel the respect that is their due. That is why we have enshrined the Armed Forces covenant in law. It is backed up by £105 million over the past four years and a further £10 million per annum in perpetuity from next year. Through our community and corporate covenants we are joining up local services and local companies to make our support tangible. More than 400 local authorities and almost 150 companies have signed up so far. As a result, members of the Armed Forces community in Wandsworth have had social housing allocated specially for them. Sheffield residents injured in the line of duty are now given priority for occupational therapy assessments, speeding up their access to support and equipment. In Glasgow, a veterans’ employment programme has been established to, among other things, help early service leavers find employment when they return to civilian life. Meanwhile, we have companies such as Barclays committing to the Army recovery programme and hundreds of wounded service personnel finding valuable new careers. The National Express Group is offering guaranteed interviews to personnel who meet basic criteria.

The Government are working hand in glove with partners right across society, not just to recognise the contribution of our Armed Forces in conflicts past and present but to preserve our military capability in an age of financial restraint and increasing unpredictability. As a result of our actions, we have retained our capacity to protect this nation whatever the future may hold, which is perhaps the most fitting memorial of all to the sacrifice of our forebears. I beg to move.

17:08

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to debate the armed services. I share his views on commemoration and the importance of remembering what has been done. Indeed, two weeks ago, as president of the Falkland Islands Memorial Chapel at Pangbourne, I was with veterans and the next of kin of those who brought us that victory 32 years ago. The way to avoid wars is to have strong forces. The Minister talked very positively about our forces today, and I would expect nothing less from the Minister; indeed, I would expect nothing less from the Chiefs of Staff because they are working for the Government. However, I am tempted to say, “Brave words, my fine young Jedi,” because there is a sort of hollowness there.

For many decades, successive British Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries have been able to stride the world stage, punching above our weight for Britain. Why have they been able to do that? It was not because of our economic strength, but because we had powerful military forces and have been willing to use them around the world. Countries such as Japan and Germany were not even there for the big, important debates on restructuring things, while we were able to be part of that. Yet they were economic giants. Bearing in mind our status as a permanent member of the Security Council, perhaps it is necessary and right that we should be in that position. However, our status is now changing, and our forces are being cut to the bone. One wonders whether the Government have hoisted in the implications of that change.

I have a real worry that we are becoming a different nation by default. I do not need to go into what a dangerous and chaotic world this is; the Minister mentioned that, and I am sure that other noble Lords will do so as well. We only need to look at the television or listen to the wireless; it is very clear that it is becoming more dangerous and chaotic and a worse place to be in. In the 2010 SDSR—which I think impressed very few people—we made significant cuts to our military capability, and since then several billion pounds have been taken from defence as underspend. I know that it is difficult to predict at the moment, but can the Minister predict whether there will be another large underspend in this financial year? We have had underspends worth billions of pounds in the past years, and although some of it has rolled forward, quite a lot of it has not.

Looking to the future, defence spending is on present plans due to fall to 1.7% of GDP—bearing in mind that we are withdrawing from Afghanistan, so spending on operations will drop dramatically and that is before any more cuts in the next spending round. That is not the 2% that we often boast and crow about. Can the Minister say whether we will commit to a real 2% of GDP at the NATO summit this autumn, and in the future, not counting the cost of operations and the like? What, therefore, is the impact of those continual cuts? I will focus on the Royal Navy and the maritime, as I know that other noble Lords will focus especially on the Army’s problems.

Successive cuts mean that the Royal Navy has, for example, 19 escorts—that is, destroyers and frigates. When I entered Dartmouth, which I know was a long time ago, the Royal Navy had 104. Clearly we do not require that number today—the world has changed—but if one does the sums, the need for about 30 escorts to match our security needs and commitments is quite clear and was implicit in SDSR 1997-98. I have said on numerous occasions, and do not mind saying again, that having 19 frigates and destroyers for our great maritime nation is a national disgrace. The Type 26 programme is fantastic, and I love the thought that it is coming along—but it has not been ordered yet. I am afraid that I have had bitter experiences throughout my time in the Navy. You need to see something ordered and being built; until you can stand on its quarterdeck, you have not jolly well got it.

As I speak, over 50 of our ships, submarines, squadrons and units are deployed at sea around the world. The price of unrelenting operational tempo due to too few ships and too many tasks has resulted in lack of time for basic maintenance before ships redeploy. Not surprisingly, material readiness continues to decline, and apparently some warships have had to be towed back to Britain after breaking down at sea because there is insufficient funding for maintenance and spares. Can the Minister say whether that is true? I have been told that by a number of people. Have we had to tow one of our warships back to this country because it could not get here under its own power?

The pressure is not just apparent in the surface fleet, as, notwithstanding the new Astute class submarines—which the Minister mentioned and which are very slowly entering service; that has been very protracted, and we are getting only seven of them vice the eight we had expected—the number of submarines available for operations is at an all-time low. The pressures of too few ships and too many tasks impacts on our people as well—the most important factor. Again, when I joined the Navy, it had about 104,000 people. Today, we are down to 30,000, which of course includes the Royal Marines.

The Royal Navy is a wonderful and incredibly diverse organisation, which includes nuclear submariners to fast-jet pilots, chefs to surgeons, saturation divers to chaplains, commando fighters to helicopter pilots, ballistic missile maintainers to sea-boat operators, a surface navy, a submarine force, an air force and our own maritime infantry. It is one of the most complex organisations in our country, all delivered by half the number of people who watch Arsenal at the Emirates Stadium. That is impressive—but manpower has been squeezed too much and our people stretched too thinly. We need to invest more in people and in training as well as in equipment.

On the subject of people, I mention as an aside how important our cadet forces are. They are good in a national sense, but they are also good for the military as well.

The Defence Secretary said that, as we pull out of Afghanistan,

“we are reminded that we are a maritime nation and maritime power is crucially important to our security and to our prosperity”.

However, I am not convinced that we have the planned investment to ensure that we have that maritime power. The Minister mentioned the carrier programme. Yes, this is very good news; it is something that I am delighted about. However, at the time of SDSR 2010, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister were saying that the only reason we were getting these things was because they were so far advanced that they did not want to waste the money—not a ringing endorsement. I think that they now understand better how important they are as a joint force enabler, allowing the UK to maintain global reach, to use them in hot war at the very top level, right down through every level to disaster relief in all parts of the world. I have no doubt whatever that at some stage, or at many stages, over the next 50 years, our nation will be very grateful that it has possession of those carriers— 4.5 acres of British sovereign territory, capable of going 500 miles in any direction at our nation’s behest without anyone else stopping them going there.

However, on present plans, only the “Queen Elizabeth” will be operated. The “Prince of Wales”, after costing £3 billion, will be laid up or sold at a bargain basement price. I despair—and I am sure that if the nation was aware of that fact, it would despair. I beg the Government to please, for goodness’ sake, plan to run them both and make that commitment now. Can the Minister make that commitment now? I doubt it—but he would make me a very happy admiral if he could.

Our defence spending has been cut to an extent that we are balanced on a knife edge. We are still a great nation—and I know that is not something that people like saying, but we are. Depending on how it is calculated, we are probably the sixth richest in the world, as well as being a permanent member of the Security Council and a nuclear power, responsible for the defence and security of 14 dependencies worldwide. World shipping is run from London, providing the sinews that enable the global village to operate. We are the biggest European investor in most parts of the world. Global stability and security are crucial for our survival and wealth. It is nonsense to say that defence should be cut again in the next spending round like other departments. The smaller cake of public money—and I know that it is smaller—can be cut in different ways. The Prime Minister has stated clearly that defence of the nation is the primary responsibility of government, and its highest priority. Finding more money for defence is just a matter of government resolve. Without an increase in defence spending, I believe that we are on a road to disaster. Indeed, I do not believe that for the moment we can make Future Force 2020, which is the plan. Our forces will not be able to do what the nation expects of them, and the nation expects a lot of them—going back to those memories of what they have done in the past. Is that really the intention of our Government?

17:18

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the Motion, and I join other noble Lords in the comments about the commemoration of the First World War. So many of us in this House had relatives in that war; I had an uncle who died as a young volunteer at 17 years old in the First World War.

We must answer the question, “What is the purpose of our Armed Forces?”, before ascertaining the role in achieving that purpose. Over the centuries, Britain has been used to having a strong military arm and being a force within the world. I am proud of that history and have great hopes and expectations for the future, but we should be clear about the purpose of the Armed Forces. Is it purely that of pride? There is nothing wrong with pride. Is it fear of enemies, known and unknown, and preparation for conflicts, known and unknown? Is it because we cannot contemplate being defenceless? The purpose must surely include defence of the realm and use of the Armed Forces in domestic emergencies such as floods, as we have just seen, fires during firefighters’ strikes, which we have just seen, and security at events such as the Olympic Games, which we have seen. It should also include armed contributions to NATO, United Nations and European defence forces. Should it include a presence in hot spots around the world, be it policing, advising, training or, more controversially, what is described as “boots on the ground”? When we can answer those questions, we need to consider the number of personnel needed in the Army, the Navy—on which I defer to the vast experience of the noble Lord, Lord West—and the Air Force, and whether what we have, or will have, is sufficient. We need to audit regularly the equipment, vehicles, vessels and aircraft to see whether they fulfil that purpose.

I wish to comment on troop reductions, to which many noble Lords will no doubt refer. We cannot ignore the strain that our forces are under, and the insufficient number of reservists being recruited to counter reductions in regular troops. The Army will be reduced to 82,000 by 2018 but, earlier this month, the National Audit Office revealed that plans to recruit 30,000 reservists, while regulars are reduced by 20,000, are a shocking six years behind schedule. There are also, of course, reductions in the Navy and the RAF. Equally worrying is that these cuts could cost more than they save. I agree with the Government’s policy and believe that what we are doing is necessary, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister, when replying, will refute the opinion of the Commons Public Accounts Committee that the MoD is paying an additional £1 million a month to cover what the Labour chairman of that committee cited as “incompetence” in the department—something with which I do not agree. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, whose speech I look forward to later in the debate, recently told the BBC’s “World at One” programme that confidence that Army 2020 will succeed,

“is based on a certain degree of wishful thinking”.

The noble Lord is certainly not alone; I share many of his concerns about how this plan is being implemented, the real costs of it and the likelihood of its success.

On troop care, I am proud that the Government have enshrined in law the military covenant, to which many noble Lords will refer. However, that means we cannot ignore the strain our forces are under. It also increases the onus on us to make sure that we live up to our responsibilities to our service personnel. We must make sure that everyone, from those on the front line to returning veterans, is properly looked after. I welcome the structured mental health assessments that are now routinely done on returning service personnel, and the other measures that this Government have introduced to try to combat post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental health issues suffered by troops. In a sense, that carries on seamlessly from our previous debate on the Bill this afternoon.

Given these reductions in troop numbers, the Armed Forces must make sure that they are making the best use of the talent they have available. This includes allowing women to serve in front-line combat roles, something which I am very pleased this Government are encouraging. This year, the Israel Defense Forces appointed its first female combat battalion commander, the quite formidable Major Oshrat Bachar, who I believe was promoted to colonel last month. The IDF also has the Caracal battalion, a combat unit which is 70% female, as well as female soldiers in the elite commando canine unit “Oketz”. In that country the only objection to having women on the front line is a religious one—nothing else. I hope that we can use women as combat troops when they wish it and we consider that it is necessary. Despite concerns from noble friends, we know that diverse organisations work better. As evidenced in other countries, there is no reason why that should not be the case in our Armed Forces. The words of Kipling come to mind:

“For the female of the species is more deadly than the male”.

I am sure that many other noble Lords will talk about equipment. When the Minister responds, can he comment on the problems encountered with the F-35B Lightning Joint Strike Fighter and the reports that its engine exhaust becomes so hot it can melt tarmac and potentially put the plane at risk? I understand that the MoD is building three heat-resistant pads at RAF Marham in Norfolk, where the plane will be based. We are about to order—or we may already have ordered—the first 14 out of a total of 48 to replace the Harrier. Am I therefore correct that the planes can land conventionally but can take off vertically only from carriers—at least one of which is coming into service—and Marham? Can my noble friend confirm whether we have considered the strong runway at Manston airport, which my noble friend Lord Astor and I have discussed, although it is threatened with closure?

I trust that when the Minister replies he will include comments on how we stand on cyber warfare and cyber defence.

The Minister referred to areas of instability, and many other noble Lords will, no doubt, cover the situations in Iraq, Syria and other places. When we consider the role of the Armed Forces, we must look at the current, very worrying situations in Iraq and Syria. I know we are all very concerned, as we read of and see the brutality of ISIS. The Liberal Democrats warned of the troubles of engaging in war in Iraq and, sadly, many of those predictions have come true. While there may at some point be a requirement for targeted air raids or no-fly zones, we must not repeat the mistakes of the past by putting British boots on the ground once again in Iraq.

I support the restructuring of our Armed Forces but still have worries about the speed of increase in the reserves. I welcome the reinvigorated Reserve Forces, as my noble friend said, being integrated as a new force concept—something that is over and above just a matter of numbers. I support the full-spectrum capability.

Reference has been made to the HMS “Queen Elizabeth” aircraft carrier. It is a welcome base, and I have exchanged words on this in the past. Obviously, having one or perhaps two carriers is great for pride and moveability, and will provide the capability of a platform for our aircraft throughout the world. That is, of course, water under the bridge, if that is the right expression. What can one do? They are there: one is coming into service and the other will either come into service or be tied up at the dock. However, I refer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord West, about there being only 19 frigates and destroyers. The carriers must be where the money is being spent, to some extent, but if that is the case, the net result will be a sad reduction into a minimal number of other naval vessels because money cannot be spent twice. However, we are where we are and I welcome the carriers as a moveable force. I only hope—given all my other comments and those of other noble Lords—that we have on those carriers the personnel and equipment needed to serve this country.

17:28

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

My Lords, we are within a year of a general election, following which the next Government will have to make some key choices about government expenditure over the coming years. Over the past four years, the burden of financial retrenchment has been largely borne by those departments whose expenditure has been unprotected. If that is to continue beyond 2015, we have seriously to question whether we as a country are taking a sensible approach to public policy.

There is no doubt that restoring the nation’s economic health and public finances are essential prerequisites for the provision of good public services, including our Armed Forces. This overriding priority has meant that in the short term we have faced difficult choices and painful reductions in many areas. However, our aim must be to restore long-term coherence, not to allow short-term distortions to become structurally embedded.

With that in mind, we have to take account of our national interests and aspirations. The nature of our economy and the sources of our wealth mean that we cannot responsibly withdraw from the global scene. We rely on a degree of global order and stability to pursue our goals; that means we should invest in the promotion of such order and stability. It has long been a key tenet of our foreign and security policy and I see no prospect of change in that regard. Even in the teeth of the economic challenge at the time of the last security and defence review, the Government rejected the notion of strategic shrinkage. I would have preferred a slightly different formulation. It would have been better to say that Britain was committed to sustaining its international strategic role in the long term, but that to do this we would have to suffer some strategic retrenchment in the short term. That would have been a better reflection of the reality.

Either way, we must take account of the current and likely future international situation. I will not repeat all that I said in the debate on the humble Address responding to the gracious Speech from the Throne in this regard; suffice it to say that the global threats to security, as other noble Lords have said, are many and serious. However, I will restate a key point I made in the earlier debate. I believe we are witnessing two major strategic shifts, both of which could pose serious challenges to our future security and prosperity. The first and most obvious is the rising economic might of China and its use of increasingly sharp elbows on the international scene. The major points of friction may be far removed from us geographically, but in this globalised world the consequences will certainly be felt here.

The second development is the continued unravelling of the Sykes-Picot agreement and the subsequent post-1918 arrangements that were intended to tidy up the detritus of the Ottoman Empire. The most malign consequence of this is the growth of an ungoverned space straddling the Syria-Iraq border and the emergence there of extremist Islamic groups, such as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

There is perhaps little that we can contribute directly regarding the first development, but we have friends in the Asia-Pacific region that we should stay in close touch with and support where possible. Regarding the second issue, we cannot say how things will develop in the Middle East; nor, I suspect, can we exert much direct control over the outcomes. At the least, we should do all we can to prevent the outcome of a slide into a full-blown Sunni-Shia war, which seems to me very much in prospect at the moment.

If that were not enough, we face serious challenges on our own continent, which until recently some people thought would be at peace for ever more. It has been suggested that the EU has in some way provoked Russia’s actions in Ukraine. I am certainly not going to defend all of the EU’s policies in this regard. However, I believe that Russia’s actions are illegal and wholly unacceptable, and that the chances of subsequent miscalculation on the wider European scene have grown considerably. We now face a situation where many members of NATO feel distinctly less secure than they did 12 months ago, and they understandably seek reassurance. We have allowed ourselves and NATO to grow weaker over the past few years; risks and uncertainties are greater when we are weaker than when we are stronger. We need to be stronger if we want to be more secure, even in Europe.

We will need to employ all of the nation’s means of power if we are to rise successfully to the challenges we face on the global scene, but one thing is perfectly clear to me: we will not be able to meet them through soft power alone, important though that is. We will need the capabilities of our Armed Forces—capabilities that we have progressively weakened in the name of financial retrenchment.

Life would be easier if we were able to identify the specific capabilities we will need to employ. We can certainly say that, for example, intelligence, Special Forces and cyberwarfare will feature heavily. However, the history of security and warfare tells us that we need to retain flexibility across the full spectrum of operations. Those who have predicted the demise of particular kinds of warfare have usually been proved wrong, sometimes in spectacular fashion. Even the famous horse/tank moment is often misunderstood. It was not a fundamental change in tactic, about the mobile application of power and shock action. It was, rather, about the ability of emerging technology to provide new and better ways of doing the same basic things. That is often a challenge for military thinkers. We therefore need to retain as wide a spectrum of military capability as we can manage, and sustain within it sufficient flexibility to be able to react successfully to the unexpected, because the unexpected is certainly what we will be called on to face.

Money was the overriding issue at the time of the last strategic defence and security review. The Government’s strategy was quickly to eliminate the structural deficit; everything was subservient to that aim. Defence was set a savings target of between 10% and 20% of its annual budget. The work of the defence review showed that the consequences of this would be unacceptable to the Government, even given their strategic objective. The final level of saving was between 7.5% and 8%. Even that level of reduction was impossible to achieve without introducing a degree of military strategic incoherence. The plan adopted by the Government was to restrict, as far as possible, the short-term damage, and to leave defence in a position in 2015 from which it could restore coherence. Crucially, the Government agreed—the Prime Minister confirmed this when he announced the outcome of the review—that this could be done only through real-terms increases in the defence budget in each of the years from 2015 onwards.

I want to be clear on this point. Although the required level of growth was not specified, it was quite clearly growth in the total budget. The subsequent announcement—that the MoD would assume, for planning purposes, a 1% annual increase in the equipment budget—was necessary to allow sensible long-term planning, but it was a subsidiary issue to the increase identified as necessary in the defence review. What has actually happened is that the defence budget has been reduced even further. Although in-year underspends allowed the MoD to make those savings, one has to wonder how much capability we have forgone as a result of them. Crucially, we have reduced the baseline against which future budget entitlements will be measured.

The result is that the level of defence spending in this country is already dangerously low. NATO has set 2% of GDP as the minimum that members should achieve. Most are well below this and I fear that we fail to meet the target ourselves if one strips out the additional cost of operations, which is supposed to be funded from the contingency reserve and not from the defence budget. Even in an era of continued austerity, we cannot allow this to continue. We should bear in mind the small percentage of national wealth that we are considering here, set against what is agreed to be the first responsibility of any Government. We should be setting Europe a good example in this regard, not a bad one.

We are shortly to host the next NATO summit. I believe that, in advance of that meeting, the leaders of all the major political parties should commit themselves to spending at least 2% of our GDP on defence. That would set a much-needed tone at the summit, and put the most important issue at the top of the agenda. Beyond that, the Government should face up to their responsibilities by delivering the necessary real-terms increases in the defence budget over the second half of this decade. If they do not, then they must acknowledge that the planned Future Force 2020 will be undeliverable; that there will have to be further serious reductions in our Armed Forces; that we have accepted a future of strategic shrinkage in which our international influence will be seriously diminished; and that the nature of this country will be fundamentally changed as a result. Anybody proposing such a dramatic shift in policy ought surely to make their intentions plain in advance, and to seek the specific sanction of the electorate for them.

17:39

[Lord Glenarthur (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend for the opportunity that this debate affords. In earlier defence debates I made clear my deeply held concerns that the reductions to the capability of our Armed Forces have been too draconian. A sound foreign policy can be achieved only if it is backed up by flexible and credible armed services. I fear, very much as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has just said, that our capabilities have now become markedly depleted, and that cannot be helpful in a strategic context. Nevertheless, the skills and fortitude of our regular and reserve service men and women are much to be admired.

Today, I will concentrate my remarks on the volunteer reserves. My past and present interests as a member and subsequently as chairman of the National Employer Advisory Board, where I worked with very many of the noble and noble and gallant Lords who are speaking today, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, whose maiden speech we look forward to, and as honorary colonel and honorary air commodore of reserve medical units, are all recorded in the register of interests.

As chairman of the National Employer Advisory Board, I played some part in early work on a forerunner of the review of reserves, which preceded the White Paper published a year or so ago. I am at one with the idea that the reserves should be incentivised and deployable and that the “proposition” to attract and retain them should be an appealing one. As we move towards 30,000 trained and deployable reserves—a tall order by any stretch of the imagination, despite my noble friend’s optimism—we need to be much more nimble in how we attract individuals. It is the individual reserve units that are mostly responsible for recruiting, aided by the reserve forces’ and cadets’ associations.

However, the reserve units themselves need improved resourcing in terms of personnel and budgets in order to make progress. The targets are highly ambitious for recruiting but there is little or no uplift in funded permanent headquarters staff to help deliver the planned growth. For example, 612 (County of Aberdeen) Squadron, Royal Auxiliary Air Force, of which I have been honorary air commodore for 10 years, had manning at 64 in December 2013 against a target of 70 doctors, dentists, nurses, paramedics, professions allied to medicine, technicians and others. It faces a target of 121 by 2018. The figures may seem small in themselves but this is no small ask, not least when the NHS, from which many of these individuals come, faces its own problems. I have heard it said that budgetary disaggregation, particularly for marketing, is rarely programmed activity and is often conditional—a kind of “spend now and spend quickly” attitude—and I am bound to wonder whether this is wise or ultimately productive, even if it suits MoD and Treasury accounting.

Decent accommodation and other infrastructure are essential in attracting and retaining reservists. My squadron at RAF Leuchars, where it is based, is enthusiastic about self-help for office and training accommodation, and it is very well supported by the station—but, frankly, many of the buildings that it uses are old, tired, tatty and leave a lot to be desired. I am less than convinced that the system by which relatively minor building and refurbishment works are approved, tendered and subsequently contracted for does not lead to unnecessary MoD expense. Setting a standard, approving a budget quoted by a local firm and letting the responsible commanding officer take on that responsibility and get on with it might save the MoD a fortune.

The MoD departmental costs associated with minor works have a history of being substantial and, to my mind, very largely unjustifiable. Therefore, what assurance can my noble friend give that, when the Royal Air Force moves out of Leuchars next year, the incoming Regular Army units will give equal priority to their own and implanted reserve units to ensure modern and suitable facilities equal to those of the regulars with whom they will share the same barracks? The overall attitude by the regulars to the volunteer ethos, skills and professionalism of reservists is crucial to the success of the whole force concept, to which my noble friend referred. I cannot emphasise that fact more strongly.

Having won the enthusiasm from an individual to join a reserve unit, what can be done to encourage him or her to remain within it? We have to think much more flexibly in this. The individuals who join are just that: individuals. Their circumstances vary and we should consider how best to make it easier for them to play a flexible but full and complete part without compromising standards. For example, why not introduce a commitment to achieve a reduced annual bounty for those who have considerable experience over many years and are current specialists in relevant fields in their civilian careers—for example, in the medical world—but cannot easily commit to the full training bounty requirement of 15 continuous days per year and six weekends?

When I was honorary colonel of what was then 306 Field Hospital—later 306 Hospital Support Medical Regiment—although the 15 days’ camp was a requirement, individual specialists came together for only two weekends a year. It is a nationally recruited specialist unit, and it is from its members’ crucial clinical and related skills rather more than their military skills, albeit within a military ethos, that the patients whom they have to treat benefit. Could this perhaps be replicated elsewhere among other medical reservist units?

Why does the current pay system for reserves apparently rely on them signing a pay sheet for each day that they attend? Surely the commanding officer is accountable for attendance, and hence responsible for training and pay. As far as I know, regulars do not have to sign on. This seems to be a very simple matter. I hope that my noble friend will take away this issue and review it in order to simplify it.

There is a number of mandatory lectures that reservists have to undergo that are not about their military training or specialist skills but are much more prosaic. They relate to health and safety—inevitably, I suppose—fire, manual handling and that sort of thing. Why can they not be completed online with pay apportioned appropriately, based on time for a percentage of the work completed, as if the individual had attended in person? Why is it necessary for them to take a training day in order to complete stuff that can be done much more simply?

I believe that the MoD needs to be much more progressive in how to create an attractive offer for ex-regulars to become voluntary reservists. It should surely be seamless. My noble friend touched on this point, but can he say what is being done to help reserve units to identify those who are leaving regular service, associate them geographically or professionally and so encourage added value to the recruiting effort locally? Are there difficult data protection issues here and how might they be overcome? What is being done to ensure that incentives to transfer from regular to reserve service are uniform across the services? My noble friend referred to this but my understanding is that financial transfer rates for the Army are more generous than those for the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Why should that be?

While on the subject of generosity, in an age of the whole force concept, why cannot railcards be issued to reservists in the same way that they are routinely issued to their regular counterparts? I understand that this may be under review or consideration but I hope that my noble friend may be able to impart encouraging news, either today or very shortly.

When I relinquish my appointment with 612 Squadron in a few weeks’ time, I shall certainly be sad but I shall also feel proud to have come across and been associated—both in it and in 306 Squadron—with some immensely gifted and brave individuals. Each of those units has regularly deployed individuals or groups of individuals to Iraq and Afghanistan over recent years. The clinical skills, enthusiasm and zeal with which they have conducted themselves have saved countless lives. Some of what they have had to deal with has been harrowing but their sheer professionalism has always been to the fore. With that tribute to them, I also pay a strong tribute to their civilian employers in the NHS, the private sectors of healthcare and much more widely, without whose support and understanding none of the activities of reservists would be possible today or in the future.

I shall end with a plea to my noble friend to ensure that the tri-service approach to employers is co-ordinated and not at variance, so that employers understand and do not feel confused by different service requirements or the approach that those services make to them, and so that they feel that the advantages of reserve service at least outweigh the disadvantages of reservists’ training and occasional mobilisation.

17:50

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, in this wide-ranging debate I shall focus my remarks on three areas: cadets, training and war widows. The cadet forces provide unparalleled opportunities for around 140,000 young people in this country. They help to build confidence, self-respect and social responsibility as well as leadership and team-building skills. Increasingly, they also give access to educational and professional qualifications. Where they are active in disadvantaged parts of the country, they are particularly valuable in encouraging aspiration of a sort which young people may not be accessing at home or in school.

I have this morning been at an RAF Benevolent Fund reception in Speaker’s House, where air cadets were proudly and smartly acting as welcomers—a credit to their service. They were delighted to talk with enthusiasm about their flying experience. How heartening it is to see the diversity among the cadets—girls alongside boys, young people of all ethnic origins and social backgrounds all achieving and working together. Your Lordships may remember that last year we had an impressive and moving debate in this Chamber with cadets and veterans talking about the legacy of the First World War. I have to say that their confidence in speaking and their time-keeping did credit to your Lordships’ Chamber.

Cadets have the chance to engage in adventurous activities and to face challenging and exciting situations within a disciplined and well structured framework. For some, of course, being a cadet will lead to career opportunities in the military. Many—indeed all of them, I hope—will take the skills they have learnt into a whole range of civilian walks of life. In June 2012, on Armed Forces Day, the Prime Minister announced the Government’s intention to set up 100 new cadet units in state-funded secondary schools by 2015. Can my noble friend the Minister say how that programme is progressing? Of course, enabling so many young people to take part in cadet activities requires more than 26,000 adult volunteers. What active encouragement is the MoD giving to ensure that there are sufficient adults coming forward to work with cadets? The cadet forces provide valuable training for young people, but of course the Armed Forces provide an ongoing training ground for those serving. The standards and range of military training programmes are very well known and highly respected.

We have discussed before in this House the importance of practical skills, alongside professional skills for the military. The recent redundancy tranches have highlighted the necessity for those serving to be able to make the transition to civilian life with transferable skills, and coping skills. The recent Forces in Mind Trust survey drew attention to the fact that,

“soldiers, sailors and airmen can join up as young as 17 and are cocooned from civilian life when they are in the forces. As well as missing the camaraderie and identity of the Armed Forces, they can struggle to deal with rent, bills and planning”.

It was encouraging to hear the Minister, in his opening remarks, allude to the programme of transition training for civilian life. I wonder whether there is evidence yet that those made redundant are successful in finding civilian employment. Has any evaluation been done of their move into the civilian world? Building up transferable skills and qualifications will be helped by two notable recent initiatives within the military. In April, the Defence Centre for Languages and Culture was opened by Prince Michael of Kent, himself a fluent Russian speaker. This is a state-of-the-art facility, with the language training largely residential, although with some distance learning arrangements, and access to other government departments, such as the new learning centre in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Language skills will always be useful in personal as well as professional life within the military and the civilian world. This month saw the announcement of a £250 million training college, the Defence College of Logistics, Policing and Administration, to be completed in 2018. This—another state-of-the-art facility—will focus on catering, supply, transport and human resources and will house 2,000 staff and students. These are just two examples of the contribution made by the Armed Forces to a range of skills which the country needs.

Thirdly, I turn to war widows. I declare an interest, both as a vice-president of The War Widows’ Association of Great Britain, as indeed is the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and as the recipient of a widow’s forces pension, although not within the group I am raising with the Minister today. There is a diminishing number of war widows in receipt of a war widow’s pension awarded between 31 March 1973 and 5 April 2005. This group of around 4,000 widows stand to lose their pension if they remarry or cohabit. That is in contrast to all other war widows, who are allowed to keep their war widow’s pension if they remarry or cohabit. In other words, this group is severely and uniquely disadvantaged. My noble friend the Minister stated on 21 January that it would cost around £70,000 a year to allow this group to retain their pension for life, in line with other widows. The figure could be a lot less, because it is, of course, impossible to predict how many of them will remarry or re-partner. But the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency has told us that between 2008 and 2013 only 20 surrendered their pension, so this equates to about four a year, the cost of which is less than £30,000, which by any measure is a very small sum. For many, the loss of pension is a real barrier to building a new life in a new relationship. Policing this group in search of an undeclared partnership is a deeply uncomfortable role for a liberal country to be performing, and, of course, carries a financial cost—quite possibly a greater cost than continuing the pension. Will my noble friend say what the Government could do to ensure that these widows continue to enjoy financial security whether or not they find someone to share their life?

In the Bill we have just been discussing there is provision for the Secretary of State to give financial assistance for the benefit of the Armed Forces community. What a wonderful use of a very small portion if that assistance could be used to correct this anomaly for a group of women who will have spent years supporting the Armed Forces and who now have to tackle life alone for many years.

The country is greatly indebted to all those who serve in the Armed Forces. Their courage, selflessness and professionalism is well known and highly regarded internationally. They and their families deserve not only our admiration but our practical support. I look forward to the rest of this debate and, indeed, to the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, and to my noble friend’s reply.

17:57

[Lord Dannatt (CB)]

At the outset I thank the Minister and ask him to pass on my thanks to the Leader of the House and the government Chief Whip for making time available for this important debate this afternoon and evening. During the Question for Short Debate in my name on defence manning on Monday 7 April, many noble Lords who spoke that evening asked for time to be made available to explore defence issues more widely. I am most grateful that that opportunity has been provided today.

What also makes this afternoon’s debate most timely is the general election next May and the quite proper defence and security review that will follow. I certainly welcome the current Government’s commitment to hold such a defence and security review once in every five-year Parliament. This is clearly a step forward and will prevent a repetition of the 12 or 13-year gap between the Labour Government’s SDR of 1997-98 and the coalition Government’s SDSR of 2010. So our eyes now should be on the review to come in 2015. That review will be conducted within the context of the international security environment within which we currently sit—an environment that has changed significantly since 2010.

Although I stress the importance of the strategic context of any defence review, it is inevitable that the allocation of resources by any Government will be a major constraining factor. Indeed, as we know, in the 2010 SDSR it was financial considerations that took a higher priority than strategic considerations, with the result that the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces were constrained to provide for the defence of the realm and the safety of our citizens at home and abroad from a defence budget that was, in effect, 17% less than before.

Why do I say 17% less? I use the figure of 17% because rebalancing the then defence budget and filling in the £35 billion black hole inherited by the coalition Government itself equated to about a 10% reduction in defence spending over 10 years, and the Chancellor, of course, wanted his cut in the headline defence budget of some 7% or 8%. Hence we were in the position where the MoD had to do what it needed to do on behalf of the nation with some 17% or so less resource than previously.

In those circumstances choices had to be made, and they were. The major policy decision was to prioritise spending on defence equipment at the expense of manpower, which translated into 30,000 posts being cut from the regular manpower of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Army and the Royal Air Force. Such manpower reductions, even if to be mitigated by a planned and, let us hope it happens, increase in Reserve Forces, certainly in the case of the Army, could not be cut by the traditional practice of salami slicing.

The 2010 SDSR outcome required structural change and has produced Force 2020, within which Army 2020 has set out a 10-year migration plan to move from a Regular Army of 102,000 trained strength to 82,000. It is worth reflecting for a moment on the implications of that 10-year migration plan. First, it is a10-year migration plan with a large number of moving parts: withdrawing the Army from Germany; rebasing many units within the United Kingdom, in particular focusing our armoured units increasingly in the Salisbury Plain area; integrating reserve manpower with regular manpower to a greater extent than ever before; and implementing a redundancy programme while endeavouring to manage voluntary outflow in order to keep a sensible manning profile. In my view, the current Chief of the General Staff and his team have done a remarkable job in redesigning the Army in order to maintain a certain level of capability from a deck of cards dealt to them which had many twos and threes and not a sniff of a picture card.

From this, my second and third points on Army 2020 flow. Whereas in 2006 to 2009, when our land forces were heavily committed to major operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously, we were able to deploy as a nation nine Army brigades and the Royal Marine brigade in two five-brigade cycles, providing troops to both operational theatres. However, in future we will have only six Army brigades, some heavily dependent on mobilised reserves. Therefore, in future we could provide forces for only one operation on the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan, not two.

So, therefore, in headline terms, the potential output of our land forces is some 50% less than before, a reduction forced by an apparently modest 7% to the defence budget but one which, as I have already argued, is in reality a 17% cut. However, irrespective of whether you prefer to talk about a 7% or 17% cut, a 50% reduction in land forces capability is a fairly poor deal.

My third point on Army 2020 is that the scale of the structural reorganisation to deliver even this significantly reduced level of land force capability is such that the Army cannot implement the migration to Army 2020 should there be any further cuts to its budget. Any further cuts will inevitably lead to Army 2020 being torn up and a new plan devised, with a loss of credibility in the whole point of trying to plan sensibly for the future, not to mention the loss of morale among those serving and an unhealthy dose of cynicism about the whole government process.

Therefore, notwithstanding the Chancellor’s warning in his recent Budget speech that there will have to be further reductions in overall government spending, there is a widely held view that to remove further funding from defence will seriously call into question the Armed Forces’ ability to continue the migration towards Force 2020 and field even the reduced level of capability provided for by the SDSR.

My comments thus far have focused around the reductions to our Armed Forces which were necessitated in 2010 by the overall reduction in government spending, but the proper context for a discussion about defence issues should focus on our strategic goals within the current security environment. This should be the start point for any strategic defence and security review.

It is fair to say that we have little control over the wider security environment: events unfold, strategic shocks happen and we have to deal with the consequences. However, we do have control over our national ambition and therefore the setting of our national strategic goals. Being clear about this must be the start point for any defence and security review. However, is there an appetite to have that discussion? As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, has already alluded to, the Foreign Secretary is on the record as saying that he senses no appetite for strategic shrinkage, but is he right? If he is right, how is the UK to continue to maintain its position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, as a member of the G8 or G7 and the G20, as a firm ally of the United States, as the leading European military power within NATO and, of course, as the leader of the Commonwealth? We have managed to fulfil these responsibilities in the past by maintaining a good level of defence spending—yes, probably punching above our weight—taking risk where we need to and by recruiting high-quality people to our Armed Forces who see such service as an attractive career prospect.

What are the options for the future? I have already rehearsed the view that any further cuts to defence spending would be highly damaging as the Armed Forces migrate towards Force 2020. I have no sympathy with the view that the results of SDSR 2010 will produce smaller and more capable Armed Forces. As far as I am concerned, they will only produce smaller Armed Forces. Quantum has a quality of its own and smaller means smaller. I have already illustrated the reduction in our land forces’ capability. We are less capable now because we are smaller.

So do we spend more on defence? Looking at Syria, Iraq and Ukraine today, there is certainly a case that can be made for that. So should we spend more on defence if we want to maintain our current position in the world, or do we accept that the UK’s role is indeed diminished and therefore lower our national ambition accordingly, even if there is apparently no appetite for that?

Or perhaps, as we say at home in Norfolk, we should do different. There is an avenue of difference that we could embrace if we want to try to maintain our current level of influence and status on the world stage. I am not about to make the case for so-called soft power as an alternative to hard power, but I will make the case for better integration of our overall defence capability with our diplomatic skills and our determination to fund a high level of international development work. Embraced as a determined government policy, the integration of defence, diplomacy and development, plus an acknowledged role for the private sector, could retain the UK in an influential position. However, this will happen only if such an initiative is endorsed and led at the very top of government; if the strategy is agreed by the National Security Council; and if all the various government departments, at all levels, work closely with each other.

The challenge here is to get better at horizon scanning, to get better at spotting potentially failing states and engaging with them early to prevent them failing and falling prey to extremist or terrorist opportunists. It is a widely accepted truism that prevention is better than cure and our recent experiences of interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan followed by nation building under fire, which have proved so expensive in the expenditure of blood and treasure, should make the case for acting differently on the world stage and seeking to prevent conflict rather than dealing with the consequences of it.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, made reference to the role of women in combat units. Before I draw my points to a conclusion, I shall offer my views on women in combat units. I would like to make it quite clear that within the Army, the Navy and the Air Force women have an enormous role to play and that what they bring to all aspects of our life is without equal. However, there is a question that needs to be addressed, and that is whether it is correct, appropriate or right for women to serve in our front-line combat units. It is important to understand that combat units—in the case of the Army these are the infantry or the armoured corps—are the units that we commit by design to offensive operations. The mission of that unit, that battalion, that company or that platoon is to go forward, under shot and fire, with fixed bayonet and close with extreme violence on an enemy. The question I ask is this: is it an appropriate task for a woman? Is it actually an appropriate task for anyone, but in particular, is it one for a woman?

I expressed these views in either a radio or a television programme a while ago, and received a certain amount of mail, as one might expect. One lady wrote to me and described the sort of the person she thought I was. I did not actually agree with her description. She also said, “Surely we can trust our commanding officers to know when it is appropriate to use their personnel”. I am afraid that that comment completely undermined her other point. That is because the basic fighting unit of an armoured regiment is a four-person tank crew. The basic fighting unit of an infantry battalion is a four-person fire team. How can a commanding officer be expected to say, “This task is appropriate for a fire team or tank crew that includes women, but that task is not”? Frankly, as Chiefs of Staff, former Chiefs of Staff and Members of this Parliament, we have a responsibility to take that decision and say what is appropriate for men and what is appropriate for women. I am afraid that I am implacable in my view that a woman in a four-person fire team or two women in a four-person tank crew is not appropriate. We have absolutely to own this unpopular decision and take it in the best interests of our overall capability.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Lord Dannatt]

With that off my chest, I will draw to a conclusion.

The 2010 SDSR, in response to the national financial situation and in recognition of the inherited overdraft in defence, reduced defence spending and reduced our defence capability. It has produced smaller—not smaller and better, just smaller—Armed Forces. The international security situation as we approach the next defence review in 2015 looks considerably more challenging than it did in 2010. Cutting UK defence spending any further would send all the wrong messages to the Kremlin, to al-Qaeda and to those who do not share our British values. A modest increase in defence expenditure would signal that the UK still takes its international responsibilities seriously and would reassure both our NATO partners and our principal ally, the United States.

If no more money for defence can be found and we wish to maintain our historic level of international influence, then the alternative of better integrating our overall defence, diplomacy and development capability offers a different and potentially beneficial path. But we must remember that even if we go down that alternative path, what underpins our overall policy and our overall position in the world, and what guarantees the overall security of the British people, is a strong defence capability. SDSR 2010 weakened the UK and the world is now even more challenging, so SDSR 2015 will be a watershed. The next Government must remember first and last that their primary responsibility is the defence of the realm and the safety of our citizens, and they must not forget their duty to the well-being of the members of our Armed Forces—a relevant thought tonight as we enter Armed Forces week.

18:12

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for initiating this debate. It is difficult to imagine one that is more significant. It is also a privilege to speak among such military hardware. We have already felt the blast of the noble and gallant guns of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army. When I looked at the speakers list I did feel more than a degree of trepidation, seeing that I was almost perfectly positioned between two generals. I am also very much looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards. His military career speaks for itself, and his actions and decisiveness in Sierra Leone were paradigmatic of what it means to be a British soldier.

Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 were desperate decisions, and yet our service men and women did their duty with courage and commitment, good practice and performance. They are a credit to us all as British citizens. Over the past decade we have seen all too much of the fog of war, but what about the painful and potentially perpetual grey space of peace for those who return from conflict utterly changed? For every coffin winding its way painfully through Royal Wootton Bassett, an extended family has been blown apart as if it was also in the blast zone. For every hero who does not come home, there are thousands who return injured. They have lost legs or had arms amputated; they are burnt or blinded. They have bodies broken from battle. What of them?

In 2007, I was working as a commercial solicitor in the City. A client of mine told me about her partner who had returned from Afghanistan having lost his leg. She mentioned a fledgling organisation called Help for Heroes which I knew immediately I had to get involved with. What a journey it has been for that charity over the intervening seven years, and what a journey it has been for us as a nation. More than £200 million has been raised, deployed and allocated. That is Great Britain at its best, but if we are to continue to look after our injured service men and women, the next decade will cost around £318 million. That is the challenge. We need to lean into it and ensure that the commitment which has been shown in the early years of Help for Heroes continues.

That is why I got involved and why last month I went to Tedworth House, one of the Help for Heroes recovery centres. It is a former military establishment that has been done up to deliver everything that is required to ensure a fantastic recovery experience for our service men and women returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is now set for decades to come and will help those who return from conflicts as yet unknown to us. The recovery centres have been founded on five pillars: medical, mind, body, spirit and family. Everything I experienced during the afternoon I spent at Tedworth House delivered on those five pillars. There was a gymnasium to rebuild the body, along with a swimming pool and an artificial ski slope. All of them have been designed to get formerly fit men and women fit again. The art and poetry activities described to me brought on tears. The descriptions and depictions did not just bring to life the horrors of war; they helped to expunge and exorcise them.

I talked to the service men and women and veterans staying there who shared their stories about the instant hell of the IED. I also heard about their hopes and dreams for the future they believe they can have post their military service. It was an extraordinary afternoon. I heard about the Band of Brothers and Band of Sisters that have been established to bring all injured veterans together. Together, they already number close to 5,000. People are moving their families close to the recovery centres because they fully appreciate that this is not just about today and tomorrow. For many injured service men and women, it is about the rest of their lives. I urge all noble Lords to consider visiting one of these recovery centres. They demonstrate what commitment should be and is being made to our service men and women.

There are many fabulous, marvellous military charities that are doing good work across the piece. The Battle Back programme takes injured personnel from the battlefield to the sports field. There are many charities, but what is really required is increased co-ordination of the effort. The Confederation of Service Charities does a great job but the task is wider even than that: it is about the public space, private corporations and charities being aligned, co-ordinated and orchestrated. As you would expect, that is the key role for the MoD: to orchestrate, to lead and to ensure that every resource is put to the greatest effect for our wounded service men and women.

It was incredible to be in at the beginning of Help for Heroes. Seven years have flown by and we now have a defence recovery capability in good shape. But we are still on the journey. It will never end. Great steps are being taken but we need to ensure that we never fail or forget those who went into war and conflict on our behalf. The message must be clear: we do serve Tommies here and we serve them well, as they served their and our nation. As we commemorate the centenary of the Great War, we have an extraordinary opportunity to enable hope for heroes, through Help for Heroes and other charities, organisations, government and corporations, and to enable a defence recovery capability fit for heroes.

18:21

[Lord Chidgey (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has set out how the Government seek to create a smaller but very well trained Army, a Royal Air Force equipped with a smaller number of very expensive aircraft, highly effective through the use of leading advanced technology, and a Royal Navy centred around a single carrier group and a submarine fleet with the Trident nuclear deterrent at its head.

What does this actually mean in terms of the United Kingdom’s military capacity? How will we contribute to future demands from NATO? How will we respond to calls to engage in further conflict in, for example, Iraq, Libya or anywhere in that region, or in the Balkans? In the first Gulf War, I understand that we had to strip the 3rd Armoured Division, based in Germany, of all its tanks in order to send the 1st Armoured Division into action in the desert. I am advised that we only just got away with it. Given that the new carrier—or, I hope, carriers—is expected to be in service with the Royal Navy for many decades, what assessment have the Government made of its vulnerability to attack from the new generation of anti-ship ballistic missiles, the ASBMs, of which the Chinese DF-21D “carrier killer” is believed to be the first in production?

Will the cost in blood and treasure of the Afghan war prove to have been a prohibitive price to pay for any similar future actions? Did the Falklands War depend on a fleet of warships that we no longer have and on requisitioned merchant ships that are no longer available? For how long can the safety of the Falkland Islanders be guaranteed by, as I understand, four ageing fast-jet fighters? This thinking has now developed to such an extent—and such a low point—that Professor Chris Brown, an international relations specialist at the LSE, believes that the UK’s lack of ability to act independently or even anything like an equal partner is something that government and politicians need to be seen to accept. He believes that they should advise the public accordingly: that the UK’s position and influence in the world will from now on rest firmly on soft rather than hard power. That is a vision that I really do not want to accept.

We are about to go into another round of sell-offs predicated on projected savings rather than service delivery. The projected buyout of the Defence Support Group land forces “green fleet” support and maintenance function by a private, potentially foreign, buyer is another case in point of an exercise almost bound to prove less effective and more costly than government advisers imagine. According to the National Audit Office, the decision to restructure the Army’s Regular and Reserve Forces was taken without “appropriate testing of feasibility”. As my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill has already mentioned, the plan to raise the number of reservists from the current 19,400 to 30,000 by 2018 may not in fact be achieved until 2025. The head of the National Audit Office, Amyas Morse, said that these measures,

“could significantly affect the Army’s ability to achieve its objectives and value for money”.

He added that the MoD,

“must get a better understanding of significant risks to Army 2020—notably, the extent to which it is dependent on other major programmes and the risk that the shortfall in recruitment of new reserves will up the pressure on regular units”.

Recruitment will need to increase substantially over the next five years if the plans are to be met. Meanwhile, the risks continue to mount. For example, what are the contingency plans for integrating Regular and Reserve Forces within a single force structure? When will we have some clarity on how employers will be persuaded to release soldiers for long periods of time, or on how the required levels of training and fitness to fight will be achieved and maintained among the reservists?

In another cost-saving plan, part of the Defence Support Group is to be sold off, apparently to realise some £200 million to £300 million in savings. The DSG’s main customer is the Army. It operates from eight main sites in the United Kingdom as an arm’s-length organisation from the MoD, servicing and upgrading the UK’s armoured vehicle fleets. Nine pre-qualified organisations have been invited to negotiate, at least half of which are foreign-owned, and the Government are clearly anxious to complete the sale before the general election.

The Royal Aeronautical Society has recently published an overview of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation by a Mr Howard Wheeldon, a fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society, which is a sharply focused wake-up call. The DIO was formed in 2011 as a product of the Levene defence review. The intention was to bring together all property and infrastructure development management under a single organisation, designed to optimise investment in and the strategic management of our vast defence estate—so far so good. Here I declare an interest: as a fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers and a companion of the Royal Aeronautical Society, I was at one time engaged as a consulting engineer to the MoD’s direct works services, providing engineering management support on more than a dozen military bases throughout Hampshire, including the then Royal Naval Hospital Haslar and the Aircraft Research Establishment at Farnborough.

The DIO is the largest landowner in Britain. Worth about £25 billion, it is larger than either the National Trust or the Forestry Commission in terms of land, property and infrastructure. It has an annual budget of £3.3 billion. Yet concerns are already being raised about DIO’s performance on the ground and its inability to respond to some of the more immediate priorities of the military. For example, impacting on the Royal Air Force is the slow progress in adapting RAF Marham to accommodate the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters. As we know, the arrival date is planned for 2018, at which time 617 Squadron will be stood up as the primary operational unit for Lightning II. Given the large amount of infrastructure work required, clearly time is of the essence, but apart from the announcement of the intention to spend £7.5 million to build three new landing pads alongside the existing runway, there is no news of plans to provide extensive new infrastructure. This will be needed to maintain and operate the multi-role strike fighter in what only last month the Secretary of State for Defence described as likely to be the largest fleet of new jets in Europe. What progress is being made on this essential infrastructure?

A second concern is the work to adapt the Royal Navy dockyard at Portsmouth to accommodate the—I hope—two new “Queen Elizabeth” class carriers that are going to be based there. When the announcement was first made in 2002, it was acknowledged that their size would create problems in entering the base except at unusually high tides. In 2003 a scheme was announced to improve Portsmouth Naval Base in order to ease the access in and out for both the Type 45 destroyers and the carriers. It is unclear how much work has been carried out so far. I would be grateful if my noble friend could shed some light on it. In 2012, the DIO released a scope of work document setting out what would be required at Portsmouth to accommodate the carriers. It included a tidal berth and the upgrading of an existing jetty to withstand berthing, mooring and operational forces. It also included increased industrial electrical supply and navigational aids on independent marine structures. In all, it was estimated to cost in excess of £60 million and take 22 months to supply. The first of the carriers is due to be launched in Rosyth in a couple of weeks and it appears that the work in Portsmouth has yet to begin. Again, I would be grateful if my noble friend could clarify this situation.

Finally, and to echo points made by so many other learned and gallant speakers, it is generally accepted that the first duty of government is to maintain the security of its citizens and to protect them from external aggressors. Looking back over the issues that we have discussed today and that confront our nation, it seems to me that there is still some serious catching up to do.

18:30

[Lord Richards of Herstmonceux (CB) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, little did I anticipate back in 1971 when I joined the Army as an 18 year-old fresh out of school that one day I would be standing here in this historic place as a recently retired Chief of the Defence Staff making my maiden speech. I had no such expectations of myself nor, I promise you, did my friends. I joined the Army because my father and brother loved the life, and I thought that I would, too. This proved to be so, and it was with great pride that I spent the next 42 years among some of the finest people in this country.

I thank your Lordships for the great kindness that has without exception been shown towards me since I had the privilege of being introduced here by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie. This kindness has been matched by the reception and humour shown by the staff of this great institution. I am hugely grateful. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for being such a supportive and wise partner during our time together in the Ministry of Defence.

In 500 BC, the great soldier philosopher, Sun Tzu, wrote:

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat”.

Without a clear national strategy to guide decisions on what to do in places such as Syria and Iraq, it is hard to devise sound plans or detailed sub-strategies. It leads to a situation whereby we confront Iran in Syria, but seek to work with Iran in neighbouring Iraq. A reluctance to think strategically gets countries in these muddles. When people say that national strategies are outmoded and too easily overtaken by events, I retort with one word: Singapore. The reason that little nation is where she is today is that she had a clear national strategy which, while sensibly veering and hauling around its direction of travel, she has resolutely stuck to during the 45 years since that great statesman, Lee Kuan Yew, first introduced it.

I am quite clear that the prime determinant of a country’s foreign policy and its implementing strategies, including in particular its defence strategy, should be its vital national interests. Analysis based on this hard-nosed but rarely discussed calculation provides clear guidelines on when, for example, to intervene in the affairs of other nations while not, in a case such as the genocide in Rwanda, preventing intervention on moral grounds.

The biggest threat confronting the free world today is that posed by militant jihadism. All states are equally vulnerable, including many great Muslim nations. Rather than bickering, states should cohere to confront this threat through the adoption of a multidimensional strategy in which all, be it less or more, can play a constructive part. This struggle will be generational and our leaders must stop seeking short-term tactical solutions. The core of such an outcome would in the first instance be a containment strategy. Once the periphery was stabilised, one would work progressively to recover areas that had fallen under the jihadist yoke.

A key part of this containment strategy, and the biggest deduction for me from ISIL’s success in Iraq, should be a global determination to honour commitments made at the NATO summits in Lisbon and Chicago, and their non-military equivalent in Tokyo, to support the Afghan people after ISAF withdraws from the combat role at the end of this year. Eight million Afghans decisively rejected the Taliban when they courageously voted in Afghanistan’s recent elections. They, and the men and women of our Armed Forces, especially those killed or wounded in our service, deserve nothing less than that we do simply as we have promised. This is in order to prevent that country reverting to the lawless state from which—and, my goodness, our memories are as short as our wishful thinking is naive—those awful attacks on the twin towers were initially planned only 13 years ago.

Are our Armed Forces in a fit state to play their role in dealing with these and other risks to our way of life? The answer must be that their state is not good enough, but it is some consolation that it is better than that of any other allied nation’s forces except the United States. Future Force 2020, if fully funded, will ensure that our Armed Forces are effective and something of which we can be proud. However, to realise this potential, as the economy grows, routine defence spending post 2015 must increase as a minimum to 2% of GDP. If not, given the mathematics that seem stubbornly to govern defence expenditure, the size and effectiveness of the Armed Forces will inevitably deteriorate further, and this is without the need to fund new capability. We need, for example, maritime surveillance. While wishing that we had not bought two huge aircraft carriers with the opportunity costs involved, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord West, that having done so, it would be folly for us not to find the money needed to have one carrier permanently available—and, yes, we need more escorts, too.

Given the highly unstable world we live in, either the brave experiment with the Army Reserve must soon be proved to work or a new solution should be found. Any additional money spent on this must not be taken from other programmes, merely robbing Peter to pay Paul. We need constantly to improve the skills needed to defend and attack in the cyber domain if for no other reason than to ensure that we deter others from using such methods against us.

By design, we plan to go to war only with allies. It is vital that our allies start shouldering more of the burden of our collective security. It is unacceptable that the United States of America should pay so disproportionately. It is also time to re-examine our aloof attitude towards involvement in United Nations blue-helmet operations. Among other benefits, this would be a practical way to confront the scourge of violence against women in conflict, brought to our attention recently by the Foreign Secretary.

Finally, it is the quality of the people in them that distinguish our Army, Navy and Air Force from most others and allows them to achieve the great things that we expect of them. There is a societal consensus in the United Kingdom that joining the Armed Forces is a good thing, whether you are the child of a humble artisan or the heir to the throne. This will continue only if those in the Armed Forces feel properly looked after, and in this I very much include their families. The impact of getting this wrong is not properly understood in government circles. I travelled to many countries as CDS and I frequently saw fine ships tied up alongside jetties, aircraft idle in hangers and tanks sitting in sheds or good only for parades. Those nations are not able to recruit and retain the high-quality people whom we have historically succeeded in attracting to the British Armed Forces and who are in such demand around the world as role models and mentors. If we break that societal consensus by failing to look after our service men and women, we will have an Army, Navy and Air Force, but they will not be what you and I associate with this country and they will, one day, be found wanting.

Ultimately, military effectiveness, as Napoleon famously remarked, is determined by the morale of those in uniform. It is surely one of this Parliament’s principal duties to safeguard the high morale of our Armed Forces to ensure that they can rise to whatever challenge confronts them with the skill and courage that they historically always have.

18:40

[Lord Burnett (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards. It is also rather difficult. He made an outstanding maiden speech, drawing on his very considerable experience and outstanding service record. I have to try and follow that.

During the noble and gallant Lord’s time as Chief of the Defence Staff, we were conducting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Under his illustrious leadership our Armed Forces exceeded our highest expectations of them. That is a tribute to him. He also served as a commando gunner and is held in the greatest admiration and affection by those in the Royal Marines who served with him. I remember listening to his “Desert Island Discs”. I very much enjoyed it, especially the Sierra Leone record. His own record in Sierra Leone was courageous and exemplary. We should heed the warnings that the noble and gallant Lord asserted. I and many others in this House wholeheartedly agree with him.

The Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill that has just had its Second Reading deals with the appointment of a service ombudsman. What reaction has this appointment elucidated from those serving in the Armed Forces? Is there a view that it undermines the chain of command? Officers and non-commissioned officers in the Armed Forces are rightly proud of those who serve under them. It is my experience that they attach the greatest importance and give the highest priority to their duty of service to the men under their command.

The main thrust of my contribution this evening relates to the study being conducted into whether women should serve in combat roles on the front line. Women already serve in many roles with bravery and distinction. A female Royal Navy medical attendant serving with the Royal Marines Commandos in Afghanistan was a few years ago awarded the Military Cross for her bravery. She was the daughter of a very proud retired Royal Marines non-commissioned officer. Nobody doubts the great courage of women throughout the ages. Many SOE operators in World War II were women. Many of us will recall reading about the heroism of Odette Hallowes and Violette Szabo, and others. Both the ladies I mentioned were awarded the George Cross.

However, there is a world of difference between those roles and outright combat. For example, omitting for the time being considerations of decency, privacy and chivalry, would—as the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, asserted—including a woman in a four-man fire team whose task is to close with and kill the enemy add to the risk? It is aggressive and brutal work. It is a matter of the chemistry of the fire team and risk at the moment of battle—where risk is already very high.

Very few women can pass the commando course or the airborne selection and complete the tests. I have heard it asserted that the female body has to operate much closer to its 100% maximum for much longer to do so. That will be the same in battle. In these circumstances, is the result to make the individual far more prone to injury, with less capacity to cope with the unexpected and additional risks at the moment of crisis? That would lead to an increased risk of failure. We know what failure means in matters of battle.

Can my noble friend explain who is conducting the study? Will Members of this House have the opportunity to make their views known? We have a number of recently retired senior service officers here, not least the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards. Particularly, will the views of serving members of the Royal Marines, the airborne forces, infantry and cavalry of all ranks be canvassed? When the report is submitted to the Secretary of State, will we have an opportunity to debate it before any decisions are made? It would be interesting for the House of Lords defence committee to be given a briefing on this matter with an explanation of what has happened when this change has been introduced by overseas forces. I hope my noble friend will be able to assure the House that those with reservations in respect of this proposal will be listened to and that due weight will be given to those reservations.

18:45

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister for his thoughtful introduction to this debate and in congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, on his magnificent maiden speech.

I will focus on an issue that the Minister raised in his introduction with regard to the longer-term approach to the provision of healthcare services and the management of veterans with complex wounds. It is well recognised that Defence Medical Services has, through the provision of quite remarkable services in theatre, transformed the outlook for our service personnel who sustain injury. These services are considered second to none in the world and ensure that the immediate care provided to wounded service personnel has improved the rates of survival from some of the most horrific and complex injuries that very recently would not have been survivable.

Coupled with that, the provision of care in such institutions as the facilities at Selly Oak in Birmingham have ensured that the intermediate care provided after that immediate recovery and rescue phase is also of the very highest standard. What has been learnt as a result of the development and provision of these services to our Armed Forces has transformed the way that we have started to look at the management of civilian trauma.

Beyond that, rehabilitation provided at institutions such as Headley Court has also had a transformational impact. The quality of those services, the thoughtful way in which they are delivered and the holistic approach to the management of those brave service personnel who have sustained the most horrific injuries is again recognised throughout the world to be of the very highest standard. It is also recognised by those service personnel who have to avail themselves of those facilities.

However, there have been substantial concerns raised on repeated occasions about what will happen to those complex-wounded personnel once they have left the services and returned to civilian life. It is well recognised that care under those circumstances must return to the National Health Service, ultimately supervised by a general practitioner. In his opening remarks to this debate, the Minister spoke about some of the changes that have recently been provided for the longer-term management of these particular veterans. These are warmly welcomed.

I would like to explore a little further the actual disposition of those services. The report published by Dr Andrew Murrison from the other place laid out a framework for the provision of these services, specifically focusing on two important areas. The first was the provision of disablement services centres so that veterans injured as a result of their service could depend on the provision of services for the management of their amputation and prosthetics in the way that they would have expected to receive while serving in the Armed Forces.

The Minister mentioned 24 centres of excellence. How do those equate to the nine centres originally described by Dr Murrison in his report? How are both the quality of care and the outcomes achieved by those centres currently being assessed? What ongoing assessment will there be to ensure that these centres deliver what was expected of them—the provision of services equivalent to those that personnel had a right to and were receiving as part of their active service while members of the Armed Forces?

The second element was specialised commissioning, for example through the National Health Service in England. I understand that that specialist commissioning function is provided by a Veterans’ Prosthetics Panel, which receives applications from veterans who have been complex-wounded and discharged from the services, so that they can apply for the necessary funding for advanced prosthetics, which are made with remarkable technology—bionics and robotics with complex software—and can have a transformational impact on their quality of life.

I understand that the funding for the Veterans’ Prosthetics Panel for 2012-14 was set at about £11 million and was guaranteed for that two-year period. What arrangements have been made to continue the funding beyond 2014? What assessment has been made of whether that funding level is sufficient for the needs of those veterans who may have to avail themselves of the services of the panel? If, after analysis, the funding level is considered not to be of sufficient magnitude, what arrangements will be made to increase the funding, bearing in mind that the NHS itself is facing substantial financial constraint?

Beyond the provision of those important facilities, on which Her Majesty’s Government should be congratulated, there is ongoing concern about whether there is sufficient research effort to inform the longer-term healthcare needs of those veterans—who, as I said, have been wounded in horrific ways that would previously not have been survivable. Little is known about their holistic healthcare needs over the long term—not only years but decades hence—because previously such individuals would not have survived.

All good medical practice is informed by a strong research base. What if any funding from the National Institute for Health Research is directed towards that group of individuals? How is that research organised? To repeat a question that has been asked on previous occasions, are active efforts made at the time of discharge from the services—for instance, using the NHS number—to ensure that that cohort of complex-wounded individuals continues to be followed as a group, so that their clinical outcomes can be used to inform their own ongoing healthcare needs?

Beyond all that Defence Medical Services is able to provide, including the excellent facilities at Headley Court, there has been recent debate about whether further facilities can be created for rehabilitation. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, about the important work with regard to rehabilitation centres across the country. Another proposal has been to bring together a defence and national rehabilitation centre at Stanford Hall. Where do those proposals stand and what progress has been made? The proposals would bring together a defence and a national rehabilitation facility, the two informing each other and therefore driving up standards of practice and clinical outcomes not only for those discharged from the armed services who require further rehabilitation but for civilians injured in civilian life.

We have heard in this debate about the important obligation that our nation has to its Armed Forces, the covenant and therefore the ongoing responsibility we have to veterans. The provision of healthcare not only while in service but beyond for those who have sacrificed so much is a vital responsibility of government.

In case I did not do so at the beginning, I should remind noble Lords of my interest in this area as a commissioner of the Royal Hospital in Chelsea and a trustee and governor of the King Edward VII Hospital.

18:54

[Lord Lyell (Con)]

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for all the help that he gives to us as members of your Lordships’ House of Lords defence group; we owe him an enormous amount. Looking at the speakers list today, I think that there are 16 or even 18 of us who are invited on a regular basis by my noble friend to receive wonderful briefings from him and expert officials at the Ministry of Defence. We are all immensely grateful. One of the lucky duties I have is to be secretary of the House of Lords defence group. Every year, I invite all the noble and gallant Lords, the former Chiefs of Defence Staff. Everything that has been said today by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, is so much appreciated by all of us, the Back-Benchers who do not have extensive service experience. We really appreciate the tenor in which he said that. His fellow former Chiefs of the Defence Staff are exceptionally kind in giving us full and confidential briefing on everything that we might need to know.

I have spent 41 years as a member of the House of Lords defence group. We are Back-Benchers, independent with our own minds. We are extremely fortunate to have speaking after me for the second time today the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. First of all, she is my chairman, but, secondly, as your Lordships may have heard earlier, and as we may well hear again later, she is an absolute champion of the families and an enormous supporter of provision not just of weaponry but of what service personnel need. Your Lordships are very lucky to have her as chairman of our group. Among the 16 or 18, I am, I hope, the still, small voice. We have heard and will hear from noble and gallant Lords and other Members of your Lordships’ House with colossal experience.

For myself, I was a conscript. I am that old; I am in my 76th year. I served only 19 months, because I suffered a fractured leg—army skiing, actually. I shall therefore concentrate my short remarks on recruit training and further training, mainly gathered in the Army, but possibly in other branches of the service as well. One gap in my training and record, which is also a gap in the visits that we have been able to make as part of the House of Lords defence group, is that we have not been able to get down to Sennybridge, where I understand that the advanced training for members of the Army, particularly young officers and non-commissioned officers, takes place. It may be combined with Warminster and other places. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, mentioned 1971. In 1958, I was very lucky to serve under the then Earl Cathcart. He sent me to Hythe on a platoon weapon training course. I am able to tell your Lordships that the training we received there was 120% successful; it was excellent. The sympathy and assistance that I received was simply second to none.

I know that my noble friend the Minister has similar experience, but I hope that he, noble and gallant Lords and other Members of your Lordships’ House will be satisfied with what we have in our Armed Forces. First, there are the personnel. I dare not call them boys and girls; they are men and women. They are exceptional, and we are extremely lucky, first, that they wish to join the Armed Forces with some of the responsibilities and difficulties that arise in their private life, their finance, family life, and so on. They are happy to join. One lesson that I have learnt as part of our visits with the House of Lords defence group is that we need to start at the lowest level with recruit training of young members of the Armed Forces. I think it was two or three years ago that my noble friend Lord Lee and I went on board the Type 45 HMS “Daring” at Portsmouth with its excellent commanding officer, Captain McAlpine. We watched him speaking to newly joined members of his crew and he took enormous care, treating them almost like an uncle. I certainly appreciated what he was able to do by putting his talents into seeing that young men were appreciated for their talents and ability.

I hope that my noble friend can keep all of us, and your Lordships’ group, up to speed with the facilities for the Armed Forces. For myself, I recall the kit—the equipment and clothing—that I had as a young soldier. It is now exceptionally good. About 20 years ago, Lord Bramall and I went to Little Rissington, which used to be an advance base for kitting out soldiers and members of the Armed Forces before they went on an operation—maybe it still is. We noticed a great deal of kit there that was not part of the kit supplied by the Army. Members of the Armed Forces had spent their own funds on kit that they felt was the best. I believe that that gap has now been closed. On every visit that we make, we find that all the members of the Army and the other Armed Forces that we meet are really very content with the equipment that they have. On weapons and tools, I was fascinated to hear what my noble friend had to say about the Jackals. I hope that he was not referring to Members of your Lordships’ House; rather, that was one of the items he was referring to, which is a method of transport. I hope they are all right.

However, one thing that has always concerned me within your Lordships’ defence group is the families and their accommodation. I could not add anything to the wise and wonderful words of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, but regarding accommodation one of the most uncomfortable times that I have ever spent as part of our group was in Colchester, where we heard of the problems with accommodation in the married quarters there. I think this was just an error; it was perhaps a gap based on a wish to use my discipline from Scotland, accountancy, to tighten up the finances but it worried me considerably. I am sure that the situation has been cleared up a great deal. This was only in the married quarters, as the young soldiers’ quarters were exceptional—really good.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to confirm that the return of the Armed Forces from Germany is being carried on timeously and to cost. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur referred to RAF Leuchars, which is my nearest Royal Air Force station, and to the members of the Army who are going to be there. Because of the geography of Leuchars, it is very well situated to have Reserve Forces nearby. In his previous incarnation the Minister has been with me and members of the group three times to Cyprus. There we saw exactly what all members of the Armed Forces are able to do, together with the accommodation there. I am very content—we were very lucky—that he was able to come.

What we see in the advertisements for the British Army is “Be the best”. Every single man and woman in the Armed Forces is doing their best. They are the best and it is up to us to give them the support that they deserve. They deserve our best and they will get it.

I conclude by saying that, when my noble friend was referring to commemorating the centenary of the First World War, your Lordships may not quite have been aware that he is the grandson of Field-Marshal Earl Haig. I think that he would have been very proud, as we are, of what his grandson has done for us.

19:04

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for ensuring that we have this debate, which is not time-limited as we normally are. That is very much appreciated. It also provided the opportunity to hear the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards of Herstmonceux. His speech was a pleasure to listen to for its clarity and its big-picture approach. I also enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, but today is not the time to be drawn or distracted by being one of the two women Peers in this debate on the issue of women in front-line operations. That is for another day and time; I am sure that on that day there will not be only two women taking part in the debate.

I need to declare an interest as a vice-president of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal. I very much associate myself with the words that she gave us in regard to those 4,000 widows, many of them fragile and very elderly, who feel penalised—in some cases, stigmatised would not be an exaggeration—by the Government’s present costs. If the public out there knew that, if the figure is correct, it would take £70,000 to resolve this problem and that it is highly likely to be not even that much, they would be astonished at the meanness of us as a House and, more importantly, of the Government. What would be needed is not even a drop in the ocean and I hope that the Minister, if he cannot comment positively on this, will come back to it in writing after this debate.

As the Minister said in opening this debate, this has been a year of commemorations. It reminds us, day by day, of the work of our service men and women, putting their lives on the line in our name and for our protection. We have a huge debt to pay to them, both those who have gone and those who remain. I would like to address those who remain in my short contribution because it is not just about them but also about their families. Unlike any other career that I can think of, they go where they are directed, stay as long as they are directed to be there and are separated from their families, as directed. They give up many privileges that the rest of us in our community take for granted. They do that with a commitment and courage, and a lack of self, which impresses anyone who comes into contact with them. Many acts of bravery are not even heard of; we were reminded of this by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, in his address.

All that brings a great responsibility for us, as a nation, when we look at the role of our Armed Forces on behalf of our nation. We have a military covenant, which is a commitment to go some way towards meeting that responsibility. We have the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which is charged with looking after the overall remuneration and allowances package. We have a Service Complaints Commissioner—soon to be an ombudsman—and, indeed, we have a Defence Select Committee in another place, which constantly looks at issues affecting our Armed Forces. One would think that we are carrying out our responsibility to the Armed Forces of this nation. Yet one has only to look at social media, where individual Armed Forces personnel say what they really think. It is quite discouraging.

The Armed Forces Pay Review Body report for this year says, in paragraph 2.11, that:

“There had been notable drops in reported morale from Army personnel for the third consecutive year”.

The next paragraph refers to its visits,

“amidst continuing high tempo, with much operational commitment at the same time as the impact of the redundancy programme”.

Many questions have been asked in this House about that. The following paragraph, paragraph 2.13, says that:

“The continued erosion of the overall package, together with the impact of the redundancy process were felt to be adversely affecting morale, which was already considered to be fragile”,

Does that mean we are meeting our responsibility to our Armed Forces? I suggest that it brings that strongly into question.

The audit office report, issued a short while ago, expresses many criticisms of Army 2020. The Government cannot easily dismiss the comments in that report, although little has been made of it today. They raise serious concerns for our personnel about how the process was carried out and the impact on them. For instance, there have been a number of questions in this House over the months about the redundancies in the full-time services and their replacement by reserve personnel. We need to recruit 11,000 reserves in the next few years. The National Audit Office report says that on the model with which it was presented it will be 2025 before that 30,000 reserve personnel number is met. The NAO also says that the MoD was looking at an alternative model, but the NAO could not get a copy of it so could not revise or revisit that view. It is clear that there is a £10.6 billion cut from the Army budget between 2011-12 and 2021-22. We all know that many questions have been asked over months on this whole issue, and the Minister has gallantly tried to assure us in answering them. However, I suggest that not many of us are convinced.

The world is a dangerous place, as we see day by day and indeed increasingly over the past few weeks. Our Armed Forces are a major part of our protection and, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, said in his maiden speech, there will be a time when we need them. I certainly subscribe to that view. That gives us a national responsibility regarding both their role and how we view and look after our Armed Forces.

That brings me to my closing remark. The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Richards, are right that a commitment was given by the Prime Minister, publicly and on the record, that there would be a real increase in the budget for the MoD from 2015 onwards. I have been at briefing meetings where it has been made clear that that was an integral part of the arrangement of the cutbacks that were agreed. If that commitment is not carried out, it will mean that we, on behalf of our nation, will not have played our part in that very painful process that the Armed Forces will have gone through. Can the Minister please confirm today whether the Prime Minister not only meant what he said but will deliver on it in 2015, before the general election?

19:12

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not follow on the issue of cuts and resources. I do not feel that I am qualified to add anything on this to those who have already spoken.

As chairman of the Association of Military Court Advocates, I want to refer to the implications of the withdrawal of British forces to the UK, which will happen perhaps by the end of this decade. At that point we will not have forces serving abroad, at least for any length of time. The rationale of courts martial is that they bring a British standard of justice to our serving servicemen, wherever they happen to be serving in the world, and do not open them to trial and punishment in some foreign jurisdiction. If all the forces come back to this country for any length of time, the question will be raised of whether courts martial are acceptable for dealing with civil offences under what is currently Section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006. Will there be room for a parallel system of justice?

In historic times, courts martial were regarded as administering rather rough and ready justice, both in their findings and in their punishments. I am rather proud that it was a Liberal Member of Parliament from my part of the world, East Denbighshire, under Mr Gladstone, who abolished flogging in the Army in about 1860. Reference has been made to the First World War, in which more than 3,000 men were sentenced to death at courts martial for a variety of offences. I am pleased to say that most of them had their sentences commuted, but around 350 were executed before the drawn-up ranks of their fellow soldiers and by a firing squad composed of the condemned’s troop. It is now accepted that most of the men at the time were suffering from some stress disorder or mental problems as a result of the terrible strains that they were put under; indeed, they have been posthumously pardoned.

Things have moved on, though: following the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Findlay some years ago, many reforms were introduced that have markedly changed the system for the better and have introduced much more confidence in the quality of justice that is administered in these courts. Certain weaknesses remain, however, and it is to those matters that I draw your Lordships’ attention. The first is the simple majority verdict. In a court martial composed of a judge advocate and a panel of officers and warrant officers, the decision as to guilt or innocence can be taken by a simple majority, so that if in the less important court martial three sit, it is two to one; if five sit, it is three to two; if seven sit, as very exceptionally happens—for example, in the Baha Mousa case—a verdict of four to three would be enough. That is very different from the majority verdicts in the civil courts of this country.

The matter gives rise to concern, to such a degree that the Judge Advocate-General, Judge Blackett, posed questions to the Court Martial Appeal Court a few years back in the case of Twaite. It involved an officer who had been convicted of fraud—–he was claiming a housing allowance to which he was not entitled—and there were certain matters that caused disquiet to the judge advocate presiding, so the matter was brought to the Court Martial Appeal Court. The issue raised was that of majority verdicts: why should dealing with a case of fraud be different in a court martial?

The Court of Appeal, presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said that it was a matter for Parliament, and that if Parliament had chosen to have majority verdicts—a simple majority—that was it. That was the answer given by the Judicial Committee of this House in a case in which I appeared called Martin, where a 17 year-old boy was convicted of murder in a court martial in Germany. There were no service matters involved but he was the son of a serving soldier. He was remanded in custody awaiting trial in Colchester—not in the quarters to which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was referring—and returned to Germany to stand trial by court martial at 17 years of age, where he was convicted by a panel of officers. That was upheld with disquiet by the Judicial Committee of this House on the grounds that Parliament had so decreed. The matter went to the European Court, which held that the decision was undermined and should not stand—at least, it recommended that the principles were wrongly applied in that case.

It is said about simple majority verdicts that of course that is what happens in magistrates’ courts, which deal with cases by a simple majority. However, magistrates are not officers; they are chosen to reflect the whole of the community that they come from. They are trained, and are constantly engaged with a chairman of great experience. If in magistrates’ courts decisions of fact and sentencing are arrived at by a simple majority, that is very different from the case of a court martial where, no matter how hard they try, the officers concerned are lay people with no training or experience and are commanded to turn up for the court martial and to sit on the panel—no doubt many times wishing that they were somewhere else—where they can decide guilt or innocence in a case of murder, rape, fraud or serious theft by a simple majority. A matter for the Government to consider is whether this is fair and just and, in particular, whether, if all the British forces are brought back to this country, the system can remain.

The second weakness I identify is sentencing. These days, sentencing is a very technical matter. A judge who sentences has to remind himself of all sorts of criteria that have to be applied in a particular case. He receives directions, he receives very considerable training from the Judicial Studies Board, he does it every day and he has the benefit of the experience of others to turn to for advice in a particular case—that is what the Old Bailey lunches are all about. That is very different from a court martial where the panel of officers—lay people—determines sentence. The judge advocate can sit in on the panel but does not have a vote. Officers decide what the appropriate punishment should be. That is fair enough in disciplinary matters. No doubt there should be an input in disciplinary matters, but when you are dealing, for example, with the minimum sentence that a person sentenced to life for murder should serve, it is a very different matter.

That brings me to the third weakness I see at the moment, which is the sub judice rule. The judge advocate cannot deal with contempt of court. There is a feeling in the media, and more widely in the public, the press and among politicians, that you can say what you like about a court martial while it is still going. For example, in January 2005, when the Breadbasket case was being heard in Osnabruck, the Prime Minister, Mr Blair, described photographic evidence that had been released while the trial was going on as shocking and appalling and he informed the other place that the court martial would prove that,

“we do not tolerate that … activity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/2005; col. 805.]

That caused the trial judge, Judge Advocate Michael Hunter, to advise the panel to ignore completely what the Prime Minister had said the day before in relation to a pending case. General Sir Michael Jackson, who was shown the same photographs, said that he could not possibly comment while the trial was going on. There you have the difference between the general who appreciated and valued the court martial and the politician who saw a chance of an easy headline.

As recently as November 2013, in the trial of Marine A, which your Lordships will recall, a major general said on television that a five-year term as a minimum sentence would be much more suitable than full life imprisonment. Marine A had been found guilty but had not been sentenced, and that remark sparked off wild speculation in the press about what the minimum term should be. I recall being asked in the precincts of this building what I thought would be a suitable term. That is fair enough in private, but for public statements to be made by a major general, who was far senior to the panel who were sitting on the case, was clearly a breach of the sub judice rule which for some reason or other is not regarded as being very important.

Then there was the case of SAS Sergeant Nightingale, who pleaded guilty to possession of a weapon and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. The Defence Secretary Mr Hammond asked the Attorney-General Dominic Grieve to push for a review of that case. Dominic Grieve very properly refused. The Prime Minister was reviled by his own MPs because he was said to be refusing to back Sergeant Nightingale. The Daily Telegraph started a campaign claiming that Nightingale was a war hero and at the appeal hearing it was argued that he had pleaded guilty under pressure. This was while the process was going on. Why does the sub judice rule not apply as far as the press and politicians are concerned in court martial cases?

Those are some thoughts about the current weaknesses in the system. I strongly support the court martial system. I just want to see it improved to the point where it can stand as a parallel system of justice, even if all the forces are brought back to this country, and can hold its head up high as a jurisdiction that is worthy of the name.

19:26

[Lord Boyce (CB)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to our Armed Forces. Our sailors, soldiers and airmen consistently deliver an exceptionally high level of performance and are rightly the envy of all other countries’ armed forces. In such a tribute, we should particularly bear in mind those whose work it is inappropriate to discuss, such as the Special Forces—I declare an interest as Colonel Commandant of the SBS—and I include in this “exclusion of mention” the Royal Navy submarine forces, both attack and ballistic missile submarines. In the case of the latter, we should acknowledge in particular the 100th patrol by a Vanguard class submarine which was completed last year. Its contribution to the deterrent force’s overall 45 years, so far, of continuous, unbroken patrols is an extraordinary example of professionalism and engineering achievement. It is also a commitment to NATO that has been particularly recognised by the alliance’s Secretary-General.

The Royal Navy’s continuous patrols—I stress the word “continuous”—beneath the oceans are vital to deterring our adversaries and key to reassuring our allies, so I am pleased that the Government and the Opposition have in the recent past emphasised that they are committed to maintaining continuous at sea deterrence—CASD—for the Vanguard successor force when it comes into being. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that when he is winding up.

Turning to matters more general, in today’s unstable world—the situations in the Middle East and Ukraine could not illustrate that more clearly—there can be no doubt that we need effective Armed Forces for the UK’s defence and to discharge the Government’s wish to conduct that defence at range and globally well beyond our shores through influence, soft power and, if necessary, hard power. This wish has been clearly captured in past months by the Prime Minister and, among others, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary in comments such as:

“And the particular nature of Britain—our economic interests, our cultural ties, our history, our businesses, our location, our very instincts—they combine to make a country that’s not just on the map, but truly in the world … the small island with the big footprint in the world”,

and,

“We cannot pull up the drawbridge, retreat to our island and think that no harm will ever come to us”.

The Armed Forces have a key role in helping to deliver such aspirations, but I have a serious concern that they are not sufficiently resourced to do so, particularly after the steady erosion of military capability over the past four years, so well exemplified by the unforgivable lack of an aircraft carrier in the Libyan crisis.

In speaking about his vision for the Armed Forces come 2020, when commenting on the 2010 defence review when it was announced—as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Dean—the Prime Minister said:

“My own strong view is that this structure will require year-on-year real-terms growth in the defence budget in the years beyond 2015”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/10; col. 799.]

Since we have retrogressed since 2010, even that—assuming it will be delivered—will not be sufficient. It is simply not good enough for Ministers to say that we have one of the world’s largest defence budgets. Deloitte’s Global Defense Outlook 2014 says we are not in the top six; we are well from the top, and certainly well down as regards force size. It is also no good for Ministers to say that we meet the NATO target of 2% of GDP. As noble Lords have heard, that assertion is disingenuous—and that is the mildest word I can use—since that 2% includes contingency operation costs, which prior to this Government used not to be the case.

If we are to meet vision 2020, and if our Armed Forces are to play properly their part in the Prime Minister’s comment that,

“Fortune favours Britain when we’re ambitious, when we count, when we play our part in the world”,

we must be aiming for something better than 2% of GDP. We need to ensure that at a strategic level we can roll out, for example, the future SSBN and Astute-class programmes. We need to be able to exploit a UK strategic global partnership by having continuously available one high-readiness aircraft carrier from the two being built—which does not mean one in mothballs—and with a sensible number of jets. At a sub-strategic level, we need a credible Type 26 frigate to replace the ageing Type 23—credible in quality, but also in quantity. As the noble Lord, Lord West, has said, the current destroyer frigate force is lamentably insufficient for a nation with global aspirations.

Noble Lords may feel that I am being too single service—and of course, land and air requirements must also be met. However, the Prime Minister has said:

“I would say that the strategy is about Britain engaging in the world in order to protect its interests”.

I stress “in the world”. At the end of this year we move on from the much-quoted phrase about the “main effort being the Middle East theatre”; the main effort is now to be able to provide a credible input to deliver the Prime Minister’s aspiration. That will be achieved through being ready for contingency operations, through deployability, and through heavyweight partnerships, in particular with the USA, by having a high-level capability. The air and land components will of course play their part in that, but delivery will be best effected through maritime, underlining the foreword signed by the Foreign, Home, Transport and Defence Secretaries to the UK National Strategy for Maritime Security, which was published last month, which said:

“As a nation, we have always looked out into the wider world to shape and influence international events”.

There is work to be done if we are to be able to raise our game to realise the Government’s global strategic ambitions that are frequently trotted out and of which I have provided many examples. Rather quaintly, I think that the Prime Minister and other senior figures who articulated those ambitions believe what they are saying. However, those will not be realised without globally capable Armed Forces, and I am afraid that we have sunk below such a true capability. I trust, therefore, that those who are starting to prepare the 2015 defence review will make a better job of it than those who were involved in 2010.

19:33

[Lord Sheikh (Con)]

My Lords, this is an important debate and one in which I am pleased to get the opportunity to speak. The contributions of our Armed Forces need to be recognised and respected. We have a duty to repay their courage and commitment, including after their service, and we also have a duty to their families, who also pay a price on our behalf. I record my gratitude for the risks that they bear, and have borne. We, the nation, owe a great deal to those who risk their lives and serious injury for the sake of our security.

We have a proud tradition of playing a major part on the international stage and our service personnel have demonstrated a courage and strength that have regularly achieved international acclaim. We have a duty to speak up for our Armed Forces and to champion their cause. I am a proud supporter of our Armed Forces, and I take every opportunity to support them and their work, as I know the vast majority of the public do, too. The points I would like to contribute to the debate today surround the issue of relations between ethnic minorities and the Armed Forces. That is an issue I am well placed to speak on, and one I have spoken on previously in your Lordships’ House.

In 2009, the Ministry of Defence formed the Armed Forces Muslim Association, whose meetings I have attended and spoken at several times. General Sir David Richards—who is now of course the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, was the founding patron of the association, and General Sir Nicholas Houghton is now the patron. Our Armed Forces have a long tradition of recruiting from a wide ethnic base, and that is something of which we should be proud. I am pleased to note that some Muslims now hold senior positions in the Army, the Navy and the RAF. Promotions and appointments to our Armed Forces, as with all employers, must be based on merit. However, I have been assured that the Armed Forces are committed to equal opportunities for all. It is to the benefit of our nation and its defence capabilities that our Armed Forces are reflective of our country as a whole. I do not support that being done by quotas or positive discrimination. Instead, we must work to improve relations between our Armed Forces and ethnic communities in order to allow it to develop organically.

The increasing number of Muslims in the UK Armed Forces is a natural change, because society is becoming more tolerant and young Muslims feel more able to come forward and serve. Generally, both female and BME personnel are in the lower ranks for both officers and other ranks. More recently, targeted recruitment activity has sought to increase the number of females and BME personnel in the Armed Forces, so we should see more female and BME personnel coming through to senior positions in the future. While there is a continual, long-term gradual increase in the proportion of BME personnel, problems still remain. Those are particularly prevalent in the Muslim community. After meeting senior officers of the Armed Forces on two occasions, I recently wrote a report on that subject in my role as chairman of the Conservative Muslim Forum, a copy of which has been sent to the Minister. We are putting the various ideas into action in conjunction with the imams and senior members of the Armed Forces.

There are currently 2.7 million Muslims in the United Kingdom, whose heritage comes from many different parts of the world. On the whole, those Muslim communities have integrated well into British society and contribute towards a number of industries and professions. However, the number of Muslims who have joined the Armed Forces is severely disproportionate to their population in this country. Given the integral part that our Armed Forces play in upholding the pride and spirit of our country and helping to define our national identity, that imbalance must be addressed. There are opportunities for Muslims to join the Reserve Forces, as they have the knowledge and expertise. The relationships between the Armed Forces and Muslim communities are generally good, but there are problems. It is important that we strengthen and maintain the relationships. Both the Armed Forces and the Muslim community can and should do more to achieve this.

Two of the objectives of the Conservative Muslim Forum are to strive to maintain unity, brotherhood, tolerance and good will between all persuasions of Muslims and with the wider community and to work to maintain and build bridges with all communities and religions within the United Kingdom. The Conservative Muslim Forum is a robust organisation, and members of all communities are welcome to our functions. The imams and members of the Armed Forces have attended our events. The Armed Forces imams periodically lead the Friday prayers, which are held in the House of Lords. I therefore feel that the Conservative Muslim Forum could also be specifically used as a platform to strengthen the links between the Armed Forces and Muslim communities. The Conservative Muslim Forum’s involvement in building stronger links with the Armed Forces will not have any political agenda, as it is very much appreciated that the role of the Armed Forces is totally apolitical. This is not about making a political point but more putting an end to the feeling that Muslims cannot make it in the Armed Forces.

This is perhaps the most important part of increasing Muslim participation in our Armed Forces, for there are number of misconceptions, leading people to believe that a life in the Armed Forces is not compatible with our faith. There is still work to be done in Muslim communities to encourage family members to be more accepting, but the chain of command inside the Armed Forces is getting better every year at accommodating Muslims. Muslims in the UK Armed Forces are able to pray five times a day and fast, as long as this does not have a direct impact on health and safety or operational effectiveness. Female service personnel can also wear the hijab, if they wish to do so. They are provided with halal rations, can seek support from Muslim chaplains and use prayer rooms on base, one of which was recently made available on a naval warship. I recently got the opportunity to try halal ration packs for myself to see what is provided for soldiers on exercises and operations.

To Muslims, a love of your country and serving your community is an important part of our faith. For thousands of soldiers in the Armed Forces, faith features regularly in their daily lives. Conviction in their faith supports them through the arduous nature of their employment, whether it is at sea, on land or in the air, in training, on exercise or while deployed on operations, where danger is often not far away. We must increase the visibility of Muslim service personnel, both in Muslim and mainstream media, and increase attendance at awards and events arranged by the Muslim community. We must also involve a wider range of ethnic-minority media in Armed Forces recruitment campaigns. I am proud that the Conservative Muslim Forum has taken a lead on this with our website now carrying links to the Army recruitment website, along with links to the Navy and RAF recruitment websites. Educational literature should also be provided for imams and mosques, explaining the role and nature of the Armed Forces. It is encouraging that we have now established a firm base from which to take this initiative forward, and I commend the work of the Armed Forces imams, Imam Asim Hafiz and Imam Ali Omar, as well as several individuals from within Army HQ and naval command.

I would like to add that an Armed Forces Muslim Forum was recently launched by my noble friend Lord Astor and Chief of the Defence Staff Sir Nicholas Houghton. The forum looks to improve relations between the Muslim community and the Armed Forces at a strategic level. My deputy in the Conservative Muslim Forum, Mr Mohammed Amin, was also in attendance at the launch. I have also spoken to a number of other Muslim leaders who are very keen that we should all, as a community, make efforts to build more harmonious relationships with the Armed Forces. I will be very pleased to be proactively involved in making this happen and increasing the role of the Armed Forces in the Muslim community and the role of the Muslim community in the Armed Forces.

Finally, many Muslims, including members of my family, fought in both world wars. We did this out of love and loyalty to the king and the empire. The first non-white person to receive the Victoria Cross was in fact a Muslim, whose name was Sepoy Khudadad Khan, who fought in Belgium during the First World War.

19:45

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the opportunity for this debate. I congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, on his excellent maiden speech, typical of the high standards of contribution made by other noble and gallant Lords in your Lordships’ House. I have no personal experience in the Armed Forces. My father was a major in the Royal Tank Regiment during the Second World War and spent three years with the Eighth Army, driving the Germans across north Africa and up through Italy. I remember that one thing that the people with whom my father worked subsequently in civilian life said about him was that he was a man of integrity. Certainly, I have the highest regard for members of the Armed Forces and for ex-service personnel, many of whom I served alongside in the police service.

Interestingly, a young police officer who was previously in the Army said that he found a difference in culture between the Army and the police service. His experience was that in the Army, when things went wrong, people stood up and took responsibility and that it was the highest ranking officer who took that responsibility. Sadly, he found in the police service that responsibility was pushed down to the lowest possible level and that there was a tendency to cover things up. I shall not comment on whether that is correct, but that was certainly his experience.

My noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill raised the issue of women in combat roles. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, I am not going to leave it to another day to address that issue; I feel that I need to address it today. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, talked about women being involved in infantry and the armoured corps, going forward to face extreme violence. He said that he was asking the question whether that was an appropriate task for a woman. I would not dare to argue against the experience of the noble Lord, but I would also want to raise some questions. My noble friend Lord Burnett talked about the great courage of women over the years, but wondered whether in outright combat it would add to the risk, and how it was important to canvass the views of all members of the Armed Forces.

The parallels with women in the police service are worth exploring. It was only three years before I joined the police service that there was a separate women’s police department. They had specialist duties; they worked fewer hours and were not allowed to do night duty unless there were particular special circumstances. They mainly dealt with missing people, women prisoners and children. It was not until 1973 that women were integrated into policing—and then there were further barriers to be broken down.

It was not until 1977 that the first female traffic officer was appointed, 1979 before the first female dog handler was appointed, and even later still before female police officers became involved in riot training. Being involved in a riot situation, as I was in 1981 on the streets of Brixton, is one of the most physically demanding and, arguably, frightening, experiences that you can have as a police officer. You work in a very small team of six officers. However, the police service has decided to include women in that role and there have been no issues with women undertaking it.

Similar arguments were raised in the police service about women undertaking certain roles as were raised about women undertaking combat roles in the armed services. I can think of any number of male police officers who would be very little use to me if I was a police officer policing a brawl in a public house. However, I can think of many female police officers who I would be very glad to see in that situation not just because they might be a calming influence but because they are physically stronger and far more capable of dealing with that situation than many of the male officers I can think of.

I remember talking to a male officer from a flying squad who believed that women should never be allowed to be part of a flying squad because he felt that in a close combat situation involving armed criminals he might be distracted as he would want to look after his female colleagues, and therefore would not concentrate on tackling those criminals. I believe that mindset is from a bygone age and should be condemned for that reason.

Many female officers who carry arms are just as capable as their male colleagues. Indeed, some of them are better shots and, arguably, psychologically sounder than some of their male colleagues. In case noble Lords are concerned that I am talking about a very different situation, I should add that police firearms officers are trained to kill people. They are trained to aim at the biggest target area—the chest area—and are told that, if they take a shot at someone, the almost inevitable consequence is that they will be killed, yet some female officers are firearms officers and are used in these very stressful situations.

No doubt some noble Lords may argue that the situation I have described in the police force is very different from that which pertains in the armed services. However, men and women involved in the police service face life-threatening situations in front-line scenarios, some of which involve firearms. In my experience of more than 30 years in the police force, having women in those front-line scenarios has never to my knowledge caused any problems.

My father was a tank commander. What would he have thought about women in combat situations? He is no longer with us so I cannot ask him, but I believe that he would not have dismissed the idea simply on a point of principle.

19:40

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the Minister for the wonderful series of briefings that he arranges for Members of this House, which I know are widely appreciated.

I realise that at this stage of such an important debate, in which there have been so many remarkable and well informed speeches, there is little new that I can add. In disclosing an interest as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, I have to admit that, although that committee has a far wider-ranging remit, I will be speaking mainly about the Army and, in particular, Army 2020. I will not repeat all that has been said about the role and purpose of our Armed Forces in general, particularly as regards their future should the Prime Minister’s promised budget increase not be realised, and about the gypsy’s warnings on that given by my noble and gallant friends Lord Stirrup and Lord Richards, including in the latter’s outstanding maiden speech.

In its first review of the National Security Strategy 2010, published on 8 March 2012, the Joint Committee commented that it had been produced to a very tight timetable, and hoped that the production of the next one in 2015 would include a much wider public debate and an attempt at political consensus. The security strategy had been used to guide capability decisions in the 2020 strategic defence and security review, but the committee was unable to find any evidence that it had influenced decisions made since then. It called on the Government to develop an overarching strategy, a common understanding about the United Kingdom’s interests and objectives, that could guide choices on investment across government departments as well as operational priorities and crises responses, based on a realistic vision of the United Kingdom’s future role in the world.

In its report on its work in 2013-14, published on 30 April this year, the committee repeated concerns about the way in which the National Security Council operated, including: focusing on short-term imperatives and operational matters, and showing little sign of considering long-term and blue skies topics; not making the contribution it should to enable the Government to work as a co-ordinated whole; and individual departments, notably the Ministry of Defence, making major policy decisions without discussion at the National Security Council. The committee urged the Prime Minister to reconsider his approach to the next national security strategy in 2015, and to give a clear steer to his officials that they were expected to produce a radically different one that tackled the big and politically difficult questions which would guide future decision-making.

I mention this as background to the ninth report of the House of Commons Defence Committee produced this year, entitled Future Army 2020, in which it expressed its surprise that such a radical change to the Army’s structure, reflecting a reduction of 12,000 personnel from that announced in the 2010 security and defence review, was not discussed at the National Security Council, and that it was the Ministry of Defence’s Permanent Secretary who told the Chief of the General Staff the future size of the Army under the Army 2020 plan, which I hope is not a portent of things to come when there is only one uniformed member of the Defence Council. It noted that the Secretary of State for Defence had subsequently accepted that Army 2020 was designed to fit a financial envelope and it called on the Ministry of Defence to explain the apparent lack of consultation with the Chief of the General Staff in the decision-making process that has affected his service so fundamentally.

However, what seems even more peculiar to me about this whole story is that the Government continue to claim that, despite the history of what has actually happened since 2010, their overall strategic vision, expressed in both the security strategy and the defence review, has not changed. The Defence Committee hopes that a concept of critical mass for the Armed Forces will be developed. Had this been in existence, and even in its absence, it would seem only common sense for the NSC to assess and confirm Army 2020 before issuing it to the Army, in relation not just to critical mass but to the MoD’s “fighting power” doctrine, both of which could arm it with a much better informed understanding of how well the Army will be able to fulfil its obligations and contribute to Future Force 2020. As many noble Lords have pointed out, there is in addition a danger that Army 2020 could unravel if there are any further Ministry of Defence budget reductions, in which case both the UK’s vision of its place in the world and the defence planning assumptions would have to be revised.

Army 2020 represents a radical vision for the future role and structure of the British Army, departing significantly from that which was published in SDSR 2010. I must admit that I share the Defence Committee’s doubts as to whether SDSR 2010 can meet the needs of the United Kingdom’s national security, not least in combating asymmetrical threats. Deterrence of asymmetrical threats is much more complex than deterrence of another state. Whether it is nuclear or conventional, there is great difficulty in identifying precisely what action can be threatened or taken against whom. If I have a particular concern, it is that Army 2020 appears insufficiently resourced to enable the Army to operate in the fourth environment in which services now have to operate in addition to land, sea and air—namely, the electromagnetic or cyberspace. If both attack and defence are to be conducted, Signals is currently at about half the strength required.

My other concern is the reserves, and here I admit that I speak as an Inspector General of the Territorial Army of 25 years ago. While conscious of the enormous contribution that the reserves have made to the hectic operational years, you cannot expect employers to go on releasing people without proper reward. You must also pay the volunteers sufficiently well to encourage them to turn out. There is another dimension to the reserves, which I am afraid receives less than due recognition, which is the representation of the Armed Forces throughout the United Kingdom now that they have been withdrawn from so many places. The whole reserves issue should be re-looked at in the context of SDSR 2015 and Future Force 2020, to confirm that plans exist to expand important requirements such as medical and cyber, identified in what I hope will be a better analysis of national security needs than was carried out in 2010.

Apart from Army 2020, I have one other plea on behalf of the Army. I well remember pleading with my military masters for a period of stability for my battalion, which I took to Gibraltar after two years on operations in Londonderry, a six-month unaccompanied tour in Belize, and a hectic six months during which we had to provide a national shooting team and train for a subsequent four unaccompanied months in Belfast. Having been able to catch our breath, get some basic skills training and allow children under four to have their fathers at home for Christmas for the first time in their lives, a rejuvenated battalion was able to deploy straight to South Armagh. The Army has had far worse than that, having been involved in continuous operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere for more than 10 years, with the result that national defence skills, including essentials such as all-arms training, are almost non-existent. The Army badly needs a period of stability, during which it can become accustomed to its Army 2020 posture, including the linkage between certain formations and certain parts of the world, which is resulting in 4 Brigade, with its Middle East responsibilities, training troops from Libya and Egypt.

The Ministry of Defence failed to communicate the rationale and strategy behind Army 2020 to the Army, the wider Armed Forces, Parliament and the public—the Government are saying that it has to work and there is no plan B. The Government owe it to both the nation and the Army to ensure that Army 2020 works. If the situation changes, they must be prepared to respond decisively by providing additional resources in order to guarantee the nation’s security. I therefore ask the Minister whether the Ministry of Defence accepts the Defence Committee’s request that the Government provide regular updates to Parliament on progress of all aspects of the Army 2020 plan, the first of which would be laid before Parliament in January 2015 to allow consideration and debate before the 2015 general election and the SDSR, and regular debates thereafter.

20:04

[Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)]

My Lords, when one is the 20th speaker, as I am, in this sort of debate, most of the major themes have been covered. In my short contribution I will therefore put a number of questions to the Minister.

First, it has been noticeable that ever since the Prime Minister announced the withdrawal date of our combat forces from Afghanistan there has been an obvious turn-off of interest in that country both in the media and among the general public. I therefore suggest that we have a major, dual responsibility to Afghanistan and its future, and to our Armed Forces personnel, who in many cases have given their lives or limbs in this conflict. I have three questions on Afghanistan for my noble friend. First, given the current size and scale of the Afghan national forces, where is the funding going to come from to sustain this level of armed force? What is the latest allied agreement in this area? Secondly, what percentage of equipment that will be brought back from Afghanistan has actually been brought back so far? Thirdly, what are the latest plans, post the reduction or ceasing of our combat role, to give air support to the Afghan forces?

Turning to co-operation with our allies, which has hardly been mentioned today, I ask my noble friend specifically: what is the state of progress in our co-operation with France? Here we have a situation in which each country has a comparable defence budget and broadly comparable forces; yet it appears to me that we are still operating only in the margins of co-operation. Can my noble friend correct or update me in this area?

As regards the carriers, referred to in considerable depth by the noble Lord, Lord West, the last baseline figure given for their cost was £6.2 billion. It was strongly suggested that there would be an agreement to share between the contractors and the Ministry of Defence, on a 50:50 basis, any expenditure over and above that figure. Has that agreement been reached and ratified?

The Minister did not refer at all to the second carrier, HMS “Prince of Wales”. Has any decision been taken on what we are actually going to do with her when she comes on stream? I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord West, briefly touched on the potential of the “Prince of Wales” and carriers generally in disaster relief. We have in the world, sadly, horrendous refugee and humanitarian problems, and I suspect that this will continue. I suggest that instead of looking at the “Prince of Wales” in a minor role as an agent for helping with refugees and humanitarian relief, we give it almost a primary role in this area, with its military capability held in reserve. We have considerable funding pressures. The noble Lord, Lord West, pulls a face, but I suggest that if the “Prince of Wales” is involved in humanitarian operations, the revenue funding for the second carrier should come from our substantial overseas aid budget, not the defence budget.

The question of our escorts has been touched on, of which we theoretically have only 19 at the moment. How many are fully operational? On the Type 26 vessels, which we all welcome, I understand that vertical launch tubes were incorporated in the design, but that there are no present plans to give cruise missile capability to them. Could I ask the Minister what the extra percentage cost would be if our Type 26 vessels were equipped with cruise missile capability and capacity?

Turning briefly to procurement, in May the department issued a press release that said:

“The DE&S has been provided with the unparalleled freedom to manage its own business, outputs and workforce within an operating cost envelope set to drive significant efficiencies”.

Could I ask my noble friend whether these freedoms cover the salary levels of senior personnel in DE&S-plus? That obviously has an implication for recruitment of the right quality of personnel, which I believe to be vital.

Finally, I turn to the issue of training, where our Armed Forces excel. I am sure we were all pleased to be made aware that we have agreed to train 2,000 Libyan armed forces personnel. There are 325 who are already over here being trained in Cambridgeshire. Could I ask my noble friend whether this is our largest current training commitment? How many service personnel are engaged in training across the world? Linked to that, how many requests are there on the table from nations where there are unsatisfied commitments from this country—in other words, could and should our training capability be expanded?

20:11

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I too welcome the opportunity for the House to express views on defence and on the role of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. I join in the appreciation expressed for the Minister for the amount of effort he puts in to keep us informed on the defence scene. However, I fear too often with this Administration—maybe it is a feature of coalition government—there is little that gives an indication of long-term visionary and realistic thinking; I stress “realistic”. Certainly for the Armed Forces, that 2020 vision we heard about a few years ago, along with balanced manpower needs, is far from realistic or realisable given current funding projections. Indeed, as we hear more about belt-tightening and further financial stringency, there is a sense that, far from increasing the defence budget, further reductions are in the Chancellor’s mind.

However, before reviewing defence capabilities, there is a more fundamental question to answer: what is it that this country—under whatever Government—should aspire to in the field of international affairs? Do we wish to remain in the forefront of such affairs and alliances—and, if needed, punching military weight—that our place on the Security Council, our long history, NATO, our European identity and our Commonwealth membership once combined to give us that genuine status and real credibility? I hope that the next security and defence review will choose to dwell on and clarify that vision of our place in the world in this decade and the next, not just for this year and up to the next general election.

At present the impression is given that it is no longer realistic or thought right always to be active at that level of international influence. The notable absence of the Foreign Secretary at the start of international discussions about the Russia/Ukraine crisis and the almost instantaneously reactive statement at the first signs of the latest Iraq turmoil indicated that the UK would not consider the use of force. Did not that send a significant, albeit depressing, signal? Why was there not the time-honoured immediate reactions to crises, along the lines that all options are being considered and nothing has yet been ruled out? That reaction is designed to give comfort to one’s allies and friends that we are up to the necessary treaty and other commitments if all else fails, and to tell our adversaries that we do not intend to be a mere hand-wringing touch-line spectator that poses them no immediate need for concern. In the field of acquiring intelligence, for example, stand-off aerial platforms—including unmanned aerial vehicles—are available, as indeed are, if necessary, stand-off weapons from sea or air. Those are attacks without use of any ground commitment. Why are they all ruled out so quickly?

At its most elemental, lacking high-worth defence capability, as seen by others, is significant, if only as a further indicator that this country is no longer really prepared to make the effort to remain a leading power in the world of today and tomorrow. Above all, how does that read in Washington? Maybe it is not difficult to guess, if the concerns expressed by US Defense Secretary Gates and his successor Hagel are taken as seriously as they should be. The special relationship, so important to our national security, is starting to lack substance, as viewed in Washington. At a time when the United States’s strategic anxieties are focusing more across the Pacific than across the Atlantic, that may become all too obvious—obvious, that is, when your best and strongest ally just does not bother to consult you about a developing world crisis or problem.

Measures of comparison of input expenditure on defence do not reveal a true picture. The Government have claimed—perhaps it is no longer true—that their defence expenditure is the fourth largest in the world. However, output, not input, should be the true measure of defence capability. Rather than compare what we have spent in the past with expenditure today, I would prefer to use a comparison between what we had in the past—say, when we had realigned our defence posture after the end of the Cold War—and what we have now, as well as what we plan for the immediate future. Time is too short to spell this out in detail, other than to say that the Armed Forces’ manpower and inventory of war-fighting equipment are far below those of the late 1990s. Surely the world and this nation are not safer—maybe far less safe—than they were in that period.

Indeed, the Prime Minister only last week drew attention to the real threat of terrorism spawned in failed states. Defence capability, along with political, economic and diplomatic effort, will combine to tackle such threats, but the latter will lack weight without the backing of military strength and the will to use it to protect this country and its citizens. There are few, if any, quick fixes in defence capability, so a draw-down today will be as damaging in five or even 10 years’ time as it is at the present time. Equally, if in spite of recent indications we wish to retain our place on the world scene, now is the time to invest not only in capability but in numbers. This would both give an immediate indication of determination to remain at a leading position in world affairs and provide successor Governments with the wherewithal to retain that posture.

The 2010 strategic defence and security review was inevitably driven by the economic crisis and an aspiration for force levels a decade hence, in the timescale of 2020, but those aspirations are drifting far out from what was projected only four years ago. By 2020, further slippage and delay in an underresourced programme will be upon us unless significant new money is made available.

A further consideration, too often overlooked, is critical mass—in the number and trades of individual personnel, in the inventory holdings of critical major components, whether ships, aircraft or other weapons platforms, and in spares and availability of consumables. Smaller forces, too, inevitably reduce the scale and opportunities of career and professional advancement. As is already evident, this hampers the ability of the forces to recruit and retain, in particular, those with special expertise, such as engineers or aircrew.

Yet it is from those who first volunteer to join and then decide to remain in the forces for a full career that future senior commanders will have to be found. Headhunting a commander-in-chief or a chief of staff from outside their service is impossible, so the calibre and quality of those who decide in an all-volunteer force to remain and who will be the advisers to Ministers on the use and applications of military power is a further issue for politicians to ponder. Some of the brightest in the services are choosing to leave while they have the youth and skills to take up a new career in civvy street, leaving others maybe less capable to soldier on to fill the senior positions in the Armed Forces.

The next review of the defence and security of the nation must surely be more explicit about the future global posture and strategy for this country and it must be more realistically funded than at present, unless it is the intention to dumb down our standing in the world in a futile and fanciful search for a quieter life.

20:21

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for providing this opportunity to discuss the role of our Armed Forces. I also thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards of Herstmonceux, for his powerful and very clear maiden speech, which contained some important messages for us all.

This debate has been welcome and relevant. In a year of key and moving anniversaries of both the First World War and the Second World War, Armed Forces Day is nearly upon us. It is a day which provides us with an opportunity to remember and highlight the immense role that the members of our Armed Forces have played and continue to play in the life of our nation, defending us and protecting and furthering our national interests, all too often at great personal cost.

This debate is also relevant because of the major changes taking place, or about to take place, affecting our Armed Forces. They include the transition to Army 2020 with its reduction in the size of the Regular Forces and an increase in the Reserve Forces, the imminent withdrawal from Afghanistan, the implementation of the basing review, and the potential impact of the considerations that will determine the direction and content of the next strategic defence and security review—a pending review that should not, like the 2010 review, be driven almost exclusively by the amount of money available rather than by a determination of our strategic objectives and requirements, with the role, size and capability of our Armed Forces being geared to delivering those objectives.

We believe that Britain can play a positive role in the international community and that to withdraw from the world is not just undesirable but impossible. However, we also think that the United Kingdom should be realistic because there are no gains to be made from promising what cannot be delivered. Continued fiscal restraint at the Ministry of Defence requires a more enhanced understanding of what can and what cannot be achieved alone. We know that we must strengthen and deepen our partnerships with existing allies, and seek to cultivate new ones if we are to achieve our strategic objectives. We are also committed to the minimum credible nuclear deterrent which we believe is best delivered through a continuous at-sea deterrent and we will continue to look at ways in which that minimum credible deterrent can be delivered most efficiently.

One of the main priorities of the 2010 SDSR was to ensure that we emerge with a coherent defence capability in 2020. In their foreword to the review the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister said that they were determined to retain a significant well equipped Army in the context of a review that provided for a reduction in manpower over the following five years of 7,000, from 102,000 to 95,000, with a stated assumption that by 2020 we would require an Army of 94,000 personnel, a Royal Navy of 29,000 personnel and an RAF of 31,500 personnel. The reduction in the strength of the Army would enable savings to be made of £5.3 billion over the 10 years from 2011-12 to 2020-21. However, this was subsequently changed downwards to a Regular Army of 82,500, which is a reduction of a further 11,500 or some 160% of the reduction of 7,000 set out only a few months previously in the SDSR.

The 2010 SDSR set out the new defence planning assumptions that envisage that our Armed Forces in the future would be sized and shaped to conduct an enduring stablisation operation at around brigade level—up to 6,500 personnel—with maritime and air support as required while also conducting one non-enduring complex intervention, with up to 2,000 personnel, and one non-enduring simple intervention, with up to 1,000 personnel; or alternatively, three non-enduring operations if we were not already engaged in an enduring operation; or for a limited time, and with sufficient warning, committing all our effort to a one-off intervention of up to three brigades, with maritime and air support—around 30,000, two-thirds of the force deployed to Iraq in 2003.

That is what was in the 2010 SDSR when the reduction in the Army was stated as being from 102,000 to 95,000. The subsequent reduction a few months later was made on cost grounds alone, not because of any change in the defence planning assumptions. The deadline for completing redundancies was also brought forward. It was originally 2017-18, but was brought forward by the Ministry of Defence to 2015-16, because, according to the National Audit Office, of further demands on the budget requiring the department to make staffing savings earlier. The question is that with the further reduction in the size of our Armed Forces going considerably beyond that set out in the 2010 SDSR, can the capabilities set out in the defence planning assumptions at the time, which have never been changed, still be delivered now and in 2015, and can they still be delivered through to 2020 without any increase in the size of our Armed Forces, and in particular the Army?

The recent National Audit Office report on Army 2020 contains some interesting information and robust views. It makes it clear that it does not examine whether Army 2020 will provide enough military capability for the Army to meet its required defence outputs which presumably are those set out in the 2010 SDSR. That is why I am asking this question of the Minister in the light of what has happened since the 2010 SDSR and the critical report from the National Audit Office.

When told in 2011 to make further savings of £5.3 billion, the department produced a programme of change and restructuring which led to Army 2020. Eight options to achieve the required savings were produced by the department, and a panel of senior military personnel selected three of the eight options for further development. However, the panel subsequently decided that none of the shortlist of three options avoided unacceptable risk to the Armed Forces’ ability to deliver the defence outputs required by the 2010 strategic defence and security review. In other words, the department had managed to put forward eight options in a bid to secure the Treasury-demanded savings, none of which would have enabled the Armed Forces to deliver the capabilities required in the Government’s 2010 SDSR.

Instead, a hybrid option was settled on which included a Regular Army supplemented by Reserve Forces, as well as proposals for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. In the words of the National Audit Office report, the panel,

“decided that the option would give enough capability, compared with the three rejected options, to provide the required defence outputs and offered a tolerable level of military risk”.

That was hardly an enthusiastic or ringing endorsement of the option.

Why the reference to the comparison with the “three rejected options”? If it is an acceptable option only when compared with three that have been rejected, it raises questions about exactly what capability the hybrid option actually does deliver. What exactly is a,

“tolerable level of military risk”,

as opposed to an acceptable level of military risk? They cannot mean the same.

The National Audit Office report goes on to tell us:

“The panel did not consider whether recruiting and training the increased number of reserves was feasible as part of its assessment, or whether the requirement for reserves to undertake a substantially different role in a smaller Army would have an impact on recruitment”.

Whether the panel or someone else should have undertaken the exercise is not the question, but rather the fact that according to the National Audit Office no one did it. Presumably that means that the Secretary of State did not ask for that assessment to be made before agreeing to proceed with the hybrid option.

The National Audit Office report says:

“We have not seen evidence that the feasibility of increasing the number of trained reserves within the planned timescale, needed to provide the required capability, was robustly tested”.

To say the least of it, that seems to be something of a mistake as the essence of the hybrid option was that there needed to be a significant increase in the number of reserves, particularly Army reserves, playing a substantially different and more important role. Indeed, the NAO report specifically asserts that the Ministry of Defence did not assess whether it was feasible to recruit and train the number of reserves within the necessary timescale. If that is the case, on what basis have the Government repeatedly asserted their confidence that the required number of Army reservists would be recruited to see the trained strength increase from 19,000 to 30,000?

According to the NAO report, the Secretary of State for Defence can have had no firm basis for the statement in paragraph 1.15 of his July 2013 White Paper on Reserves in the Future Force 2020 in which he said:

“We are confident that the targets can be met”.

That statement was a statement of hope and nothing more, yet the ability of our Armed Forces to deliver the 2010 defence planning assumptions is dependent on it being achieved.

The National Audit Office report also found that recruitment targets for reserves were not underpinned by robust data and that even the working model the department now has for reserves, which contains limited historical data, suggests that it could be 2025, as my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde has already pointed out, before the trained strength of the reserves is increased to 30,000. That assessment, said the National Audit Office, assumed an increase in recruitment rates for new reserves as well as an unevidenced assumption that the percentage of reserve recruits that go on to become trained strength can be increased from the current level of 34% to 55% from 2015-16.

It seems that recruitment is falling behind. Just under 2,000 reserve soldiers were recruited in 2013-14 against a December 2012 Army demand plan requirement of 6,000, and just under 3,200 Regular Army training places were unfilled in 2013-14 from a planned allocation of 9,382 places.

It is not clear what the Government’s attitude is towards the reserves and the increase in the number of trained Army reserves to 30,000. The Government have repeatedly said that the rundown in the size of the Regular Army is not conditional on an increase in the size of the reserves being achieved, even though delivering Army 2020 involves recruiting, training and integrating an increased number of reserves into a single Army. Yet the hybrid option with its “tolerable”—not acceptable—level of military risk is dependent on that increase in the number of reserves being achieved.

I come back to the question that the NAO report did not address: namely, whether our Armed Forces, and the Army in particular, can currently meet now and in 2015, as well as in the future under Army 2020, the defence output set out in the defence planning assumptions in the 2010 strategic defence and security review. The reality is that since those defence planning assumptions appeared in the cost-reduction driven 2010 SDSR, the intended size of the Regular Army has been reduced by a further 11,500, from 94,000 to 82,500. A deliberately untested and unassessed objective of a projected increase in the size of our Reserve Army has fallen well behind schedule and a senior military panel has described the present hybrid option, even if achieved through the increase in trained reserves, as offering not an acceptable level of military risk but only a tolerable one. The conclusion must be that, at the very best, the Government, through their own actions, have placed the ability of our Armed Forces to deliver the defence outputs the Government set out in the SDSR in 2010 in jeopardy, both now and under Army 2020. Frankly, to try to maintain otherwise in the light of the further reductions in the strength of our regular forces, and the continuing failure to achieve the required recruitment levels to our Army Reserve Forces without making any changes to the defence planning assumptions lacks real credibility.

Of course it is possible, although contrary to everything the Government have been saying, that in the 2010 SDSR the Ministry of Defence made provision at a time of austerity for the size and cost of our Armed Forces to be considerably larger than was actually needed to deliver the defence outputs provided for in the SDSR. If that is the case, can the Minister confirm that such an overprovision at a time of austerity was an intended part of the 2010 SDSR? The National Audit Office has done a useful job in throwing some light on what was actually going on at the time of the SDSR and what has been going on since. It indicates that the Secretary of State is somewhat removed from his image as a safe pair of hands. The significance of the next SDSR, and the need to ensure that the demands we place on our Armed Forces, who do not let us down, are matched by the resources we provide for them to meet those demands, cannot be overstated.

20:35

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, we have had a very constructive debate and I am grateful for the excellent contributions from all sides of the House. I will try to deal with some of the points raised by noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords, but I am conscious that I will probably be kept very busy writing letters for the next week or two as there is no way that I can answer all the questions, or indeed acknowledge all the speakers, today.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, gave the House an outstanding maiden speech. He pointed out that we must increase defence spending to 2% of GDP. We have routinely met and exceeded 2% of GDP since 2010, even allowing for urgent operational requirements spending. We expect to meet 2% until 2015-16, but thereafter it is obviously a matter for the next spending review. The noble and gallant Lord also mentioned the patrol aircraft, the MPA. We recognise his concerns about this issue. As part of the next SDSR, we will be examining the question to see what, if anything, can be done.

The noble Lord, Lord West, mentioned the Falklands, where his service on HMS “Ardent” was very distinguished. I pay tribute to the Falklands veterans and to the veterans of so many other campaigns. It is often my privilege to meet these very special people. The noble Lord and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, commented on possible underspend. Her Majesty’s Treasury has allowed all underspends to be rolled forward and they have not been lost. The noble Lord and the noble and gallant Lord also asked whether we will commit to a defence spend of 2% of GDP. Just last week the Secretary-General of NATO praised the MoD for its commitment to a budget of 2% of GDP. We will continue to have this. We are confident that we will keep the 2% level this year and next year, but then it is for the next SDSR and the spending review to make a decision.

I must congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, on his appointment in the Birthday Honours as Marshal of the Royal Air Force and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, on his appointment as Admiral of the Fleet. Both noble and gallant Lords mentioned the in-year defence spending level of 2% of GDP. I have already said that underspends have not been lost. The Treasury has allowed us to roll these forward in order to supplement future plans. We have also met 2% of GDP even allowing for operational spend. For instance, in 2012-13 it was over 2% and that was the case back to 2010-11.

The noble Lord, Lord West, and my noble friend Lord Lee mentioned the second “Queen Elizabeth” class carrier, “Prince of Wales”. The decision on the second carrier will be made during the next SDSR. I can tell the House that the public will feel a great sense of pride on 4 July when Her Majesty the Queen attends the naming ceremony in Rosyth.

My noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill asked where we were on cyberwarfare. The Government have prioritised this important area of new capability. We have recently created the Joint Cyber Unit, building in this country a cyberstrike capability to supplement our investment in cyberdefence.

My noble friend also asked whether the Joint Strike Fighter is so hot that it will melt tarmac. The F-35B will be able to land at all RAF bases. In addition, it will undertake vertical take-offs from the “Queen Elizabeth” carrier and at its training base at RAF Marham, where I understand that money is being spent for the day it arrives. The landing surfaces have always been factored into our planning.

My noble friend also asked about the recruitment of reserves and mentioned that the NAO suggests that it is six years behind schedule. Increasing the Army Reserve from around 19,000 to 30,000 will not happen overnight, but we are no longer seeing the decline that plagued our Reserve Forces previously. We are confident of delivering a reinvigorated reserves by 2018-19 and are investing £1.8 billion in better training and equipment and on integrating them with the rest of the Armed Forces. The model used by the NAO as the basis for its claim did not take into account subsequent improvements in the recruitment pipeline and other measures, such as improved financial incentives, the use of full-time regulars to sponsor the reserves and greater engagement with employers. I assure my noble friend that for the first time since 1996 the total strength of the Reserve Forces has risen to 22,480, which is up 470 since January, so that is good news.

I agree with what my noble friend Lord Sheikh said about Muslims in the Armed Forces. I was honoured to be invited, as my noble friend said, to the most recent Armed Forces Muslim Forum event, where I spoke alongside the CDS. During that event I met several serving Muslims as well as leaders of organisations around the UK, who were all very enthusiastic about the ongoing work the Armed Forces are doing with the Muslim community.

My noble friend Lord Glenarthur pointed out the need to attract and retain reservists. I pay tribute to him for his work with the RAF in Aberdeenshire. I hope to visit his unit when I next go up to Scotland. We are investing £1.8 billion in better training and equipment and on fully integrating them with the regulars. We have been running a major media recruiting campaign, “More than Meets the Eye”, since January, and are making continuous improvements to the National Recruitment Centre’s recruit processing. We are working across government to consider how to target specific skills, such as medical or cyber. Wider initiatives are being examined to improve financial incentives and the competitiveness of our offer.

My noble friend also asked about ex-regulars becoming reservists. We are paying a great deal of attention to ex-regulars as we boost the reserves. These men and women have long careers with experience and up-to-date training that can be brought to bear in the Reserve Forces. A range of financial incentives will encourage ex-regulars to consider the reserves, where their knowledge and experience can only improve integration between Regular and Reserve Forces.

I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and my noble friend Lady Garden do for the war widows. I have huge admiration for what they do. Both noble Baronesses asked about war widows’ pensions. As has been said on a number of occasions in this House, the issue here is retrospection. Successive Governments have agreed that the only way to ensure that public sector pension schemes remain affordable is not to change those policies retrospectively. Any change in policy could have far-reaching economic ramifications and would require careful scrutiny.

My noble friend Lady Garden asked whether veterans are making a good transition to civilian life and finding jobs. As my noble friend Lord Ashcroft concluded in his excellent report on transition, the large majority of service leavers make an excellent transition to civilian life. This is due in no small part to a broad range of resettlement support, including grants, training and job-finding services. More than 80% of those who choose to use the Career Transition Partnership secure work within six months.

The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, and my noble friend Lord Burnett questioned whether women should serve in close-quarters combat. That issue was raised also by my noble friends Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Lord Paddick. The previous review of this issue concluded that women are both physically and psychologically ready for roles on the front line. Let me be clear that women will and can be considered for these roles only if their presence will not impact on operational effectiveness. Women already command ships and serve on submarines. It is time to consider whether, by denying them front-line roles, we are denying them and denying defence.

The Secretary of State for Defence announced on 8 May a review of the exclusion of women from ground close-combat roles and this will report by the end of the year. My noble friend Lord Burnett asked who was conducting the study, whether serving members of the Armed Forces would be canvassed and whether the two Houses would be allowed to debate the issue. The review will canvass views from across defence and will consider carefully the areas of the Armed Forces most affected; for example, the Royal Marines, the RAF Regiment, the Armoured Corps and Infantry Regiments. I shall certainly look into whether a briefing could be set up to apprise Members of the House of the progress of the review. I can assure my noble friend that women would need to meet the requirements of the specific job.

The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, suggested that SDSR 10 would result in a smaller rather than a better Army. While we appreciate the concerns of the noble Lord, we maintain that our Armed Forces, while smaller, will be better equipped and able to deploy rapidly to protect our interests anywhere in the world, supported by an integrated Reserve Force. Army 2020 has redesigned the Army to be more flexible and adaptable to changing threats, as was the key objective of the SDSR.

My noble friend Lord Chidgey asked whether Portsmouth would be ready to take the QE carrier. Work is well under way to prepare Portsmouth to home it. There is no delay on this. Dredging will ensure that the port can take this magnificent ship and we are investing £100 million to see that Portsmouth is ready by 2016 and will enjoy a bright future for its ship industry. Just today, we announced that 100 jobs in Portsmouth had been protected by the £70 million contract for Portsmouth to support and maintain Type 26 destroyers.

My noble friend also suggested that DIO is not effective and too slow. We have just appointed a new strategic business partner to assist DIO in managing the defence estate, bringing private sector expertise alongside military and civilian infrastructure teams. My noble friend also mentioned the sale of Defence Support Group and said that it would be less cost-effective. DSG is going through a thorough market-testing process with a view to delivering better value for money to defence. Getting better value for the taxpayer includes making the Armed Forces better customers. Our reforms are getting results, so that no longer is procurement mired in criticism, delays and a failure to deliver for our troops.

My noble friend asked whether RAF Marham would be ready to home F-35 jets. Yes, they will be homed there, and we are unaware of any reason that that should not happen. The work will include installing landing surfaces, which has always been factored in. The public will take pride in seeing F-35B jets flying this summer.

My noble friend also asked about the risks of Army 2020 dependencies and recruitment targets. We recognise the challenge of implementing Army 2020 alongside other substantial change programmes such as the army basing plan. Working level meetings occur routinely between respective parts of the MoD. Senior responsible owners of change programmes report risk on dependencies on a quarterly basis and through the defence major programme portfolio. We are confident that the plans we have in place to increase the numbers of army reservists are robust and viable. The Army has, and will continue to introduce, initiatives to meet the target.

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, asked what research is being undertaken on military healthcare issues. The MoD’s science and technology programme is investing approximately £10 million per year in military and personnel research. Recent examples of this work include novel wheelchairs for those who have lost their limbs and taking advantage of a sporting consortium of 40 or so SMEs to deliver innovative research. The MoD also provides funding to Professor Simon Wessely’s team at King’s College; they are world experts in PTSD.

The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, mentioned possible low morale in the Armed Forces. I completely agree that morale is important. We are doing more than ever to support and look after the Armed Forces. We want to attract and retain talented people as part of this great British institution and also want to reward them. The covenant is a key part of that. I am proud that a recent survey of reserves—many noble Lord are rightly interested in the reserves—found that 91% are proud of their role, 82% would recommend to others that they become a reserve, 77% feel well motivated and 73% are satisfied with their lives as reservists.

I am sorry but I have run out of time. I have not been able to answer a number of questions and undertake to write to those noble Lords and copy in other noble Lords who spoke in the debate. I thank all those noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords who took part in the debate and look forward to writing to them where I have been unable to answer their questions.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 8.52 pm.