House of Commons

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

Monday 30 June 2014

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the scope for local authorities to make savings by reducing waste and inefficiency.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

16. What recent assessment he has made of the scope for local authorities to make savings by reducing waste and inefficiency.

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer question 1—

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the Secretary of State that he is seeking to answer that with question 16. I shall be advised if I am mistaken or if he has changed his mind.

[Mr Pickles]

Thank goodness someone is paying attention to what is going on.

To be helpful, I have published “50 ways to save”, a practical guide to councils on how they can make the most of their budgets to protect front-line services and keep council tax down.

[Andrew Selous]

Will the Secretary of State commend Central Bedfordshire councillors who, while taking out £60 million of costs, have transformed all 12 libraries, brought back into use a leisure centre and greatly improved it, set up a reablement service and provided extra care housing for the frail elderly. Does that not show what a relentless focus on front-line service and value for money can achieve?

[Mr Pickles]

It is some time since I visited Central Bedfordshire council. I hope that I can visit very soon. The work is very impressive and clearly demonstrates how a good council, looking carefully at what it spends, can protect and enhance local services. I look forward to an early visit.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell)—[Interruption.] After the initiative of the right hon. Gentleman in bringing about the grouping and then in so graciously recollecting the fact that he had done so, the hon. Member for Romford is sadly not with us.

[Mr Pickles]

Perhaps I was prescient.

[Mr Speaker]

Yes, the right hon. Gentleman might have been prescient. I am sure the hon. Member for Romford was told by the Department. If he was not, we are sorry. If he was, he should be here and we are sorry that he is not. No doubt further and better information will become available in due course.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to encourage development on brownfield land.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to encourage development on brownfield land.

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

10. What steps he is taking to encourage development on brownfield land.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

12. What steps he is taking to encourage development on brownfield land.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)]

The Government are determined to make the best use of brownfield land and meet as much of our housing need as possible on brownfield sites. Earlier this month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State announced an ambitious package of reforms to accelerate development on brownfield sites and deliver up to 200,000 homes by 2020.

[Mr Jones]

Residential development on brownfield land in town centres is a key way to protect small and medium-sized town centres from the structural change in retailing while alleviating the demand for residential development on countryside land. Will my hon. Friend set out what more can be done to encourage councils, when putting in place their local plans—they are doing that now—to develop more on brownfield sites?

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important argument that one of the ways to revive town centres is to bring more people to live right in the heart of them. That is why we have introduced a permitted development right to make it easier to convert offices into residential property. It is also why, in the recently published planning guidance, we made it clear that councils should be looking to incentivise development on brownfield sites and reflect the cost of developing those sites.

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome those measures. Will the Minister join me, and indeed the Chancellor, in saying that we will not stand by and pull up the ladder of housing that the next generation needs?

[Nick Boles]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. She has done a lot of work recently on the interests of the next generation—the growing generation—of people in our country. Housing need is one of those key interests. It is one of the reasons why we brought forward planning reforms, and help to buy is helping people get on the housing ladder.

[Stephen Mosley]

Cheshire West and Chester strategic housing land availability assessment shows enough brownfield land to cater for west Cheshire’s housing need for the next 30 years, yet the council is proposing to build on green-belt land outside Chester. Will my hon. Friend reassure my constituents that the intention of the Government’s planning reforms is to encourage brownfield development ahead of green-belt development?

[Nick Boles]

Our policies are clear that brownfield development is supported unless the brownfield site in question has a very high environmental value. In order to bring forward proposals for development on green-belt land, councils have to satisfy a high policy test of exceptional circumstances and they also have to go through a process of intensive consultation through a local plan process before they can change green-belt boundaries.

[David Rutley]

In a recent Civitas pamphlet, Peter Haslehurst from Macclesfield highlighted the importance of brownfield development and the need to learn lessons from other countries, particularly the United States, in taking that forward. What steps are being taken by my hon. Friend’s Department to learn from international case studies to help further accelerate this important work?

[Nick Boles]

We should always be willing to learn from other countries, but we should also not talk down our own achievements. More than two thirds of all new houses are built on brownfield sites, but we can always do more and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has proposed housing zones, with a package of £400 million, to help put in place local development orders on brownfield land so that development comes through more quickly.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I have referred previously to paragraphs 47 onwards of the national planning policy framework, which mean that sites have to be deliverable and viable to be included in a local plan. Many developers are objecting to brownfield sites being included and want greenfield sites to be substituted instead because of this requirement. As a result of the package to which the Minister has just referred, how many of the sites excluded from local plans by paragraph 47 requirements will now be able to be included by local authorities?

[Nick Boles]

I take this opportunity briefly to apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having referred to him during a debate last week when he was not present, and for not having given him notice of that—

[Mr Betts]

And does the Minister apologise for what he said, as well?

[Nick Boles]

I do not apologise for what I said, but I apologise for referring to the hon. Gentleman.

To answer his question, of course we do not collect a central database of every single brownfield site in the land and how they are affected by very recent policy announcements. It is very clear that local authorities need to do everything they can to make sure that sites are viable by setting section 106 agreements and the community infrastructure levy at an appropriate level. Secondly, there is no way that a developer can argue that a site is not viable for development unless they have clear public evidence to demonstrate why it is financially unviable.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Minister has made much in the House of accelerating development on brownfield land and the Secretary of State has said a lot about speeding up planning. Why has the development for Spurs, which is currently with the Department with regard to a compulsory purchase order, been with the Department for 14 months? Might we reach a decision shortly and will he confirm that the Secretary of State is not an Arsenal supporter?

[Nick Boles]

I would never dare to tread into the question of people’s football loyalties, particularly not at this time. I understand the right hon. Gentleman’s frustrations, but the matter has not entirely been with the Department as we have had to refer back to parties on some complex questions. I am keen to make a decision as soon as possible, but I know that he will want that decision to hold up in court and it is therefore important to ensure that it is robust.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister might not be an Arsenal supporter, but I most certainly am—and very proud of it.

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

Surely the planning Minister understands that there has been an increasing trend, particularly in urban areas, to use greenfield sites while land banking brownfield sites, often leaving them derelict in the heart of our towns and city centres. What is he doing to ensure that that land-banked land is brought into active use to provide regeneration benefits for our towns and cities?

[Nick Boles]

There is absolutely no evidence of what the hon. Gentleman has just claimed and in answer to about six questions I have just explained the multiple policies of this Government to bring brownfield land forward for use through guidance, policy, housing zones and new pots of money.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

How will the new local development orders on brownfield sites work in practice? For example, will the Minister say how local people will be involved in deciding which sites should be included in development orders and confirm that that will not undermine localism?

[Nick Boles]

I am grateful for the opportunity to confirm that it absolutely will not undermine localism, as local development orders have to go through the same local consultation as any other local planning permission. The fundamental difference with local development orders is that the local council effectively determines up front the broad parameters of development that will be acceptable. Any proposal that meets those broad conditions can then go ahead. It is a bit like a zoning system rather than our traditional system of submitting a particular planning application for every site. It is absolutely something that is driven locally and led by local councils.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Among his reforms, will the Minister review the business rate exemptions available for derelict buildings further to incentivise owners of those builders to redevelop those sites or otherwise bring them back into use?

[Nick Boles]

We will always look at any new ideas, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that anyone who takes on premises that have been empty for quite a long time can now get a level of exemption that was previously not available.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

The Minister referred to the fact that there was a multiplicity of ideas relating to local government and brownfield sites. Does he really think that people will want to build on a brownfield site if they know that fracking is likely to take place there in the future?

[Nick Boles]

It is not my belief that fracking is likely to take place in the centre of towns and cities, which is where most of these brownfield sites are. There is of course a question about the various uses that might be made of any site, but most of the brownfield land that should come forward for development, particularly housing development, is unlikely also to be used for fracking.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the performance of the troubled families programme.

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

The troubled families programme is performing strongly, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced that, two years into the three-year programme, over 97,000 of the 120,000 families who will be helped by the programme are being worked with, and that nearly 40,000 have already been turned around.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Has the Secretary of State had the opportunity to consider the impact of temporary accommodation on the families being looked after by troubled families units? Many of those families live in private rented accommodation. In my part of south London and, I am sure, in other parts of London and the south-east, large numbers of people are being placed in temporary accommodation as a result of eviction, some of which is quite distant from their home borough. Every Friday, I see families going from south-west London to Wembley, Tottenham and other parts of London. As I see them leave, I am troubled about the future for their children.

[Mr Pickles]

In preparation for answering the hon. Lady’s question, I asked what concerns she might have about her own authority, Merton, and I was told that she had not had a specific discussion with the authority on this subject. I should like to give her the very good news that Merton, with 337 troubled families, is ranked 120th among the local authorities. It has done an extremely good job and had worked with 86% of those families by the end of March, turning round nearly half of them. Merton has now put itself forward to work closely with the expanded programme, and I think the hon. Lady has reason to be proud of the way in which her local authority has handled this matter.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it makes sense to target resources on troubled families, who cost the public purse an average of £75,000 a year? Am I right in thinking that the Government are about to commit £200 million more to this programme, so that more troubled families can be helped and so that we can target help and resources on the 400,000 families in the greatest need?

[Mr Pickles]

It is probably a good thing that we have kept this reasonably simple. It is about getting people back into work, reducing the amount of antisocial behaviour and getting children back into school. My right hon. Friend is right to suggest that the programme has been a success, and I am also grateful for the support of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) in this regard. We will expand it, and we hope that it will change the lives of lots of people.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

The troubled families programme should be aimed at families who are facing multiple challenges and who have the most complex needs. That is something that we would support. The Secretary of State asserts that the programme is succeeding, but how can he justify that when, even on his own tests, many of the families he claims to have “turned round” are still committing crimes, their children are still missing school and their family members are not working? Indeed, some of the families he claims to have turned round have been nowhere near the programme.

[Mr Pickles]

I do not understand the hon. Lady’s hostility. This has been a very successful programme, and we have worked closely with Labour authorities. There is a lagging authority, however. I understand that her experience might be different, in that Newham has identified 985 families and is working with 90% of them, but has turned round only 14% of them, compared with the national average of 33%. Let us be clear: we are not turning these good folks into model citizens—these are very difficult families—but if we can get the children into school for three successive terms, get other family members into work for three months and reduce the amount of antisocial behaviour, it is better for those people and for their neighbours. It is also a lot better than the rather smug attitude being taken by some Opposition Members.

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

5. What steps he is taking to increase home building.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)]

This Government have already delivered 445,000 new homes since 2010. Housing starts on new homes in the past year increased by 31%, the highest increase since 2007, and we have created new dedicated housing zones to support housing development on brownfield sites.

[Mr Raab]

I thank the Minister for that answer and for the progress made to date. To take that forward, is not the key to go further in strengthening local democratic control over both the planning policy and the tax revenue derived from new homes? That would incentivise new builds, while giving communities with high density or lots of green belt or greenfield sites more genuine choice and control over the pace of development.

[Kris Hopkins]

The key thing for me is that we trust local authorities to devise a five-year plan, to know their community, to know their place, and to have that dialogue with the community. With respect to incentives, every new house will bring money into the local authority to support those communities through the new homes bonus. We recognise that we need to grow small and medium-sized businesses, which is reflected in the fact that the Chancellor announced a £500 million package to support them. That is about jobs and apprenticeships. Those are the incentives that a local community can gain as a consequence of building homes.

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

Hackney council is one of the two largest builders of council housing in the country, yet week in, week out at my surgeries, I see people in desperate situations, unable to access that council housing or to afford the very high rent levels that we now see in my constituency. Is the Secretary of State getting some serious work done to look at how housing benefit can be recycled to make sure that it provides capital for housing, rather than the ongoing revenue support for those very expensive rents?

[Kris Hopkins]

First, we have to recognise that the Labour Administration failed to deliver sufficient numbers of council houses. In four years of this Government we have delivered nearly twice as many council houses as they did in 13 years. In addition, an affordable homes programme has delivered 200,000 houses already and in the next three years will deliver another 165,000 houses. Some £300 million has been made available for housing revenue account borrowing to deliver another 10,000 council houses. This Government recognise the role of social housing and are delivering where the previous Government clearly failed.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

There are hundreds of acres of surplus land still in public ownership—land that could be providing thousands of homes. May I therefore urge the Minister to redouble his efforts and the efforts of the Government as a whole to unlock the land and, in particular, to forge stronger long-term development partnerships between the public and private sectors so that we can turn these idle assets into family homes?

[Kris Hopkins]

I recognise the work that my hon. Friend did in delivering that land. As a consequence of his work, we have pledged that we will deliver 100,000 houses. Some 76,000 houses have been delivered on that land and we expect more to be built. A strategic review has taken place to identify some £5 billion worth of land. My hon. Friend is right: this is about encouraging local authorities, with partners, to come forward. I know that the local enterprise partnerships are in conversation about delivering homes and making sure that the transport infrastructure is there to open up housing opportunities. Every Member of the House has an opportunity to build a strong relationship with their authority, to understand housing need and to bring about some of those partnership opportunities that my hon. Friend talks about.

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

In a recent press release the Minister said that the Government’s affordable house building efforts are a clear success story, but in the same press release the figures show that the number of affordable homes built over the past year is the lowest for five years, and the number of homes built for social rent has fallen to a 20-year low. If that is a success story, what does failure look like?

[Kris Hopkins]

Failure looks like the collapse of the housing market in 2008, the 250,000 jobs that were lost, the fall from 12,000 to 3,000 in the number of small and medium-sized businesses building houses, and the failure to deliver council houses at the required level. This Government have taken responsibility for delivering affordable and social housing and picking up the failed and collapsed housing market left by Labour.

[Emma Reynolds]

I will take our record over the Minister’s any day. The Labour Government’s decent homes programme transformed the homes and lives of millions of people across our country. In 2009 we built four times as many homes for social rent as his Government did last year. When it comes to affordable homes, I will take no lectures from him. Labour councils are outbuilding Tory councils by 2:1. Will he now admit that, whether they are in power in Whitehall or in town halls, the Tories simply cannot be trusted to tackle the housing crisis?

[Kris Hopkins]

The record will show that in four years we have delivered—this is despite the dismal housing market we were left, the fact that people could not get loans from banks and the fact that individuals had lost their jobs as a direct consequence of Labour’s failed housing policy—200,000 affordable homes, twice as many council houses as Labour delivered in 13 years and a clear vision to deliver more houses through Help to Buy, which will deliver 120,000 houses for first-time buyers. Our desire to build housing is clearly on the record and we are delivering.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of rent arrears in social housing.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the level of rent arrears in social housing.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)]

According to the Homes and Communities Agency, at the end of 2013-14, the average level of rent arrears among larger housing associations was 3.6%, an improvement from 4.1% over the previous quarter.

[Julie Hilling]

Bolton at Home tells me that its arrears stand at £1.9 million, even though it has a 97% collection rate and has employed an additional 11 people to increase collection and support tenants in financial difficulty. The Minister’s policies are jeopardising his business model on social housing and the ability to build new houses and improve current stock. Can he honestly say that his policies are working?

[Stephen Williams]

According to the information I have, the number of people affected by the social size criteria has fallen across Bolton, from 3,215 households when the policy started in May 2013 to 2,775 now, so there seems to be some discrepancy in the figures.

[Alex Cunningham]

Across Stockton borough, arrears for Tristar Homes are up by 25%, to nearly £1.2 million, on the year prior to the introduction of the bedroom tax, and they would be up by 60% if both Tristar Homes and the local authority were not helping with some discretionary aid. Several hundred people, many of them disabled, are in arrears for the first time in their lives, causing unseen misery and even shame. Was it really the Secretary of State’s intention to grind such people into the ground?

[Stephen Williams]

It is not the intention of either the Secretary of State or me to grind anyone into the ground. The whole point of applying size criteria to the social sector is to match the criteria that already exist in the private rented sector, and they existed throughout the entire 13-years period that the hon. Gentleman’s party was in government. The policy is about fairness to taxpayers as well as to tenants. For those tenants who have difficulty moving, Stockton council, like all local authorities, has discretionary housing payments in order to help them through the process.

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

Can the Minister confirm that of the £68 million of discretionary housing payments made available to councils last year, £11 million went unspent?

[Stephen Williams]

My hon. Friend is indeed correct.

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

8. What discussions he has had with local authorities on the future of local welfare assistance schemes after April 2015.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

During the consultation for the local government finance settlement, I met a range of local authorities and, indeed, the Local Government Association. More poignantly for this question, the Department for Work and Pensions held numerous discussions when it abolished the poorly targeted crisis loans and community care grants in 2012 and passed funding to councils. It is continuing to discuss local provision with councils in the review that it will publish later this year.

[Kate Green]

Trafford Assist has been quite successful, but its funding is for only one year and is not ring-fenced, and now the council has revealed a shocking £6 million discrepancy in its adult social care budget. Given the pressure that the council will be under to plug that spending gap, it is likely that Trafford Assist will not be able to continue after the coming year. What can the Government do to ensure that such successful schemes can continue into the future?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady is right; local authorities are running a range of really good schemes. That is why they have been passed to local authorities. What has been highlighted is that many authorities are running good, efficient schemes and spending way below the amount of money originally put forward. That is also why the Department for Work and Pensions is carrying out the review, which it will be reporting on some time this autumn.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

9. What progress his Department has made in advancing the agenda set out in its publication “Creating the conditions for integration”, published in February 2012.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)]

We are supporting more than 30 projects to break down barriers, encourage community cohesion and celebrate what we have in common. During this holy month of Ramadan, it is appropriate to single out the Big Iftar 2014, when British mosques and community groups host non-Muslims as they share iftar after sunset. This demonstration of community integration in action has expanded from 30 events last year to well over 100 this year.

[Mr Sharma]

The Minister has slashed the budget for cohesion and anti-extremism work in the DCLG and cut back on the programmes being funded. That has led to a deterioration in our ability to deal with extremism. Does he think that was wise?

[Stephen Williams]

I am not aware of any slashing of budgets for community integration groups. I visit projects up and down the country, including in Ealing, where a great many community projects are undertaken, including the teaching of the English language and the Near Neighbours programme—a major £8 million investment, announced by the Secretary of State, the Archbishop of Canterbury and me, that is operating in several boroughs in London.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Are not Government policies driving social division, particularly in education? Has the Minister had a word with the Secretary of State for Education to try to prevent him from causing further damage in that direction?

[Stephen Williams]

One such example of community cohesion is in Luton. This coming Sunday, I will be in Luton visiting a Remembering Srebrenica event and a Big Iftar event. That will celebrate the bringing together of people in Luton and I hope to see the hon. Gentleman there.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the effect on local authorities of the freeze on council tax.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

Council tax freeze funding has thus far helped cut council tax in real terms by 11% since 2010. Forest of Dean is one of the excellent authorities; it is now in its fourth year of a council tax freeze. The Government have made £5.2 billion available to support councils that freeze and have built the funding into the spending review baseline.

[Mr Harper]

The situation is even better than the Minister set out: all three Conservative-led councils in my area have frozen council tax, in contrast to the Independent police and crime commissioner, who put council tax up without making a real effort at savings. I urge the Minister to continue with the programme because freezing council tax makes a real difference to the budgets of families and helps make ends meet in difficult times. Please will he continue that policy?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. What the Government have been able to do with the council tax freeze has shown a real saving for families across the country in keeping council tax down. That is in the context of the fact that council tax roughly doubled under the Labour Government.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Far from there being a freeze, the Government have hit more than 2 million of the poorest households with large council tax increases. In the light of the recent evidence from Citizens Advice, which shows that council tax arrears have become the biggest debt problem reported to it, will the Minister commit to carrying out a full review of the real impact of the policy before the end of the Parliament?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am not surprised at the hon. Gentleman’s question. As I said, his party presided over the near doubling of council tax until 2010. I see why it would resist this Government’s work to freeze council tax and help hard-working families. Local authorities could go even further and follow some good councils that have reduced council tax by cracking down on not just fraud and error but uncollected council tax. Uncollected council tax in Liverpool, for example, is costing every council tax paying household there £500 a year.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Will the Minister congratulate Councillor Steven North, leader of East Northamptonshire council, not only on freezing council tax yet again but on achieving a £50 million investment called Rushden Lakes, which is entirely in my constituency and is creating 2,000 jobs?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the councillor. I thank him for giving us the chance to highlight the really good work that councils and councillors can do when they focus on delivering good, efficient, value-for-money front-line services for their residents.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

13. What assessment he has made of recent trends in the number of households being found homeless but not in priority need by local authorities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)]

Since 2010 we have invested over £1 billion to tackle homelessness and support vulnerable households affected by welfare reform. Last year, the number of households found to be homeless but not in priority need was less than a third of the 2003 peak of over 67,000.

[Simon Danczuk]

Last year in Rochdale, the number of households that were homeless but not in priority need increased by 40%. There are now 320 households in this category in Rochdale with little access to assistance. Will the Minister consider reviewing the law on homelessness to ensure that all homeless people get the help they need?

[Kris Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman is right. A total of 323 households were found to be homeless but not in priority need—just over a quarter of the peak figure of 1,276 in 2005. That is a disgraceful figure, and I agree that we do not want to be in this position. Over £12 billion-worth of investment through Crisis is helping single homeless people, and in Rochdale this has supported a successful Bond Board scheme that has helped 125 single homeless people. I respect the hon. Gentleman and would like to work with him to try to solve some of those issues in Rochdale. I look forward to receiving a note from him about this.

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

The number of families with children living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation is at a 10-year high, with all the consequences for the education, health and well-being of the children concerned. Does the Minister think that that is a creditable record on homelessness since the Government came to power in 2010?

[Kris Hopkins]

Homelessness overall is currently down by 7%; I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has got his figures from. The number of families in temporary accommodation—bed and breakfast—has dropped by 37% in the past year. That is a direct consequence of this Government’s intervention to make sure that vulnerable families, in particular, are not in the position they were in under his party’s Administration.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

14. What steps the Government are taking to support community pubs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

We are providing £200,000 to Pub is The Hub and the Plunkett Foundation to help communities and community pubs to diversify and take over their local pubs. We have also doubled small business rate relief until 2015 and cut national insurance. In addition, the Chancellor scrapped the previous Government’s beer and alcohol duty escalator and reduced beer duty in two successive Budgets, for the first time in many decades.

[Graham Evans]

In rural constituencies such as Weaver Vale, pubs are at the heart of community life. Does my hon. Friend therefore welcome the outstanding work done by the Pub is The Hub programme to ensure that our rural pubs can provide more services, and will he ensure that its good work can continue?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Pub is The Hub is an excellent organisation. I was delighted to be able to put funding into it and to see it help pubs to diversify, whether it is through local libraries being part of the pub, or pubs offering school meals or providing lots of other services for their local community and making themselves the absolute heart of that community. It is a good organisation and long may it prosper.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

In 1992, there were four pubs in the village of Gisburn and we are now down to one. Sadly, it closed a few months ago. The Star brewery wants to reopen the pub and more than 20 residents of Gisburn are very keen to see it reopen, but it is a listed building and there seems to be stalling of some sort of by the local authority. Will the Minister encourage local authorities and brewers to work together to look for compromises in order to ensure that local communities have the very heart of the community—their local pub—reopened?

[Brandon Lewis]

Absolutely. A pub like that can be the absolute heart of the community, providing a range of services. Pub is The Hub and the Plunkett Foundation may be able to help. I am certainly happy to meet my hon. Friend if that would be helpful. I encourage his local authority to look at authorities such as Norfolk, which has just announced a specific local scheme for Norfolk to help local pubs to stay open as a key part of these communities.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

15. What assessment his Department has made of the extent to which the sequential test has inhibited out-of-town retail development.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)]

We have maintained strong planning policies requiring a town centre-first approach, including the sequential test. This ensures that out-of-town development goes ahead only where there are no suitable sites in an existing town centre.

[John Pugh]

I thank the Minister for that response, but we are being given some conflicting evidence: research by the Association of Convenience Stores shows unabated expansion. Will the Minister conduct some further independent research into supermarket out-of-town expansion?

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend and I debated this subject at some length in Westminster Hall last week. I committed then, and am happy to repeat that commitment now, to look closely at the research produced by that organisation. We do not have any evidence that the policy is not working. It is, of course, worth remembering that out-of-town development can go ahead—this is happening in Rushden Lakes, as mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone)—where the impact on town centres will not undermine their vitality or viability.

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

17. What steps he is taking to give greater certainty of tenure and to improve affordability in the private rented sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)]

We are supporting investment to develop a high-quality, professionally managed private rented sector. Our £1 billion Build to Rent fund is on track to deliver up to 10,000 houses for rent. We are committed to promoting a sustainable private rented sector, which is why this summer we will publish a model tenancy agreement, giving landlords and tenants the choice to agree longer-term fixed tenancies.

[Debbie Abrahams]

What is the Minister doing specifically to stop tenants being ripped off by letting agencies? The model tenancy agreement was meant to have been published last October, so when can we expect to see it?

[Kris Hopkins]

The model tenancy agreement will be published shortly. I am grateful for the opportunity to say what we will do, including a document on how to rent and a redress scheme to protect landlords and tenants, in addition to the Consumer Rights Bill, which insists on forcing agents to publish their fees on websites and to put them on display. We also want to make sure that individuals who fail to look after the needs of others face not a maximum fine of £5,000, but a limitless fine. We want to protect the rights of tenants and we are putting in place the opportunities to do so.

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

I know that the Minister is working on the model tenancy agreement and, in particular, the tenants charter, to set out clearly rights for those in private rented accommodation. Last week I met agents and landlords in my constituency of Rossendale and Darwen who are looking forward to and welcome that change, but will the Minister confirm that it will not include rent controls, which would mean that landlords would be unable to invest in their property?

[Kris Hopkins]

I know that my hon. Friend takes much interest in this subject and I can confirm that there will be no rent controls. This is about encouraging the growth of the private rented sector, to make sure that we have very high standards, the checks in place to protect tenants and the opportunity to expand the length of a tenancy through a voluntary process. An agreement between a landlord and a tenant is the right way forward.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to bear down on malpractice in the private rented sector? The Hackney Gazette reports that a councillor who has set up a charity for the homeless refers them to his own estate agency and then places them in properties that he owns in my constituency. Is that not an abuse of our housing system?

[Kris Hopkins]

I know the details involved, because my hon. Friend has written to me, and we have forwarded them to the appropriate authorities. The Charity Commission is now examining what my hon. Friend has alleged, and I will not comment any further until after the investigation.

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

19. When he next plans to meet district council representatives to discuss their local development frameworks; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)]

I welcome the fact that King’s Lynn and West Norfolk council is one of the 55% of local authorities that have an adopted local plan. My hon. Friend and I met last year, and I would be happy to arrange another meeting with him and local council representatives, if he would like that.

[Mr Bellingham]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very helpful reply. Does he agree that, given the importance of localism and local authority autonomy, councils such as King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, which has plans in place plus a five-year-plus supply of housing, should have a very good chance indeed of not being overridden on appeal when it comes to speculative, opportunistic developments?

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key is having a robust five-year land supply and, if an authority can demonstrate that, there is absolutely no reason why their decisions about housing development should not stick.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

Many of my constituents in the market town of Garstang are currently under siege from developers, who are trying to bypass the local core development plan process and using their might to force through planning permission. Other than what the Minister has just said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham), what extra steps might he put in place to ensure that local authorities keep control of where they want developments to happen and how they want them to proceed?

[Nick Boles]

My hon. Friend knows that the most important thing is that his local authority produce a plan. We are happy to support the process of getting that plan in place in any way we can. I can meet him and his local authority; I have officials who can help his local authority; and it can also get some help from the Planning Advisory Service. The key is to get that plan in place, and then the local authority will be in charge.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

20. What steps he is taking to help local firms with their business rate bills in (a) England, (b) Tamworth and (c) Lichfield.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

We have provided a £1 billion business rates package for 2014-15, including the £1,000 discount that will benefit smaller shops, pubs and restaurants, of which there are about 280 in Tamworth and 540 in Lichfield. We have also introduced a 50% discount for businesses taking on long-term empty shops, and as I said earlier, we have doubled small business rate relief for another year, helping more than 500,000 businesses.

[Christopher Pincher]

Is my hon. Friend as concerned as I am about Labour’s high street policy review, which suggests that business rates may be levied on farm land? Does he not agree that—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sure that the Minister’s views on Labour party policy would be of great interest and possibly a source of edification, but they are not relevant now, because this is about Ministers’ responsibility for Ministers’ policies and those of the Government. The wry smile of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) suggests that he is well aware of that fact.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

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

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

I wish to make a short statement about the London borough of Tower Hamlets. In April, I instructed inspectors to launch an investigation into the mayoral administration of Tower Hamlets and to report by the end of June, or such later date as I agreed. The investigators, PricewaterhouseCoopers, have informed me that the council has considerably delayed the investigation by delaying the provision of key information or by simply not providing it at all. This is not acceptable. I am consequently extending the period for PwC to report. The costs will be met by the council. Whether the council likes it or not, this investigation will be thorough and comprehensive. I will update the House in due course.

[Stella Creasy]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about the situation that he has set out.

I invite the Secretary of State to join Opposition Members in condemning companies, such as Wonga, that are sending people fake solicitors’ letters. What is he doing to ensure that no local authority is using debt collection agencies that are doing the same?

[Mr Pickles]

I do condemn that; it is an outrageous idea that people should be frightened in this way. I cannot imagine local authorities, which by and large always behave responsibly, doing something similar, but I will certainly make investigations to ensure that it does not happen.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

T2. Does the Secretary of State agree with me about the importance of co-ordinated responses? This year in Gloucestershire—including in my constituency—we had significant troubles with flooding and damage to roads, which necessitated responses from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport. May I ask him to make sure that his Department helps to co-ordinate that work to best support local authorities and the people affected by those difficulties?

[Mr Pickles]

I am pleased to report to the House that we were so impressed by what those in Gloucestershire did that we invited them to appear before the co-ordinating committee. There were many fine examples of working with all the various agencies of the state for the betterment of residents.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Last year, the Secretary of State told the “Today” programme that he was going to stop CCTV being used around schools to prevent illegal and dangerous parking. He said:

“No, they can’t use a camera…I think it’s kind of the easy answer…to say ‘it’s all to protect the children’”.

What on earth led the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that protecting the safety of our children was a bad idea?

[Mr Pickles]

There seems to be a bit of a delay; that was some time ago. We consulted, we listened to the consultation and where it is not possible to have an enforcement officer present at the school, we have no objection at all to cameras being used. What we have done is to stop councils going out and patrolling the streets with cameras in order to make money, rather than to protect children. I think we have passed the test of protecting children; what we have to do is to ensure that we pass the test of not persecuting the motorist.

[Hilary Benn]

As usual, there was a lot of bluster there. The fact is that the Secretary of State wanted to ban the use of cameras outside schools, but was forced to change his mind. He knew it was unworkable because the response to the consultation said:

“Schools…were opposed to a camera ban.”

Schools also said that cameras had a useful deterrent effect, that where they were not used dangerous parking was reported to increase and that parking was a significant safety issue. After two U-turns in a week, when is the Secretary of State going to realise that gimmicks in search of a headline are no substitute for policy that can actually be implemented?

[Mr Pickles]

The House always enjoys the right hon. Gentleman’s Lady Bracknell impersonation. He is saying that I am guilty of consulting on this issue, listening to the consultation and implementing what it wanted, but that seems to me to be a fairly reasonable way for a democrat to behave.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

T5. Will my hon. Friend join me in condemning the incoming Labour administration of Crawley borough council, which with a complete lack of vision and aspiration has cancelled the town centre regeneration project? Will he say what the Government are doing to help regenerate our high streets and municipal centres?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. That decision is disappointing. A good town centre shows vitality and is the heartbeat of a community; it is good for the local authority, as well, as there are successful businesses paying business rates, something that local authorities should be keen on. Cheaper car parking to get more footfall is one way of achieving that. The Government have brought in the biggest discounted package in business rates for a generation—the £1 billion package that the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement—as well as town teams and the Portas pilots. Where Labour has not tried to stop them developing, as it has in Crawley, many people can now celebrate having good town centres through the Great British high streets campaign.

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

T3. May I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the recent report on child sexual abuse by the all-party group on child protection? That report found that the information-sharing guidelines issued by the Department in 2009 are now out of step with the “Working Together” information from the Department for Education. Given that sharing of information is usually one of the things that has gone wrong when children die or are seriously injured, will he commit to reviewing the guidelines now, in line with the recommendations?

[Mr Pickles]

The hon. Lady makes a very reasonable point. In this area, and also with Troubled Families programme and the better care fund, the ability to share information has bedevilled everything. I know that this issue is a high priority for my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

T6. What action can my right hon. Friend take to ensure that local authorities are able to move Travellers who are illegally pitched on to authorised sites in hours or days, and not weeks, as it is taking in south Gloucestershire?

[Mr Pickles]

As the House will know, we have made a number of changes, particularly on enforcement, on stopping duplication and on ensuring that enforcement action can be taken on caravans. Local authorities and the police have a lot of powers, but they have to act promptly. It is certainly my experience that, if action is taken promptly, the law is adequate.

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

T7. What is the Secretary of State going to do about providing the housing that is needed for people desperate to get on the housing ladder through either buying themselves a house or renting one? Is he aware that the public policy institute of the London School of Economics produced a report recently that said that the current situation was madness and that using 2.5% to 5% of the green belt could solve the housing shortage?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)]

This Government are still picking up the pieces left by the previous Administration when it comes to housing. Whether it is by building affordable housing—and some 200,000 such houses have been delivered to date; through the new spend of some £23 billion, public and private, to deliver 165,000 houses; by building twice as many council houses as the hon. Gentleman’s Government did in 13 years; or, to pick up his point about brownfield and the green belt, through our £400 million package to promote the building of some 200,000 houses on brownfield land, this Government are responding to the needs of the people of this country.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

T8. Stratford-on-Avon district council is about to submit its core strategy to the Planning Inspectorate for approval. Will the Minister confirm that, after submission but before adoption, the strategy will be given weight in planning decisions and provide protection for my constituents, while delivering much-needed housing?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)]

I congratulate Stratford-on-Avon district council on reaching that important point and thank my hon. Friend for everything that he has done to help it get there. We recently clarified in guidance, not least as a result of his interventions and advice, that once a plan has been submitted to the inspectorate for examination, it can carry material weight in any decision about planning applications, even before it has formally been found to be sound.

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

T9. Story Homes has applied for planning permission to build 151 houses on a greenfield site outside the boundary of Lanchester village in my constituency. It is attempting to use the gap before the County Durham plan is approved to force the application through. The Minister kindly agreed to meet a Government Member and his local authority on this very issue. Will he extend the same courtesy to me?

[Nick Boles]

Of course; it would be my pleasure.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

Businesses on Worcester’s High street were outraged when, shortly after the floods, Labour hiked the parking charges, harming local businesses. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the new Conservative administration on Worcester city council on reversing those hikes as soon as it took power?

[Mr Pickles]

That is excellent news; congratulations.

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

Can the little Liberal answer the questions that were asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), which he failed to do earlier? While he is running around the country trying to reinforce integration, there are people in charge of free schools—Christian and Muslim fundamentalists—who are trying to push their communities in the opposite direction. While I am at it, can I welcome him to the Dispatch Box? It just goes to show where unmitigated grovelling can get people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)]

It is right that an investigation takes place into what happened in Birmingham. However, whatever the governing structures and whatever the ethos of the school, some of the things that were said there were fundamentally wrong. Surely everyone in the House would agree with that.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Not only has Labour-run Northumberland county council not frozen its council tax; it has cancelled its monthly full council meetings on the premise of saving money. We know that it is to avoid protest about the teenage transport tax and the lack of a local plan. Does the Secretary of State agree that democracy, debate and scrutiny are key pillars of a council that should not be scrapped?

[Mr Pickles]

I think those Labour councillors will find that they can run but cannot hide from the electorate. Part of the process of being a local councillor is being accountable to the electorate. They should just stop hiding and face the facts.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree with his housing Minister, who said on “Panorama” last week that it is “perfectly legitimate” for landlords not to give tenancies to people who are claiming benefits?

[Kris Hopkins]

May I clarify what I said? It is not appropriate for a landlord to remove somebody just because they are on housing benefit, but an individual can make a commercial choice about who they want to live in their accommodation. It seems that the Labour party, in its forthcoming manifesto, will prescribe who can live in an individual’s house. A private investor who has purchased a house should have the opportunity to choose who lives in that house.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

At 2 o’clock this afternoon, Essex county council issued a statement saying that its audit committee will take no further action against Lord Hanningfield, the council’s former leader who spent £450,000 using the council’s credit card. Does the Secretary of State agree that there should be an independent inquiry into who knew what and when?

[Mr Pickles]

I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says. Lord Hanningfield brought great shame on local government and the House of Lords. He should do what he can to repay the money.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of any recent progress with the Cleveland fire authority mutualisation proposal?

[Brandon Lewis]

I have not heard anything further from the authority since I met the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues some weeks ago.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

The planning Minister is well aware of the problems in North East Lincolnshire council with delays in producing a local plan, and last week it lost yet another appeal, imposing unwanted development on the village of Humberston. Will the Minister meet me and representatives from the council to see what can be done to overcome my constituents’ concerns?

[Nick Boles]

Of course I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend again. He is right to say that North East Lincolnshire council is in the process of failing its local residents again and again in producing a plan, unlike North Lincolnshire, which has done so in very good time.

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

One stated objective of the Homes and Communities Agency’s programme for the allocation of economic assets is to

“align the assets with local economic ambitions and thereby to create more effective local economic development strategies”.

However, for Hythe marine park in New Forest East, the HCA seems minded to appoint a preferred bidder on the basis of just a moderately higher bid, without regard to those other important elements. Will the Minister comment on the need for the HCA to follow its own guidelines when appointing preferred bidders for something that will have such a major impact throughout the constituency?

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot wait to hear the reply, but I wonder whether we ought to have an Adjournment debate on the matter.

[Kris Hopkins]

I have had the opportunity to visit HCA departments around the country, and there is some tremendous work delivering the houses that are needed. I take the point that my hon. Friend has raised. I will see the chief executive of the HCA this afternoon, so I will take a note with me.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am in a generous mood so I will call Mr Davies and then I will give the hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) a chance to do better the second time round.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The people of Micklethwaite in my constituency are grateful to the Secretary of State for twice rejecting an inappropriate planning development there. Unfortunately, the Labour council has now approved a very similar development, with grave concerns from local residents about the planning process, and what appeared to be a whipped vote. Will the Secretary of State look into that to see whether he can intervene, and whether any rules can be brought in to stop repeat applications for the same site?

[Nick Boles]

There are already rules that enable councils to resist applications that are very similar to ones that have been rejected, and it is only a shame that my hon. Friend’s local authority did not see fit to explore what possibilities are open to it.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Mr Christopher Pincher.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, I know my place; regrettably, you appear to know it too.

Will the Secretary of State rule out levying business rates on farmland—as some have suggested—because that will hit farmers and will also hike the price of food for hard-working families?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has put the same question—he just sanitised it.

[Mr Pickles]

And very good it was too. Let me be absolutely clear: we have no plans to impose taxation on agriculture by extending the rating system to agricultural land. We rule that out absolutely.

European Council

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

15:33

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on last week’s European Council.

Before turning to the appointment of the next Commission President, let me briefly report back on two other points. First, the Council began in Ypres with a moving ceremony at the Menin Gate to mark the 100th anniversary of the gunshots in Sarajevo that led to the first world war. It is right that we should take special steps to commemorate the centenary of this conflict and remember the extraordinary sacrifice of a generation who gave their lives for our freedom.

The Government are determined to ensure that Britain has fitting national commemorations, including the re-opening of the newly refurbished Imperial War museum next month. Secondly, the Council signed association agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. These reflect our commitment to supporting those countries as they undertake difficult reforms that will strengthen their economies, bolster their democracies and improve the stability of the whole continent.

President Poroshenko joined the Council to discuss the immediate situation in Ukraine. The Council welcomed his peace plan and the extension of the ceasefire until this evening. The onus is now on Russia to respond positively by pressing the separatists to respect a genuine ceasefire, release hostages and return occupied border posts to the Ukrainian authorities. The Council agreed that, if we do not see concrete progress very soon, we remain willing to impose further sanctions on Russia. That would not necessarily require a further meeting of the Council, but the Council will return to the issue at its next meeting, which has now been arranged for 16 July.

Turning to the appointment of the next Commission President, I firmly believe that it should be for the European Council—the elected Heads of national Governments—to propose the President of the European Commission. It should not be for the European Parliament to try and dictate that choice to the Council. That is a point of principle on which I was not prepared to budge. In taking that position, I welcomed the support of the Leader of the Opposition as well as that of the Deputy Prime Minister in opposing the imposition of Jean-Claude Juncker on the Council. I believe that the Council could have found a candidate who commanded the support of every member state. That has been the practice on every previous occasion, and I think it was a mistake to abandon that approach this time.

Of course, there is a reason why no veto is available when it comes to the decision—the reason is that the previous Government signed the Nice treaty, which gave up our veto over the nomination of the Commission President, as well as the Lisbon treaty, which gave the Parliament stronger rights to elect the Commission President. Therefore, once it was clear that the Council was determined to proceed, I insisted that it took a formal vote, which does not usually happen. Facing the prospect of being outvoted, some might have swallowed their misgivings and gone with the flow, but I believed it was important to push the principle and our deep misgivings about this issue right to the end. If the European Council was going to let the European Parliament choose the next President of the Commission in that way, I at least wanted to put Britain’s opposition to the decision firmly on the record.

I believe that it was a bad day for Europe because the decision of the Council risks undermining the position of national Governments, and it risks undermining the power of national Parliaments by handing further power to the European Parliament. Although the nomination has been decided and must be accepted, it is important that the Council at least agreed to review and reconsider how to handle the next appointment of a Commission President. That is set out in the Council conclusions.

Turning to the future, we must work with the new Commission President, as we always do, to secure our national interest. I spoke to him last night and he repeated—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. A statement by the Prime Minister must be heard. There is great interest in questioning the Prime Minister, and there will be a full opportunity to do so, but propriety and courtesy dictate that the Prime Minister must be heard.

[The Prime Minister]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The new Commission President repeated his commitment in his manifesto to address British concerns about the EU. The whole process only underlines my conviction that Europe needs to change. Some progress—some modest progress—was made in arguing for reform at this Council. The Council conclusions make it absolutely clear that the focus of the Commission’s mandate for the next five years must be on building stronger economies and creating jobs, exactly as agreed with the leaders of Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands at the Harpsund summit earlier this month.

The Council underlined the need to address concerns about immigration arising from misuse of, or fraudulent claims on, the right of freedom of movement. We agreed that national Parliaments must have a stronger role, and that the EU should act only where it makes a real difference. We broke new ground, with the Council conclusions stating explicitly that ever closer union must allow for different paths of integration for different countries and, crucially, respect the wishes of those such as Britain that do not want further integration. For the first time, all my fellow 27 Heads of Government have agreed explicitly, in the Council conclusions, that they need to address Britain’s concerns about the European Union. That has not been said before. Therefore, although Europe has taken a big step backwards in respect of the nomination of the Commission President, we did secure some small steps forward for Britain in its relationship with the EU.

Last week’s outcome will make renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the European Union harder, and it certainly makes the stakes higher. There will always be huge challenges in the long campaign to reform the European Union, but with determination, I believe we can deliver. We cut the EU Budget. We got Britain out of the bail-out schemes. We have achieved a fundamental reform of the disastrous common fisheries policy and made a start on cutting EU red tape. We are making real progress on the single market, and on the free trade deals that are vital for new growth and jobs in Britain.

My colleagues on the European Council know that Britain wants and needs reform, and they know that Britain sticks to its position. In the European elections people cried out for change across the continent. They are intensely frustrated and they deserve a voice. Britain will be the voice of those people. We will always stand up for our principles, we will always defend our national interest and we will fight with all we have to reform the EU over the next few years. At the end of 2017, it will not be me, this Parliament or Brussels that decides Britain’s future in the European Union. It will be the British people. I commend this statement to the House.

15:40

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I start by joining the Prime Minister in remembering all those who lost their lives in the first world war, and it is right that we will mark their sacrifice and those events throughout this year.

I also welcome the association agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, and I endorse the Prime Minister’s sentiments about the situation in Ukraine and the responsibilities of the Russian Government. The truth is that the Prime Minister returned to Britain on Friday having failed—not some small, mild failure, but an appalling failure of relationship building, winning support and delivering for Britain. I know it is inconvenient to remind him, but he lost by 26 votes to two. Now he comes to the Chamber and seems to claim that failure as a complete vindication of his tactics. His party may think it represents splendid isolation, but it is utter humiliation.

The Prime Minister said that with a mandate from all major parties, including Labour, he could build an alliance to stop Mr Juncker. So why did he fail? He started with a divided Europe over the Juncker candidacy, and he ended with a united Europe—against him. He did not say in his statement, so how does he think he pulled off that remarkable achievement?

At the start of the process, the German Chancellor said,

“The agenda”—

of the next European Commission—

“can be handled by him”—

Mr Juncker—

“but also by many others. At the end, there will be a fairly broad tableau of names on the table.”

How did we end up with only one name? How did she and 25 others end up supporting Mr Juncker? Is not the answer that the Prime Minister’s combination of threats, insults and disengagement turned out to be a master class in how to alienate your allies and lose the argument for Britain? That includes his threat to leave the European Union if Mr Juncker was chosen.

We all remember that he went rowing in a boat with Chancellor Merkel and other centre-right leaders on a Swedish lake in order to win support. But afterwards she said:

“Threats are not part and parcel of the”—

European—

“spirit. This is not part of the way in which we usually proceed”.

We know who she was talking about—the Prime Minister.

What happened to the Prime Minister’s great allies in Europe? He wrote in the Daily Telegraph this morning that

“it has been suggested we now lack allies.”

All he needed to do to block Mr Juncker was persuade those people in the boat, but everyone in the boat voted against him. The Swedish Prime Minister voted against him. The Dutch Prime Minister voted against him. The German Chancellor voted against him.

Now, the Prime Minister wants to imply that all of this shows that every other European leader is just deeply unprincipled. Indeed, the Health Secretary went as far as to say it showed everyone else was a “coward”. Is that how the Prime Minister would describe his fellow European leaders? Is not a more plausible explanation that the problem for the anti-Juncker cause was that it had a toxic supporter—the Prime Minister? And is not the reality that he could not attract any allies because the rest of Europe simply lost patience as a result of his actions not just in the last few weeks, but in the last few years? It comes down to this: when he comes calling, they believe he is doing so to help solve the problems of the Conservative party, not those of the European Union.

Let us take the Polish Foreign Minister, who is an Anglophile. This is what he said about the Prime Minister:

“"He is not interested, he does not get it...his whole strategy of feeding”

his Back Benchers

“scraps in order to satisfy them is…turning against him…he ceded the field to those that are now embarrassing him”.

[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Ellis, calm yourself, man. Only this morning a teacher said to me in Speaker’s house: “How can I tell a little boy in my class to behave when parliamentarians don’t?” Be a good boy; get the message.

[Edward Miliband]

Perhaps the Prime Minister will now tell us whether he agrees with the assessment of the Polish Foreign Minister—and who can blame him for thinking in that way, because every time this Prime Minister has had a major decision to make, he has put party interest before national interest. He walked out of the European People’s party nine years ago, and earlier this month threw in his hand with the German equivalent of UKIP. Perhaps he can tell us how that went down with Chancellor Merkel? Was not his decision on the EPP a parable of his failure to lead for Britain—short-term party management at huge long-term loss to Britain’s national interest?

Three years ago, the Prime Minister walked out of a European Council announcing that he had vetoed a treaty, but it went ahead anyway and he just looked absurd. Now, he wants to negotiate a new treaty when he cannot say what he wants in it. All the time, this is driven by a party whose centre of gravity is drifting towards exit. Does he not accept that, with Mr Juncker, the strategy of threatening exit was put to the test and failed? [Interruption.] I know Government Members do not want to hear about his failure, but they are going to hear it.

Does the Prime Minister not agree that the great irony—the thing that makes this even worse—is that he claims to be a great supporter of Britain’s membership of the European Union? We agree that we should be in the European Union. Does he not agree that his problem is the gap between what people behind him are demanding and what sensible European reform amounts to? Europe is not unreformable; it is just that the Prime Minister cannot do it. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The role of the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary is to fetch and carry notes and to nod and shake his head in the right places. Mr Williamson, be quiet and if you cannot be quiet, get out, man!

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister could not get four countries to support him over Mr Juncker, and if he cannot get four countries to block the appointment of a President, how on earth is he going to get 27 countries to support a new treaty? This weekend has shown conclusively to everyone but this Prime Minister that his renegotiation strategy is in tatters. We know where it would end: he would be caught in the gulf between his Back Benchers who want to leave and what he can negotiate. The Prime Minister failed over Mr Juncker. He was outwitted—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am quite sure that the Leader of the Opposition will bring his remarks to a close; and the baying mob should calm itself so that he has the opportunity to do so.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister failed over Mr Juncker. He was outwitted, out-manoeuvred and out-voted. Instead of building our alliances in Europe, he is burning them. He is a defeated Prime Minister who cannot deliver for Britain.

[The Prime Minister]

We have heard yet another performance worthy of Neil Kinnock—endless words, endless wind, endless rhetoric, but no questions, no grit and no ability to stand up for Britain. I have to say that I will not take lectures on negotiation from the people who gave away the veto, gave away the rebate and who backed down on the budget every year and even signed us up to euro bail-outs. We will not take any lectures from them. The fact is that we did not have a veto in this situation because the Opposition signed the Lisbon treaty and they signed the Nice treaty. That was always opposed by Conservative Members.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the ability to bring allies together. Where were his allies in the socialist party? They were at a meeting in Paris. All the key socialist leaders were there. They all decided to support Jean-Claude Juncker. Where was the Leader of the Opposition? He was not even invited. That is how much influence he has.

Not once did the right hon. Gentleman actually say that he did not support Jean-Claude Juncker either. To support the Government over opposing this principle and opposing this individual, only to criticise and complain, is typical of the right hon. Gentleman’s approach: weak, opportunistic and wrong.

[Sir Peter Tapsell (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

May I express to our Prime Minister my admiration for his determined opposition to the election to the presidency of the European Union of a man who is wedded to the idea of closer political and economic union, and to the freedom of movement of peoples, which would siphon huge numbers of further immigrants into this country? May I also deplore the provocative decision of the European Union to move its economic frontier to within 300 miles of Moscow, which will certainly be regarded by Russia as a strategic threat to which it will respond?

[The Prime Minister]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of recognising that freedom of movement is not an unqualified right. It is very important for it to be properly qualified, particularly in respect of benefit abuse. However, I am afraid that I do not agree with the other point made by the Father of the House. I think that the eastern partnerships that the EU has entered into can help to embed market economics and democracies in those countries. I think it important to stress in respect of, for instance, Ukraine or Moldova that this is not about asking countries which orbit they want to fit into, and whether they want to choose between a good relationship with Russia and a good relationship with the EU. They should be able to have good relationships with both.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

Why is losing in Brussels always such a magnificent victory to the Prime Minister and his Back Benchers?

[The Prime Minister]

I always prefer it when we succeed in, for instance, cutting the EU budget or reinforcing the need for deregulation, but what matters—and the right hon. Gentleman, as a former Europe Minister, should know this—is that there are times when it is important to stand up for a principle and not to give in, no matter what the pressure may be. It does not matter how many countries were ranged against me. I think that Jean-Claude Juncker was the wrong candidate, I think that it was the wrong principle, and there are times when you should stick to your guns.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the conclusions of the European Council were both unprecedented and very helpful? Instead of simply referring to a two-speed Europe, which implies that we all end up at the same destination, the Council stated—for the first time, as far as I am aware—that we must allow

“those that want to deepen integration”

to do so, but we must also respect

“the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further.”

Does that not represent real progress with regard to one of the main objectives of the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. There is no doubt that seeking changes in the concept of ever closer union is one of the toughest things that we are asking for in our renegotiation. This is the first time that European Council conclusions have ever included anything like this:

“In this context, the European Council noted that the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further.”

The Council also concluded:

“The UK raised some concerns related to the future development of the EU. These concerns will need to be addressed.”

Those words have not previously appeared in European Council conclusions.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Prime Minister’s further support for enlargement of the EU, with the announcement that Albania has become the sixth candidate country to join. Does he agree it is important that we work with these countries now on the huge challenges facing them, rather than wait until the last minute, just before they become full members?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the enlargement process has been successful in driving the development and improving the democracy and governance of many of these countries. I further agree with him about engaging with them now, because a country like Albania has huge challenges in terms of tackling corruption, embedding its democracy and developing its economy. In that context it is very important that when new countries get to join—Albania is a long way from that process—there will have to be a totally new approach to transitional controls.

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

Do not the antecedents of this problem go back to the fateful decision of the Prime Minister when he was running for his party leadership to approve the withdrawal of the British Conservatives from the European People’s party? Mr Juncker was the candidate of the EPP. Had the Prime Minister’s party been a member of it, it could have had influence in private, instead of impotence in public. That would have been good for the Prime Minister, good for his party, good for the Government and, my goodness, far better for Britain.

[The Prime Minister]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and it is good to see him in his place today, but I think he is profoundly wrong about this. Let me give two examples of why I think that. The Liberal Democrats are members of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, yet he was not able to stop the leading candidate process in that group; and the Labour party is a leading member of the Socialist Group, yet it was completely incapable of stopping the leading candidate process in that group. There were members of the EPP who did not approve of this but still could not stop it, so the idea that we would have been able to stop it within the EPP is complete nonsense.

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

Twenty-six to two is not just the score for the Prime Minister’s—very successful—negotiations to stop the Commission President; it is also the score for the countries that are either in the euro or under treaty obligation to be in the euro. There are only two countries that have got an opt-out, and we are one. If the Prime Minister wants to stand up for Britain’s interests, will he update the House on just what negotiations he has had to ensure that our interests are reflected as the eurozone requires deeper political integration?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. What we need to secure is a European Union where the eurozone members who need to integrate further can integrate further, but the members of the single market, particularly those like Britain that do not want to join the euro, can stay out of that integration and, indeed, in some cases, powers can be returned to member states. I explained that in these detailed negotiations at the European Council we made some progress on ever closer union and on setting out specific concerns that Britain had, but we have got a long way to go—and, frankly, as I said on Friday, the job has got harder. However, I think there are many in Europe who understand that we need a totally different approach for the eurozone members than for the non-eurozone members.

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for the stand he took on the overriding Bloomberg speech principle, which was that national Parliaments are the root of our democracy, for which, as we have commemorated recently, people have over the past 100 years fought and died—not only to save this country, but to save Europe as well. Does my right hon. Friend recall that the European Commission, which is now headed by Mr Juncker, recently asserted through Mr Barroso that the European Parliament is the only effective Parliament for the European Union? Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree with me that we must assert our national Parliament—it must prevail—and that he was completely right to do what he did this weekend?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is that there are those in Europe—frankly, there are too many of them—who say that the only democratic legitimacy in Europe is the European Parliament, and that somehow the Parliament is the essence of democracy whereas the European Council is an organisation that meets in a darkened room. That is completely wrong. The European Council consists of Prime Ministers and Presidents, who have a much greater democratic mandate than the European Parliament. One of the points that needs to be thought about for the future is that if there is another election like this, we could have a candidate for the Commission presidency who was deeply against the interests of other member states—perhaps a candidate who wanted to kick Greece out of the euro or who did not believe the Baltic states belonged in the European Union. That is why the principle at stake is so important.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Initially, Sweden, the Netherlands, Poland and Italy all expressed reservations about the appointment of Mr Juncker. What does the Prime Minister think he did to change their minds?

[The Prime Minister]

The most significant thing that happened is that all these countries, in one way or another, signed up to the Spitzenkandidat—the leading candidate—process. The European political families, starting with the socialists, decided to appoint a candidate they wanted for the Commission; the EPP and the liberals followed suit; and leader after leader found themselves strapped to a conveyor belt of their own making which they could not get off—that is what happened. We did not do that, which is why we rightly opposed this to the end.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

But may I encourage the Prime Minister to return to the issue of reform, because long after the indignation is spent, reform will be fundamental to the future of the European Union and our relationship with it? Notwithstanding his disappointment, the Prime Minister has been very pragmatic in the past two or three days, particularly with his telephone call of congratulation to Mr Juncker. Much can be done to reform Europe without treaty change, so is it not time for the rigorous application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which do not need treaty change, only political will?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with a lot of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said. There are changes that can be made in Europe without treaty change, but my view is that to secure the sort of renegotiation that Britain needs, we should be accompanying some of the treaty changes that the eurozone, in time, will need with treaty changes that will also suit Britain, in the way that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) pointed out—as a country that wants to be in the single market but does not want to join the euro.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

May I gently suggest to the Prime Minister that, as Mrs Gaitskell once said, it is the wrong people cheering? How exactly have Britain’s national interests and the interests of reform in Europe been advanced by his recent posturing?

[The Prime Minister]

It advances Britain’s interests if people know that a British Prime Minister and a British Government will set out a principle and stick to it. The problem all too often under the Labour Government was that they did not stick to their principle. That is why they gave away part of our rebate, they caved in on the budget year after year, and they signed up to eurozone bail-outs. If they had stuck to their principles, they might have been more respected.

[Sir Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

Much has been made of so-called divisions inside the Conservative party over this issue, but does the Prime Minister agree that the opposite is true? As a one-nation Tory who believes in our membership of the European Union, I was proud of the way he stood up for British interests last week. Does he agree that the Socialist Group’s candidate for the job— and, by implication, the Labour party’s—a Mr Martin Schulz, makes Mr Juncker look like an arch Eurosceptic?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. As I say, this process began because one after the other the European political parties decided to pick a leading candidate—a so-called Spitzenkandidat —for the job.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Who’s your candidate?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not have a candidate for the job, because as a political party leader I think it is wrong to elect the head of the Commission in this way—that is the whole problem. I have to say that the position Labour would have been in if Martin Schulz had ended up as the Commission President would have been even more embarrassing for you.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree that a British exit from the European Union would be an economic disaster for this country, damaging our trade and employment, and reducing British influence in Europe and the world?

[The Prime Minister]

Well, that is not the outcome that I seek; I want to secure a reformed European Union, and I want Britain to be part of that reformed European Union. I have to say that the problem with the hon. Gentleman’s position is that the Opposition do not seem to see anything wrong with the status quo. It is only those on this side of the House and in my party who know that we need serious change in Europe before we hold that referendum.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I congratulate the Prime Minister on—[Interruption.] It is now time for all sensible political leaders to argue for the UK. We are not in the euro and we do not want to join the political union. Only with strong leadership can we have a relationship that makes sense for Britain.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. I think that the Opposition were rather hoping that we would all be falling out over the European issue, but they can see that we are absolutely united in doing the right thing for Britain.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

May I associate myself fully with what the Prime Minister said about the fallen of the first world war? I am proud to say that I will be present in mid-August for the unveiling of the memorial to the Welsh fallen.

If and when the Prime Minister needs the assistance of other states on important issues to come, does he think that his behaviour last week has made his job easier or more difficult?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about the first world war memorial. When one stands under the Menin Gate in Ypres, it is very striking to note just how many Welshmen fell in that conflict. I was able to see the name of my great-great uncle who fought bravely for the Canadian Scottish Battalion in 1915 and fell.

As for how Britain approached this issue, I think everyone will be able to see that we were making a serious argument of principle about the wrong decision and the wrong path that Europe is taking by having leading candidates appointed by political parties and then foisted on to the European Union as Commission Presidents. We now know who will be the Commission President for the next five years. Let us think forward: if we continue with this process, we might have as the leading candidate of one of the leading parties someone who has views that are completely antipathetic to one or more member states. That is a very dangerous principle. The democratic legitimacy in Europe should flow through the European Council, which is where the elected Heads of Government and heads of state sit.

[Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Since his principled stand at the weekend, is the Prime Minister aware that there is quite clearly support from our European partners for a large element of reform? Will he now commit himself to the painstaking and difficult work of building the alliances necessary to help us get those reforms so that he can deliver what he promised to the country?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks. That is exactly what I will do. There are countries and leaders in Europe who are clear about the need for reform. They want to see greater flexibility and competitiveness. They are willing to look at the British agenda of completing the single market, signing trade deals, having a flexible European Union, not forcing everyone into the single currency, and imposing safeguards for the single market. Even difficult issues such as ensuring that freedom of movement is a qualified right and addressing benefit tourism are things that leaders on both the right and the left in Europe are willing to change, and that is what we need to build on.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister said in his article this morning and in his statement today that it does not matter if he is isolated as long as he is in the correct position. The difference is that in the negotiation on which he is now embarking, he needs the support not of one other member state but of all other member states. How does he intend to move from a position of not so splendid isolation to securing the support that he says he wants? If he cannot secure it, he will end up recommending withdrawal, which is precisely the outcome he says he does not want.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Britain will build alliances with the leaders and countries that want to see change in Europe. For instance, the Swedish Prime Minister said yesterday that the UK

“has friends in the EU…Just look into what we have written in our conclusions.”

The Danish Prime Minister said that the EU

“should not occupy itself with some of the things that member states can handle better themselves.”

The Finnish Prime Minister said that

“for a country like Finland, British membership is very important.”

The fact is that when it comes to this renegotiation, there are many countries in the EU that want to keep Britain in and recognise that real change will have to come.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

What would have to happen for my right hon. Friend to come back from his renegotiation and recommend that people vote out?

[The Prime Minister]

Well, I have set out my approach, which is always to follow the national interest. It is in the national interest to renegotiate our position in Europe to secure the changes that I have set out. I do not start a negotiation believing that we will not achieve those things; I set out wanting to achieve them and to come back to this country, but I will always do what is in the national interest.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I could not help but notice that not a single Lib Dem Minister is in the Chamber today. Where are they all?

[The Prime Minister]

We have heard from two very prominent Liberal Democrats, and it is very good that they are present today. On this issue, I was the one attending the European Council, and my colleagues can answer for themselves.

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his sterling leadership this weekend, which stands in stark contrast to the behaviour of the sell-out merchants on the Opposition Benches over the past two decades. May I encourage my right hon. Friend to continue to stand up for British interests, which are best served not by ever closer union but by returning real powers to this sovereign Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. During what will be, as I have described it, a long and difficult campaign to reform the European Union and our membership of it, it is important to recognise that people need to see clearly that when Britain stands for a principle, it sticks to it.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

If the Prime Minister wants to strengthen Britain’s hand in any future renegotiation, it is important that he should be able to say that he represents the national consensus and that he has consulted other parties, business and the CBI, as well as the TUC, to set out clearly what changes he is after. What plans does he have to play this in the national interest rather than from a party political standpoint?

[The Prime Minister]

First, on this specific issue there were detailed cross-party discussions to ensure that we all did everything we could to try to stop the conveyor belt of the leading candidates. We should build on that. I set out a very clear agenda in the Bloomberg speech, including deep engagement with business. The British Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors supported what I did at the weekend, and we will go on talking to British businesses to ensure that we deliver what they also think is right, which is reform of the European Union.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Given that my right hon. Friend’s position had the support of the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats as well as of the Conservatives, was he not right to ignore the advice of those who urged him to turn tail as soon as some of our allies turned coat? He was right to stand his ground, and by so doing he has made it more likely that we will win real reform in future. I congratulate him above all on stating the British position with such conviction. As Mrs Thatcher said, the half-hearted always lose; those with conviction ultimately win.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said. This is always important, because in the European Council there is always a temptation simply to go with the flow, to sign up to whatever is being proposed and to try to seek some sort of bauble or extra bit of leverage on the way. Indeed, I suspect that that is what happened in a number of cases. I was very clear that this was an important principle, that I thought Europe was taking a wrong turn, and that I was not going to turn away and do anything but oppose it.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister not agree that any real attempts to get radical reform of the European Union will come up against a brick wall made up of people who lead Europe and who, whatever they say publicly, want ever closer union and a federal structure? Is that not the real issue? What the British people want has to be decided by a referendum as soon as possible.

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that a referendum is required, because people have to see that Britain is absolutely serious about requiring reform in the EU. I totally agree with the premise of her question, which is that there have been and to some extent still are people who sit around the table and say endlessly that the euro is the currency of the European Union, forgetting that there are countries such as Britain with a permanent opt-out from the euro. We must get away from that thinking and from the idea of ever closer union and move towards the idea that this is not just about going at different speeds in the same direction, but that for some countries, Britain included, it is about going at different speeds in a slightly different direction. We are not going to join the euro, we are not going to join the Schengen no-borders agreement, and real flexibility needs to be hard-wired into the European Union if Britain is going to stay.

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

I congratulate the Prime Minister on the stance he took in Europe. He made us all very proud of the British Prime Minister. Is it not a fact that many of the citizens of the European countries now wish to see change in Europe? Does he agree with the Luxemburger Wort, a leading Luxembourg paper, which said, speculating on his stance:

“Could it be that the Brit is already far ahead of the game?”

[The Prime Minister]

I have not been as hard working as my right hon. Friend in scouring Luxembourg’s press, but I shall obviously put that right. There are people all over Europe, not just in Britain, who want to see a more flexible approach and European reform. The European elections reflected that, and the leaders of Europe need to listen to those elections.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister think that the use of personal insults, either in this House or in the European Council, is more likely to strengthen or weaken the UK’s influence in any renegotiations?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think that it is right to make personal insults or personal attacks, and that is certainly not the approach that I took. I was very clear that this was an issue of principle, but I also said that I thought this individual was the wrong person to take Europe forward. That was on the basis of experience of what he has stood for and explained in the past. But I absolutely agree that personal insults should play no part in this.

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

The policy of standing up for Britain has gone down incredibly well in Southend, which is hardly a surprise. Has the Prime Minister seen the recent polling that puts the Conservatives up 5%, two points ahead of the weak Leader of the Opposition?

[The Prime Minister]

I was not aware of that. I will follow the reaction in Southend very closely.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister recall that, at one time, we had a Prime Minister called Harold Wilson, who thought that there should be fundamental reform of the then common market? After much huffing and puffing, he announced to an amazed electorate that he had gained those fundamental changes. Harold, being a clever person, never defined what those changes were. In order to give the electorate a real choice this time, will the Prime Minister set up a red and blue lines committee so that voters will know from where he is batting when it comes to the crucial negotiations?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we will set those out very clearly—[Interruption.] I have said that we have got to get Britain out of ever-closer union and end the abuse of free movement and welfare. We have got to have proper safeguards so that we can stay in the single market but not have to join the single currency, proper safeguards so that if we do not want to be in justice and home affairs we should not be in justice and home affairs, and a whole lot more besides. I respect the right hon. Gentleman a great deal, and I would say to him that there is a fundamental difference between the situation he mentioned and what is happening today, because the European Union has changed and developed so much. For those countries that have the euro as their currency, that is driving integration. I believe that, over time, they are going to need not only a banking union but more of a fiscal union and other elements of a transfer union. That will happen to the eurozone, and it is right for the British people to have the opportunity to express their view on a very different position for Britain in that European Union. Those conditions simply did not exist in 1975.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition accuses the Prime Minister of being a failure, but is it not occasionally a virtue, even in this place, to stand up for what one believes in and to fail? It is not necessarily a vice to compromise and succeed, but it is surely neither a vice nor a virtue—it is just rather sad—constantly to compromise and to be a failure, which is the default position of the dead hand of the Leader of the Opposition.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The fact is that the leaders of the principal parties in Britain agreed that this person was the wrong one, but as soon as things get difficult the weak give up the chase.

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

Does the Prime Minister remember the wise advice of Theodore Roosevelt when he spoke of the need to

“speak softly and carry a big stick”?

If he does, how did he manage to end up speaking so loudly and carrying such a small one? The worst of it is that everyone knows that this Prime Minister is not only ropey on strategy but useless on tactics.

[The Prime Minister]

As Prime Minister I have secured a cut in the European budget, vetoed a European treaty, secured progress for the single market, and got us out of the euro bail-out schemes that the hon. Gentleman’s party signed up to in government. That is a track record of achievement in Europe, but there are times when you are making a stand on a principle when you are going to be outvoted. There are two reactions to that: you can either give up and go along with the majority, which is, I suspect, what the Leader of the Opposition would have done, or you stick to your principles, make your arguments and stick to your guns.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing such refreshing transparency to the negotiating process. Mrs Merkel has said that she is ready to listen and respond to the concerns of the United Kingdom. Does her willingness extend to revision, if not abolition, of the working time directive?

[The Prime Minister]

There are a number of things that we need to change in Europe. The working time directive has done great damage, including to our health service, and we never approved of it in the first place. That is very important. We will continue to have discussions with the Germans and others about all the things that we want to change as part of our renegotiation.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that, having forced a vote, losing it by 26:2 does not make a good platform for future negotiations?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not agree. This was about the future leadership of the Commission, an issue on which political party after political party in Europe had signed up to the leading candidate process. They created, as I put it, a conveyor belt that they could not get off. I do not think that that has such big implications for future negotiations. I said that it has probably made it harder, and I suspect it has, but if we show real fortitude and drive in bringing forward that agenda, there is no reason why we cannot succeed.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his principled and consistent stand. Is he aware that in the convention that preceded the treaty of Lisbon, the Government of the day opposed giving the European Parliament a role in choosing the next Commission President, then capitulated, and then told this House during debates on the treaty of Lisbon that this was a good thing and not a change in substance anyway? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have seen too much backstairs surrender of power to Europe—smuggling of power to Europe—which Labour would no doubt take to the point where we ended up in a united states of Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. There were two key changes. One was in the Nice treaty, which made the appointment of the European Commission President a matter for qualified majority voting, not a unanimous vote. The second change, in the Lisbon treaty, gave the European Parliament greater power. Both changes were taken through by the then Labour Government, and on both occasions, along with a whole lot of other changes, were not put in a referendum to the British people. I think that is one of the reasons why the well of public opinion has been so poisoned in Britain. We have had treaty after treaty, change after change, power after power taken from this House and passed to Brussels, without the British people being given a say. That is why we need the renegotiation and the referendum. Our power in this place comes from the people who elect us. We cannot continually change the rules of the game without asking their permission.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, for one, am delighted that the Prime Minister is so enjoying going down in flames. I look forward to him doing exactly the same next May. He said earlier that his defence was that he is a man of conviction, but I suspect the only conviction he knows anything about was handed down in the Old Bailey last week. Is not the one thing that we have learned for certain about this Prime Minister that he accepts reassurances far too readily? Will he give this lot a second chance as well?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the hon. Gentleman was a bit better when he was in the Oxford university Conservative association—he might then have said something I would agree with: I do not agree with any of that at all.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

In his statement my right hon. Friend said that the Council agreed that if we do not see concrete progress in Ukraine very soon, we will remain willing to impose further sanctions on Russia. Does my right hon. Friend, the President of the United States and the other leaders of Europe, and, equally importantly, the President of Russia, agree on the definition of concrete progress?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. and learned Friend is right to raise this. We set out in the Council conclusions a clear set of steps that need to be taken, including transferring border posts that have been taken by so-called rebels back to the Ukrainian Government and the release of hostages. President Poroshenko extended his ceasefire for a further 72 hours, which runs out this evening, and the European Union, working with the Americans—we have been hand in glove all the way—will have to see what changes have been made and whether additional sanctions need to be put in place. At the meeting in July we can look at the so-called tier 3 sanctions and potentially go much further, if further progress has not been made.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

May I first join the Prime Minister in marking the need for a memorial? This year, in my own village of Maddiston, the community has built and dedicated a memorial to the fallen that was never there before. Passing on to the meat of the things the Prime Minister mentioned, apart from his own diplomatic triumph, he talked about building stronger economies. When the European Scrutiny Committee went to the Conference of Community and European Affairs Committees of Parliaments of the European Union, COSAC, we heard many countries complaining that the fiscal compact in fact meant rule by Brussels over their economies, resulting in poverty for them. We appear to have poverty for some and selfishness for others, and to boast that we do not give any money to the solidarity fund for those countries shames the UK. What will he do to get those people out of poverty when he talks about building economies?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I think that the best way for countries to get out of poverty is by ensuring that they make the structural reforms, including, as we have done in this country, having open markets, having competitive economies and dealing with our debts. That is why we are growing at 3% this year, which is about 2.8% faster than the countries in the eurozone. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes that is a good one is that one of the biggest arguments at the European Council had nothing to do with the United Kingdom at all; it was the members of the fiscal stability and growth pact arguing with each other about whether it should be tighter or looser. I think that only underlines the fact that it was important to keep Britain out of the fiscal compact treaty.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree that the willingness to stand up for British interests in the face of opposition is a sign of strength of which he can be rightly proud and that we are far better off being led by a man who is willing to go out and bring home the bacon for Britain than by someone who would not even know how to eat it if it was presented in a bap?

[The Prime Minister]

That was an ingenious segue from my hon. Friend. I think that it is absolutely clear from what we have seen today that if the Leader of the Opposition was in negotiations like this and the going got tough and it looked like the vote would go against him, he would simply cave in.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am sure that the Prime Minister will want to take this opportunity to congratulate Stirling in Scotland on hosting an excellent armed forces day over the weekend. The Scottish people observed his ritual humiliation with a mixture of bemusement and horror as the UK edges ever closer toward the EU exit door. Is not the only way now for Scotland to secure its EU membership to vote yes decisively in September to stop him, his party and their UK chums dragging Scotland out of Europe against its will?

[The Prime Minister]

First, on a note of unity, I join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the city of Stirling, the local authority and all those involved on an absolutely brilliant Armed Forces day. With regard to the reactions of people in Stirling to the stand I had taken in the European Union, I must say that I thought they were uniformly positive.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

Was my right hon. Friend as surprised as I and others were to learn that the European elections were apparently a pan-European plebiscite on who should be the next President of the European Commission, and that apparently Mr Juncker was a candidate? Does he agree that people who can sincerely believe that rubbish are not only on another continent, but on another planet?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which is that the leading candidates—the so-called Spitzenkandidaten—did not advertise themselves in Britain at all. In fact, the EPP did stand in Britain and—I checked—got 0.18% of the vote, so the idea that there was this great mandate for Jean-Claude Juncker is false. But we have to accept the fact that other countries got on board this conveyor belt of having a leading candidate and then found it very difficult to get off, even when some of them had real doubts about the principle and, indeed, some doubts about the direction Europe would take as a result. That is why we have said that in the conclusions it is important that we have a review of what happened, and my view is that it should not happen again.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Reform of the EU will require leadership from Britain and a process of alliance building with other EU Heads of State. How far does the Prime Minister think his isolation on this issue has contributed to a positive outcome of that potential process?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question. When it comes to completing the single market or signing trade deals, and even when it comes to difficult issues such as getting Britain out of the “ever closer union” clause, or indeed reforming the free movement of people to make sure that it is a more qualified right, there is support for Britain across Europe. The Dutch Prime Minister, in his own debate in his House of Commons before the European summit, talked about the “lies” of ever closer union. The idea that there is not support across Europe for many of the things that Britain is saying is simply not true.

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

The Prime Minister did exactly the right thing last week, and I congratulate him on standing up for British interests. Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the rest of the European Council that many millions of British people want a relationship based on trade and co-operation and that if the rest of the European Union does not agree, it will be no surprise if the British people vote to leave the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks. Ultimately, this is going to be a choice for the British people. I know where he stands on the issue and I suspect that in a referendum he will make his views very clear. It is right that it should be the British people’s choice. My job is to make sure we secure the very best renegotiation so that people who want to stay in a reformed European Union, and believe that it is in our national interests to do so, get the best possible choice.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

Never mind the party political bellowing from the Conservative Benches—business leaders in my constituency and the rest of the north-west want Britain to be at the forefront of Europe, not in isolation. The Prime Minister concluded his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) by saying that there was much else besides that he would renegotiate. Will he fill in the gaps and tell us precisely what he means?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, on the issue of what business said, the British Chambers of Commerce said:

“The Prime Minister fought to secure the best possible outcome for Britain, and he was right to do so”.

The Institute of Directors said that

“it is admirable—and refreshing—that a British Prime Minister should stand up for principle and the UK’s interests in Europe”.

People have talked about the CBI. The CBI backed my view that we need reform in Europe and to have a referendum based on a reformed position. I have set out, in the Bloomberg speech, in an article in The Sunday Telegraph and elsewhere, the key changes that need to be made. I recommend that the hon. Lady reads them and sees whether there are any other changes she would seek to make, and then we can have a discussion.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

The Prime Minister should be in no doubt that he spoke for Peterborough and our country last week with his robust leadership at the EU Council. I always knew he had lead in his pencil, but it is good to see him sharpening it on the inexorable drive to ever closer union, as personified by Mr Juncker. If he is looking for areas of serious reform, will he make the free movement directive the No. 1 priority? On the Conservative Benches, he has massive support for reforming that in the UK’s best long-term interests.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks. It is important to look at the issue of freedom of movement. I particularly mentioned the issue of the benefit changes that are necessary. I also think we need to look at transitional controls, when new member states join the EU. We need a radically different approach from the one that has been held until now. As for my hon. Friend’s remarks about lead in my pencil, I will let the relevant people know.

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

Some of us who agree with the Prime Minister on the need for reform in Europe, but who are basically pro-Europe, are rather disappointed and depressed by what happened in the European Council, for the following reasons. Many of us think that Europe expanded a bit too far too fast, but we want the reforms and we want them urgently. What has happened in Europe in the last few days has made the task of reform much more difficult. The fact of the matter is that when we look back on this day, when only his barmy army seem so well pleased, we will see that the trouble is brewing for all of us.

[The Prime Minister]

I would argue that the hon. Gentleman should not be depressed. As I said, reforming the European Union is going to be a long and hard campaign and undoubtedly there will be difficulties and setbacks along the way. But it is absolutely vital as we go into that reform that people know that when the British Prime Minister and the British Government say there is a principle that is important, they will stick to it.

I do not accept that there is not support for this across the European Union. I have not got to the Luxembourg press yet, but Le Figaro in France says that the approach has been a big mistake, possibly irreversible, and the German press says that there are real worries about the way this development has been handled. I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the argument that the wrong approach has been taken is simply a British one.

[Mr Stephen O’Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)]

I hope the Prime Minister takes inspiration from the fact that in a previous battle of Britain we saw off many Junckers. As somebody who used to help to run a business that had factories manufacturing in every member state of Europe, I know the value of the single market, but that has now nearly been outweighed by all the costs, regulation and constitutional attacks that come with it. Therefore, what the Prime Minister has just done in Europe has given us the best chance, through him, to negotiate the reform necessary to sustain the option to stay in.

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my right hon. Friend has great experience of the business world. It is important that following my Bloomberg speech, the reaction of the business community was not to say, “This is a risk Britain shouldn’t be taking”, but to say, “We need reform and as long as we can secure good reforms then Britain should stay in that reformed European Union.” It is important that business, large and small, is behind the approach that I am taking.

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

A year or so ago, one of the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers was quoted as saying that he—the Prime Minister—was in danger of coming over a bit Melchett. [Interruption.] Melchett was a character in “Blackadder”. Judging by the Prime Minister’s performance over the weekend, I think that many of us have some time for that comment. When he said that if Mr Juncker was appointed there would be “consequences”, what was he getting at?

[The Prime Minister]

First of all, there are consequences from Europe adopting the principle that the head of the Commission should effectively be appointed following nominations by European political parties. If that is allowed to continue, and if it happens again, there will be real consequences, because we could end up with candidates who, as I said, have particular views that are totally against the interests of individual member states. That is a very worrying development. In the Council conclusions, we have agreed to review this process, and I hope we can make sure that it does not happen again.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

If exit from the European Union is not what the Prime Minister seeks, can he resist the siren voices who are calling for ever more unachievable demands, backed by the threat of exit, to ensure that that does not happen? After the excitement of this week, will he reflect on how he can build alliances for reform that will promote jobs, cut red tape and reduce waste, which is actually what the citizens of the entire European Union are looking for?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. The work of the British Government—a coalition Government—in the EU is to complete the single market in digital, energy and services and to sign the trade deals with the fastest growing parts of the world. That agenda is progressing well, and it is important that we stick to it. I am not setting out impossible demands; I am setting out things that could be changed, and should be changed, in order to reform Britain’s place in the EU.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

An estimated 3.3 million of our constituents are in jobs that could be at risk if the UK exits the EU. Business leaders have reacted with fury after Friday’s fiasco and its aftermath. John Cridland, the head of the CBI, has said that Britain’s economic future depends on being in Europe. Does the Prime Minister agree with him, and can he guarantee that he will never vote for Britain to leave the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady. The CBI’s director general said:

“We will…press the case for the UK remaining in a reformed European Union.”

That is my policy. As I said, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce and David Frost, the former Europe director in the Foreign Office, all made the point that this was the right stand to take, and it is important to stand up for a principle and to fight for it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate more colleagues on this extremely important matter, but in order to do so I require exemplary brevity. I know that the tutorial will be provided by Dr Julian Lewis.

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

Trying, as always, to see the bright side of life—I am not going to sing it—is there not something to be said for having an obvious and overt federalist as Commission president rather than a covert and rather cleverer alternative?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is ingenious in seeing a silver lining in every cloud. I had not got him down as one of nature’s out-and-out optimists, but I will have to reassess that judgment. We will now have to deal openly and frankly with the new Commission president if he is endorsed by the European Parliament. He did say in his manifesto—although he was not standing specifically in Britain, as it were—that we have to address the issues of reform that Britain has put on the table, and we now need to make sure that we hold him to that.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The automotive industry in Britain is a world-class success story. Key to that success is inward investment. Key to inward investment is continuing membership of the European Union. Does the Prime Minister not recognise the damage that he is doing to the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing and the British national interest through the ever-greater uncertainty he is creating over membership of the European Union as he takes us towards the exit?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Over the past four years, we have seen an absolute transformation in the fortunes of the British automotive industry. We see that in Jaguar Land Rover and in Nissan. These companies are choosing to invest and they are doing so after I made the Bloomberg speech, because they can see there is a British Prime Minister and a British Government who are fighting for a better deal in Europe.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

When the Prime Minister gets Britain’s new deal in Europe, with

“big and significant improvements on the previous terms”

and

“after long and tough negotiations”,

so that he can say,

“I believe that our renegotiation objectives have been substantially, though not completely, achieved”—[Official Report, 18 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 1465.]

will he reflect on the fact that that is what Harold Wilson said?

[The Prime Minister]

I know and respect that, whatever deal I manage to achieve, my hon. Friend will vote for Britain to leave the European Union, because that is his long-held and deeply felt view. As I explained in answer to an earlier question, the conditions today are very different from those in 1975. Then, of course, Britain had just joined the EU—there was no great change that had taken place in the EU—but this time, since I have been a Member of Parliament, we have had the treaties of Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon, and huge changes in terms of the eurozone and its development. I was told when I became Prime Minister, “It’s very unlikely, Prime Minister, that you’ll have to deal with any treaty changes at all,” but I think we have already seen three in the past four years. I am confident that, because change is needed throughout the EU, Britain can secure the changes we need.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

Saturday’s Financial Times editorial said:

“Europe’s leaders should look beyond Mr Cameron’s ineptitude”.

Does the Prime Minister agree?

[The Prime Minister]

Funnily enough, I do not agree with that. I think that what Europe’s leaders will do is conclude that when they are dealing with Britain, they are dealing with a country that sticks to its principles.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Thanks to the actions of the Prime Minister last week, Jean-Claude Juncker is now a marked man. Few had previously heard of him, but now a whole continent knows of him and what he stands for. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what we need to do now is ensure that the actions of the EU President be judged through the lens of what they contribute to EU reform and that this seeming setback may well mask a greater opportunity for much-needed change in the long term?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the things that will be key to the EU’s success in the coming years is whether it can deal with a Europe that requires change for the eurozone and change for Britain. From my discussions with Jean- Claude Juncker, I think he understands that that is a very important agenda on which we have to make progress, otherwise the British people will take a different view.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister not experience the slightest cognitive dissonance in arguing on the one hand that the voters of Europe feel that the European project has gone far enough, while arguing on the other that the borders of Europe should be extended all the way to Donetsk in the Leninsky district of Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

I am not making that argument. The argument I am making is that it is right for the European Union to have association agreements and other forms of agreements with countries in central and eastern Europe, in order to help encourage their economic development, politics, fights against corruption and rule of law. Just as I think the membership application process has been so beneficial for countries in eastern Europe that have joined the European Union, so I believe these association agreements can help as well.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend on saying what he is going to do and then doing it? I know it surprises Opposition Members, but it is called leadership. In his conversation with Mr Juncker, did he manage to remind him that the British people are not isolated in wanting reform and that at least a third of the people of Europe voted for reform of the whole of Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It must be right for the reaction of Europe’s leaders not to ignore the third of the continent that voted for parties that are hostile to, or want very radical reform of, the EU. We have to accept the fact that our citizens want change in Europe, and we should be trying to make changes that reconnect people with the purpose of this organisation, which has been about securing peace on our continent and which should now be about securing greater prosperity and more jobs.

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

The PM has had a lot to tell us today about losing, so will he admit to the House how many jobs will be lost if Britain were to leave the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

My intention is that Britain reforms the European Union and then agrees to stay in a reformed European Union. That is the right outcome. There are all sorts of economic analyses, which people can read, about the consequences for Britain either of remaining in an EU that is overly bureaucratic or, indeed, of choosing to leave.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Once again, my right hon. Friend is the toast of Somerset for his stand against Mr Juncker. Now he has done this bold thing, is it not the ineluctable logic of his position that he should oppose any further moves to the integration of justice and home affairs, which covered the first 13 paragraphs of the Council’s conclusions, and most particularly that we should not opt in to the European arrest warrant, which would give Mr Juncker, the Commission and the European Court of Justice additional powers?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend once again. People seem to do a lot of toasting in Somerset, which I am sure is very good for the health in all sorts of ways.

On the issue of the justice and home affairs opt-out, what we have done is to achieve the biggest return of power from Brussels to Britain that there has been since we have been members of this organisation, by exercising that opt-out. We did that on the basis that it was important to opt back into a small number of measures that will actually help us to catch criminals and terrorists, and to keep our people safe.

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

When did the Prime Minister realise that he had failed to convince almost everyone, and with that realisation, what adjustments did he make to the substance and style of his engagement with other EU leaders?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, the critical moment was when other leaders who had signed up in some way to this leading candidate process realised that they could not actually change their approach, which I think was the case in many European countries. They were on a conveyor belt they could not get off, so it became apparent that Britain was not going to succeed in our campaign to stop this principle and stop this person. At that point, it is important to stand up for a principle, and to take the arguments all the way to the end. If you get a reputation that every time the going gets tough, you simply give in, you get into the position in Europe that Labour Governments put us in time and again.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I hugely respect the way in which the Prime Minister has listened to public opinion following the European elections, unlike Opposition Members and the European Union, but if the European Union continues to ignore public opinion in the way it has over the weekend, is there a mechanism by which we can either continue to cut the EU budget or withhold our budget contributions completely?

[The Prime Minister]

I am a believer in this: when we sign up to something, we should stick to it and deliver what we said we would do. With the European budget, we achieved a cut over the seven-year financial framework which will effectively mean lower European budgets. Our battle now is to make sure that the EU sticks to that, and does not find new and innovative ways of spending money.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The debate about our future role in Europe would be better informed if we knew what the red-line issues were that would force the Prime Minister to recommend a no vote in his referendum. Will he say when he will let the public know what those red line issues are, so that they can have a more informed debate about Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

Perhaps I could send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my article in The Sunday Telegraph and of the Bloomberg speech, which set out the key areas, including ever-closer union, that are so important.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

A point that is very rarely made—with the democratic deficit we have, following the recent European elections—is that there has been a huge and significant rise in extremist parties. May I impress on my right hon. Friend, for when he next meets his European counterparts, that if we fail to reform the status quo we are creating an environment that is very difficult for minorities across Europe, but if we reform, it will create an environment in which we can extinguish a lot of such extremist feeling?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We need to make sure that all of Europe’s leaders address what has gone wrong in the European Union and the view people take of it, because it is not healthy for extremist parties to be given a sort of recruiting sergeant, as it were, by failures in the organisation.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I am sure that the readers of The Daily Telegraph are reassured by the Prime Minister deciding that he can now work with Mr Juncker. The real question, however, is whether Mr Juncker can work with him, particularly after the insults, including those to the so-called “cowards” by those who are supposed to be the Prime Minister’s supporters. The reform agenda is really important, but has he not proved himself a lame duck when it comes to promoting it?

[The Prime Minister]

I have sat with Jean-Claude Juncker around the European Council table for the past four years. I spoke to him last night and, as he put in his manifesto, he wants to address the concerns that Britain has about the European Union. My job as Prime Minister is to hold him to that and make sure that we reform the organisation.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I spent Armed Forces day at a very moving service in Hereford cathedral organised by the Royal British Legion. In that spirit, I congratulate the Prime Minister on standing up both for constitutional principle and for the voice of Britain, of reform and of the nation state, and on doing so with one hand tied behind his back by the Labour party—[Interruption]—because of the Nice and Lisbon treaties. [Interruption.] Does he share my view that the real issues are the deep lack of democratic legitimacy embedded in many EU institutions, the need to address popular discontent, as shown in the recent election, and the need for reform that is backed particularly by European allies who see the need for treaty change to secure the eurozone?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need to battle the view that in Europe the only democratic legitimacy comes through the European Parliament. Our view is of Europe as a collection of nation states working and co-operating together; therefore, a lot of the democratic legitimacy should come through the European Council, made up of the Presidents and Prime Ministers of Europe, who all have a democratic mandate from their own peoples.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has emphasised the importance of national Parliaments. What opportunity will this Parliament have to scrutinise his proposed choice of the next UK Commissioner to Europe?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady asks an important question. As has happened on some other occasions, asking a potential candidate to see Members on certain Select Committees is something I am absolutely prepared to consider.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The constituents I listened to over the weekend told me that they were pleased that the Prime Minister had done what he said he would, in the national interest, rather than just going with the flow to the UK’s detriment, for fear of being isolated.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I have said, it is important—not least for the future negotiations that this country will need to take part in—to make sure that people know that when we make a stand, we stick to it.

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

Only an ex-PR man would seek to paint a vote lost 26-2 as a victory. It does not bode well for future renegotiations. What does the Prime Minister put it down to: his withdrawal from the EPP, his failure to build alliances or his hectoring of leaders of other states from the Baltic nations through to Poland and Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said earlier, the idea that somehow this all came about because the Conservative party no longer sits in the EPP is complete nonsense. The Liberals sit in the ALDE group—the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe—and the Labour party sits in the Socialist group. All the groups decided to adopt a leading candidate. Many of the Prime Ministers and Presidents subsequently rather regretted that the treadmill was taking them in a direction that they did not necessarily want to go in.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Right across Europe we have seen an increase in the Eurosceptic vote and a demand for reform. Does the Prime Minister therefore agree with me that the European Union needs to respect that support for the nation state and ensure that whenever we select a President the viewpoint from across the European Union is taken into consideration?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Dutch Prime Minister has a mantra, “Nation states where possible; Europe only where necessary.” That is the approach that we should take. There are some in Europe who think that whenever there is a problem of legitimacy, the answer is more Europe. My argument is that in many cases the answer should be less Europe, more for nation states, more for national Parliaments, more subsidiarity.

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

Today we have learned that the Prime Minister’s approach to Europe now has the full backing of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) and the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash). [Interruption.] Yes, and many other Members. If the Prime Minister is as successful in the forthcoming renegotiations as he has been in these negotiations, will he recommend that Britain leave the EU—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

My position is that I want Britain to secure renegotiation and reform, and then vote to stay in a reformed European Union. I think that the hon. Lady must have written her question before she heard the remarks of my hon. Friends. What we have learned today is that if we had a Labour Prime Minister, as soon as they got in the room and felt a bit of pressure, they would give up.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

This weekend, Tom Pursglove, the excellent Conservative candidate for Corby, and I were campaigning in east Northamptonshire. Everyone we spoke to, whether they were a Conservative supporter, a Labour supporter or a Liberal Democrat supporter—no, sorry, we could not find any Liberal Democrat supporters—all thought that the Prime Minister had done the right thing. Given what has been discussed today, will the Prime Minister confirm that he will not rule out the possibility of leading the out campaign in 2017?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the campaigning that he has been doing in Corby and Northamptonshire. I have made it very clear what I want to achieve. This is about Britain’s national interest. I will always do what is in our national interest. The best outcome for Britain will be to secure the renegotiation and the changes, and vote to stay in a reformed European Union.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Given that more than half the exports from my region, Wales, go to the European Union, will the Prime Minister help me to understand how his Billy-no-mates 26-2 defeat helps businesses such as Airbus, Toyota, Tata Steel and Vauxhall in my region?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman should ask the businesses in his region and he will find that they say that it is right for Britain to reform the European Union and vote to stay in a reformed European Union. That is the position of the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI and many others.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is true that Jean-Claude Juncker was not everybody’s favourite candidate. However, having remembered the spark that ignited a war that killed more than 10 million Europeans, was this not the week to celebrate peace, democracy and friendship among the free nations of Europe, rather than to exaggerate difference and disagreement?

[The Prime Minister]

It was the week, rightly, to commemorate the fallen in Ypres. We had a sombre event and a very good discussion about the peace that Europe—and, I would argue, NATO—has helped to bring to our continent. We should never again go back to the ways of the past. At the same time, it was perfectly legitimate the next day in Brussels for those of us who had a very clear objection in principle to make that objection known.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The events of the past week have exposed not only a lack of judgment on the part of the Prime Minister, but his inability to negotiate with other countries on our behalf. Does this fiasco not demonstrate the need for his departure from No. 10 and not the UK’s exit from the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady was struggling to keep a straight face during that question, but I applaud her effort. As I have said, what this demonstrates is that if we had someone doing this job who set out a principle and an argument, but who caved in at the first sign of fire, we would be in a very weak position.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

The Fresh Start group of Conservative MPs has been making the case for European reform across Europe. On every visit, the Prime Minister’s leadership on the reform agenda has been spoken about and debated. No one else is leading the fray in the way that he is. Will he continue to make the case not just to the UK, but to the rest of the EU, that reform is the only way to go?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s remarks. In other European countries, many people want the approach that we are taking—greater flexibility, greater competition and powers flowing back to nation states, not just towards Brussels—and support our views.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), who has great experience of Europe, who said on Radio Wales yesterday that had the Government still been in the EPP, they could effectively have exercised a veto on the decision to elevate Mr Juncker? Is it not true that the worthwhile reforms in Europe will come from the moderate parties and not from the headbangers with whom the Prime Minister is associated at the moment?

[The Prime Minister]

The question I would ask back to the hon. Gentleman is, if it is so easy to veto the Spitzenkandidat process, why did Labour not do it in the Party of European Socialists? The idea that we would have been able to do so if we had been in the EPP is nonsense. There were other Prime Ministers in the EPP who did not stop the process. I am proud that we have our own political grouping in Europe and that it was the one group that decided not to take part in the process.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Will the Prime Minister pledge never to adopt the negotiating position of the Leader of the Opposition, which is to go along with absolutely anything the EU asks him so as not to appear isolated in the EU—and before he listens to any advice from the Lib Dems, may I suggest that he has a quick glimpse at the opinion polls? During the summit, did the Prime Minister get any intelligence from his socialist counterparts as to whether the Leader of the Opposition will once again surreptitiously block the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), which will guarantee the people of this country an in/out referendum on the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend asks an intriguing question and I do not know whether Labour will block the opportunity to put into statute now the need for a referendum before the end of 2017. Everyone in this House will have a chance to vote on that Bill, and I hope we will support it.

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Having so skilfully turned a divided EU into an EU united against his position, will the Prime Minister spell out at the Dispatch Box precisely where he expects to win in his renegotiation?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have explained, I will send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the Bloomberg speech and The Daily Telegraph article, so he can immerse himself in the detail. We need to make changes to ever closer union, benefit tourism, and the free movement directive, and we need to make changes to embed the single market and save those countries that do not want to be part of the eurozone. This all begs a question—the Government have a clear plan and set of demands that we want to make, but what have we got from the Labour party? It is opposed to a referendum and it caves in on every important European issue; it gave away the rebate and never stood up for Britain on the budget; and it signed up to eurozone bail-outs and it was weak, weak, weak.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Socialist France is rapidly emerging as the principal barrier to the renegotiation objectives of my right hon. Friend, and he is unlikely to get much useful help from its allies on the Opposition Benches. Happily, just in time in 2017 there will be a French general election that should see the Union pour un Mouvement Populaire return to office. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he and all his colleagues do their best to improve our relations with the UMP?

[The Prime Minister]

We must work with all elected Prime Ministers and Presidents in Europe, and I work very closely with Francois Hollande. There is an understanding in France that it has always believed in “L’Europe des patries”—the Europe of nation states—and we must make sure that that is followed through.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

We know who the Prime Minister was against, but why can he not tell us who he would have favoured to be President of the European Commission? Is it because this had nothing to do with principled statesmanship, and everything to do with cynical behaviour?

[The Prime Minister]

I was very clear: I thought there were a good number of people sitting round the European Council table who would have made good Commission Presidents, and I can think of people from the left, the right and the centre of politics. This is the important point: if we keep with this leading candidate process named by political parties, again, we will never have a serving Prime Minister or President sitting as President of the European Commission, and I think that is a huge mistake.

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

The Prime Minister will have been as disappointed as I was that Sweden did not support him in the vote against Jean-Claude Juncker. Given the recent negative comments by Fredrik Reinfeldt about ever closer union, does the Prime Minister agree that Sweden and other northern European countries with secure and flourishing economies will be a rich seam of support in the reforms he is seeking?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Prime Minister Reinfeldt said:

“Just look into what we have written in our conclusions…You will find references…saying this ever-closer union perception is maybe not the best for everyone.”

That is clear support for Britain’s position.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

We know that Germany exercises considerable influence in the European Union, and until last week’s vote, the mood music seemed to suggest that Britain and the United Kingdom were on the same page. Will the Prime Minister tell the House exactly why Chancellor Merkel refused to support him?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously, it is for Chancellor Merkel to set out her views, but I would explain it like this: among other leaders, she was one of those who had signed up to the concept of the leading candidates and the EPP picking a particular candidate—just as the socialists had picked a particular candidate—and the domestic reaction when she suggested that other candidates could come forward was extremely strong. As a result, as I have put it, I think a number of people got themselves on to a conveyor belt by supporting this process, and they found it very difficult to get off.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for the stance he has taken. The poll published this afternoon shows that although the Labour party is not with him, the British people are. Does he agree that it is not just in Britain’s interests that he sticks to his guns, but in the EU’s interests?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right to say that lots of people around Europe want to see reform and to see Britain as the leading voice of reform. Clearly, we will not get that reform unless we set out principles and stick to them.

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

Can the Prime Minister envisage a situation in which he believes it is not in the national interest for Britain to continue its membership of the EU? In those circumstances, will he campaign for an “out” vote?

[The Prime Minister]

Those are not the circumstances I seek. I will always be guided by what I see as the national interest, and I have set out several times in the House today what defines the national interest: reform in Europe, a referendum in Europe, and Britain in a reformed Europe.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want just a small number of very pithy questions. I look in hope if not in expectation to Sir Tony Baldry.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend similarly confirm that we did not pick a fight in Europe, and that it was not us who introduced the system of leading candidates, which undermines the constitution? But for that, there would have been no row.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. The socialist grouping first, followed by the EPP and others, decided to take that approach, which I do not believe is in line with the European treaties.

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

Businesses in my constituency—multinationals such as Kellogg’s; European companies such as ESBI, SAICA and Lucchini; and British-owned companies that seek to export to Europe, such as Northern Drives & Controls—all say that it is crucial to their business to stay in the European Union. How does the Prime Minister expect to have the authority to negotiate a better deal for Europe to enable them to do so?

[The Prime Minister]

I have listened a lot to the voices of British businesses large and small. They, too, want European reform. They are frustrated by the bureaucracy and the red tape, and by the failure to complete the single market. They do not want Britain to be part of a European superstate; they want co-operation and trade between nations. That is what we want. Although the task has undoubtedly become more difficult, I see no reason why we cannot achieve it if we stick to our guns.

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

Last week, I attended Brighton’s wonderful golden handbag awards. May I take this opportunity to nominate the Prime Minister for a different handbag award for sticking up for Britain in the way he has?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. A new element of life in Brighton has been visited on me. I am sure it was a great event and I am grateful for his support.

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

But, on reflection, does the Prime Minister accept that his aggressive and personalised opposition to Jean-Claude Junker was in fact counter-productive to British interests, and that it would always be that way? In the event that Mr Juncker won, which he did, he would be unsympathetic to British interests. In the event of Mr Juncker losing, the Prime Minister’s aggression would mean that supporters of Juncker would be lined up against Britain, and his friends would demand favours and compromises, undermining our position. Is it not always best to support one candidate rather than demonise another? The Prime Minister has not gone with the flow; he has gone with the wind.

[The Prime Minister]

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says, and I do not accept that the arguments we made included any insult—they did not. There was an argument about principle and an argument about the direction that the EU was going. On our influence, the German press this morning reports: “Cameron showed consistency in his fundamental conviction. We know where we are. He wants tough EU reforms, further liberalisation, a reduction in bureaucracy, and growth and jobs.” The German press can see what we stand for.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for ditching the useless policy of negotiation and capitulation that got us on to the motorway without exits towards a united states of Europe. Does he believe that the leaders of Europe get it? If there is no reform, the British people will head for their JCBs, create their own exit and vote to go down it in 2017.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend says. There is real understanding that Britain wants and needs reform of the EU. That is why it is encouraging that that is written for the first time in the conclusions of last week’s Council meeting.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Does the Prime Minister believe that his MEPs strengthened or weakened his negotiating position with Chancellor Merkel when they defied him and joined her Eurosceptic opponents in the European Parliament?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not think it made any difference at all.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but I have called 86 Back Benchers. The Prime Minister has given very fully of his time and I am grateful to him and to colleagues. I must have some regard to the fact that it is an Opposition day, and people who have been in the House for some time will know that far more people get in on statements than ever before.

Opposition Day

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[3rd Allotted Day]

DWP: Performance

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

17:10

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes that after £612 million being spent, including £131 million written off or written down, the introduction of Universal Credit is now years behind schedule, with no clear plan for how, when, or whether full implementation will be achievable or represent value for money; further notes the admission of the Minister of State for Disabled People in oral evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee on 11 June 2014 that over 700,000 people are still waiting for a Work Capability Assessment, and the report of the Office for Budget Responsibility in March 2014 that found that projected spending on Employment and Support Allowance has risen by £800 million since December; recognises the finding of the Committee of Public Accounts in its First Report, HC 280, that Personal Independence Payment delays have created uncertainty, stress and financial costs for disabled people and additional budgetary pressures for Government; further recognises that the Work Programme has failed to meet its targets, the unfair bedroom tax risks costing more than it saves, and other DWP programmes are performing poorly or in disarray; and calls on the Government to publish (a) the risk register and other documentation relating to the delivery of Universal Credit as a Freedom of Information tribunal has ruled it should, (b) the time in which it will guarantee that disabled people will receive an assessment for PIP and (c) a full risk assessment showing the potential impact of delays, delivery problems, contract failures and underperformance on (i) people receiving or entitled to benefits, (ii) departmental budgets and spending plans and (iii) the Government’s welfare cap.

This debate is about how we as a country treat our fellow citizens. It is about the young woman diagnosed with a life-limiting illness who has waited six months for any help with her living costs. It is about the disabled man whose payments have been stopped because he did not attend an interview to which he was never invited. It is about the millions of working people in this country who pay their taxes and national insurance every week and who want to know that their money is ensuring a strong and efficient system of social security that will be there for them and their families, with rules applied fairly and promptly to ensure support goes to those who need it and not to those who do not. Instead, the Government are wasting more and more taxpayers’ money on poorly planned and disastrously managed projects, and are allowing in-work benefits to spiral because of their failure to tackle the low pay and insecurity that are adding billions of pounds to the benefits bill.

There is strong support in Britain for a social security system that helps people get by when they fall on hard times; secures dignity and a decent standard of living for those unable to work because of sickness or disability; and ensures that no child goes hungry, without essential clothing or without adequate housing because their parents are in low-paid or insecure work. Instead of a system that works, under this Government we have got chaos, waste and delay. Chaos is 7,000 people waiting for a work capability assessment, and the Government still not able to tell us which provider will replace Atos. Waste is more than £600 million spent on universal credit, including £131 million written down or written off, with no clear assurances about how, when or whether this important project will ever be fully operational or provide value for money. Delay is the desperate people, many of whom have been working and paying into the system for years or decades and are now struck by disability or illness, waiting six months or more for help from the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has mentioned the issue of waste. Does she feel comfortable that under the last Labour Government housing benefit bills were occasionally more than £100,000—a figure that many people in the private sector could never afford?

[Rachel Reeves]

Does the hon. Gentleman feel comfortable that under this Government spending on housing benefit for people who are in work has gone up by more than 60%, reflecting the fact that more people are in low-paid or insecure work and are unable to make ends meet, even though they may be working all the hours God sends?

We have a Government who are totally out of touch with the reality of life for millions of hard-working taxpayers and those in need of help. The Government are careless with the contributions that people make to the system, callous about the consequences of their incompetence for the most vulnerable, and too arrogant to admit mistakes and engage seriously with the task of sorting out their own mess.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the whole thrust of the Government’s reforms has been welfare into work? Since 2010, youth unemployment in Harlow has gone down by 30% and unemployment has fallen by a third.

[Rachel Reeves]

Of course I welcome the fact that unemployment, including youth unemployment, is now falling, but we have to face up to the fact that too many people in work are struggling to make ends meet. The hon. Gentleman will know from his constituency that some people who are in work have to rely on housing benefit and tax credits to make ends meet because they are not paid a wage they can afford to live on, they are on zero-hours contracts, or they are among the record numbers of people who are working part time but want to work full time. We need to address those challenges as well.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Can the hon. Lady explain why the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) says that Labour’s welfare policies are cynical and punitive?

[Rachel Reeves]

It is all about ensuring that more people are in work through the compulsory jobs guarantee, ensuring that people have the skills to hold down a job with a basic skills test and a youth allowance, and doing more to ensure that people in work can earn enough to live on—through, for example, an increase in the minimum wage and ensuring that more people are paid the living wage. Those policies will make a huge difference to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Dover and Deal, which will be a Labour constituency after the next election.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an absolute scandal that the Government do not know what they are talking about? They talk about the number of jobs being created, but they do not know how many of them are on zero-hours contracts or how many are on Government schemes or how many have been transferred from the public sector. In fact, the Secretary of State knows absolutely nothing about these so-called jobs that the Government are supposed to have created.

[Rachel Reeves]

What we do know is that more than 5 million people—20% of the work force—are paid less than the living wage. Furthermore, 1.5 million people are on zero-hours contracts and 1.4 million people are working part time who want to work full time.

When it comes to detailing the extent of the Secretary of State’s dereliction, it is hard to know where to start. For a useful overview, we need look no further than the Department’s own annual report and accounts for 2013-14, which was released at the end of last week. It reveals the latest opinion of the DWP’s head of internal audit—that the Department has yet to take the necessary action to “address control weaknesses” and, in his words, to

“provide an improved…environment from which to manage the continuing challenges and risks faced by the Department.”

It lists no fewer than eight areas described as “significant challenges” where the Department still falls short. Universal credit, we are told,

“continues to be a significant challenge for both the Department and delivery partners”,

and it goes on to say that

“there continues to be an inherent level of risk contained in the plans.”

On fraud and error, we are told that the rate has “worsened” with respect to housing benefit and that the chance of the Government achieving their target for reduction

“remains a very substantial challenge and is unlikely to be achieved.”

The report confirms that in the area of contracted-out assessments for employment and support allowance and the new personal independence payments,

“the volume of assessments undertaken by providers…has fallen consistently below demand, with a detrimental impact on customer service and implications for forecast expenditure on sickness and disability benefits”.

In other words, it is hurting, but it certainly is not working.

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

My hon. Friend is offering a stark indictment of this Government’s policies. Does she agree that another stark indictment of their policies is the massive increase in food banks across this country, another one of which I had to open in my constituency just a few weeks ago?

[Rachel Reeves]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, these remarks are from the Government’s own report. In our constituencies we all see people who are so desperate that they have to queue at food banks to be able to feed themselves and their families. That is not something that should be happening in 21st century Britain.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that when I asked how many people in my constituency had been waiting more than six months or three months for medical assessments for personal independence payments, the Government told me that the figures were not available. In other words, they are not only incompetent; they do not know how incompetent they are!

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend puts it very succinctly, and I am coming on to some of the examples we have all heard about from our constituency surgeries.

What we here must take care to do and what this Government have now totally failed to do is to remember the human impact, often on people in vulnerable circumstances, of this catalogue of chaos. Behind the bureaucratic language and spreadsheets showing backlogs and overspends are people in need who are being let down and mistreated, and taxpayers who can ill afford the mismanagement and waste of their money. Let me provide just a few examples that I am sure will be familiar to Members of all parties from our constituency surgeries.

In February, a woman came to my surgery in a state of desperation. Her husband had suffered a stroke the previous year, rendering him unfit for work. He applied for the personal independence payment and employment and support allowance, but a month after making the application, they were still waiting just to get their Atos assessment. She had given up work to look after her husband, but because they had not had their decision on PIP, she could not apply for carer’s allowance. They were so short of money that I referred them to one of the food banks. Both had worked for many years and paid into the system, but when they needed support, it was not there for them. In March this year, the husband died. His Atos appointment letter had never come. His wife, now a widow, had been made unwell by all the stress of this experience. She applied for ESA, but she has heard nothing.

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

Does the hon. Lady regret the fact that it was her Government who appointed Atos in the first place?

[Rachel Reeves]

As the hon. Gentleman will have heard, the example that I gave involved personal independence payments, which were introduced by this Government, not the last one. We have made our position clear. Although we appointed Atos, we said last autumn that it should be sacked. However, it is not just a question of replacing Atos; it is a question of reforming the work capability assessment and introducing targets relating not just to the number of decisions, but to the correct decisions.

Another couple came to me after applying for personal independence payments last August. The husband was asked to attend an assessment on a date when he would be in hospital for a spine operation. Nursing staff at Leeds General Infirmary advised the Department for Work and Pensions that he would be unable to attend the appointment, and he was told that a home assessment would be arranged, but he then heard nothing for months. In May, I wrote to the Department on the couple’s behalf. The reply that I received said simply:

“we will respond to your query as soon as possible but due to the volumes being received and the PIP system still being in its infancy there may be delays in getting back to you”.

Meanwhile, we also referred that couple to a food bank when their money ran out. These people deserve better.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my surprise that, although the problems with Atos were known about—and it is now being suggested that they had been known about for some time—a contract was given to that organisation for PIP? Was due diligence carried out before the new contract was issued?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend has made a very important point. The PIP contract was awarded to Atos although we knew that there were problems with the work capability assessment. It was this Government’s decision to give a contract to a provider that we already knew was failing.

Since this debate was announced at the end of last week, my office has been inundated by communications from people from all over the country with similar tragic and appalling stories to tell. This morning I spoke to Malcolm Graham from Romford, who last September was diagnosed with cancer of the oesophagus. He underwent 10 weeks of chemotherapy and a 10-hour operation. He had been unable to work, and he finds it hard to get around. He applied for a personal independence payment and employment and support allowance on 23 September last year. After phoning the Department nearly every day since then, he finally had his assessment for personal independence payment on 16 May. On 20 June—five weeks later—he received a letter from the Department saying that it now had all the information it needed in order to make a decision, but today, more than nine months after his application, he has yet to receive notification of what support, if any, he will receive. In the meantime, he has had to rely on help from family and friends. He has struggled to keep up with his bills, and has even been visited by a debt recovery firm.

Until he was struck by cancer, Mr Graham had worked all his life. For 40 years he had paid his tax and national insurance. However, he told me today “When I needed it, the help was not there. I never knew what it would be like to be on the other side of the fence.” He added: “But now that I do, I wish that the Secretary of State would imagine what it is like being on this side of the fence—what it is like being in my position.”

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

My hon. Friend is making a very strong and moving speech about the impact on individuals of these horrendous fiascos, but does she agree that the issues involving PIP go beyond some of the examples that have been given today? I am thinking particularly of Motability. Many of my constituents have been caught by the double whammy of delays involving, first, the disability living allowance and now PIP. They have waited long periods for a resolution, but because a decision is being reconsidered, their Motability—the lifeline that has enabled them to get out of their homes—has been taken away before that decision has been made. Is that not a horrendous indictment of the Government? [Interruption.]

[Rachel Reeves]

Government Members should listen rather than heckle, because my hon. Friend has made an incredibly important point. I recently went to Ringways garage in Farnley, in my constituency, to give someone the keys to a Motability car. That person talked about the difference that Motability made, in terms of independence and family. However, as my hon. Friend has said, we also know that, as a result of some of the Government’s reforms, many people who need to be helped to obtain the car that will give them the freedom that the rest of us take for granted have had that support taken away from them. The delays and the chaos is one thing, but there is also some of the substance of those decisions.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rachel Reeves]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, so, no, I will not.

I know that many hon. Members will have similar stories to tell today, and I hope the Secretary of State stays to listen, because when we write to the Department with our constituents’ problems we only ever get replies from the correspondence unit. I realise that the Secretary of State is probably deluged with letters raising problems.

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

I am sorry, but I just cannot agree with that. Every letter from a member of the Privy Council gets replied to by me, and every other Minister replies to every single other Member of Parliament’s inquiry. If the hon. Lady is now insinuating that we do not, perhaps she could demonstrate why.

[Rachel Reeves]

Well, I will send the Secretary of State all the letters I have had from his correspondence unit, not one of them signed by him. [Interruption.] Well, letters that I have written to the Department about the challenges facing—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says he replies to these letters; he has not written a single letter to me about—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The House is discussing an important point.

[Rachel Reeves]

If the Secretary of State now claims that he signs his letters “The correspondence unit”, perhaps he has replied, but I would have expected the Secretary of State to sign the letters and I will be very happy to forward all the letters to him. [Interruption.] He carries on chuntering from a sedentary position; I have not had a single letter about my casework from him. I will send them all to him, and perhaps he can write to me and my constituents explaining why they have been treated so abysmally by him and his Government.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

All I can say is that my experience when raising cases from my excellent local citizens advice bureau is that they have been answered very well, in full and thoroughly by the Minister for disabled people, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has listened to my concerns and answered them, largely dealing with the appalling performance of Atos, hired by the Labour party and dealt with successfully by my right hon. Friend.

[Rachel Reeves]

Well, maybe there is one rule for Tory Back Benchers and another rule for Labour party MPs, because I have not had a single letter signed by the Secretary of State.

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

rose—

[Rachel Reeves]

I will give way; I haven’t had any letters from this one either.

[Mike Penning]

This one! The shadow Secretary of State should look behind her, and she will see many, many of her colleagues nodding when I say that I have written personally, and dealt with cases personally, and when there was a mistake, I admitted there was a mistake, so the generalisation she has just made about party political bias is fundamentally wrong.

[Rachel Reeves]

The Minister for disabled people has never replied to the letters I have sent to the Department for Work and Pensions about people in my constituency. I have given two examples today. [Interruption.] He says he has; can the right hon. Gentleman stand up and say he has ever replied to a letter from me?

[Mike Penning]

Letters from a Privy Counsellor, which the right hon. Lady is, will be responded to by the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Well, if you’re not a Privy Counsellor, it would be me responding, but look around behind you—I apologise for the “yous”, Madam Deputy Speaker—and see that I have responded in depth to colleagues. They may not have liked the reply, but I have done that, and if the hon. Lady had written to me directly, I would have replied.

[Rachel Reeves]

Maybe the letters got lost in the post, but I have never received a letter from the Minister for disabled people.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

May I just say that the Minister last week did contact my office, because I was sent a letter by an official, not him—

[Mike Penning]

And I apologised.

[Ian Lucas]

And he apologised. But I have to say that the Secretary of State clearly does not know what is going on in his own Department. He is not even listening to the debate, and, frankly, let me say this about the views expressed by the Conservative party about the vulnerable people who are coming to us for help: they are being disregarded and treated with contempt by the laughing cavaliers opposite. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

I hope the Secretary of State also responds to the calls we are making today for the Government to give sick and disabled people some clarity and assurance by publishing a guaranteed time limit for the assessment of claims. For example, Macmillan Cancer Support has recommended that the personal independence payment assessment process be limited to 11 weeks. I hope the Secretary of State will tell us today that he will undertake to give that guarantee—if not, why not?

We are also calling for the Secretary of State to own up to the extent of the problems in his Department, particularly the mounting costs arising from problems with the personal independence payment, the work capability assessment and universal credit. The introduction of personal independence payments in place of disability living allowance was supposed to save £780 million in annual spending by next April, but with £200 million a year being spent on administration, including £127 million a year going to contracted-out assessment providers, this change is set to be completed not next year but, at this rate of progress, in 42 years’ time.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I received an e-mail today from a constituent who is in considerable distress. She first applied for her PIP on 1 November 2013, so she has now been waiting for eight months. She is in work and she has always been physically fit but she has now just been struck by misfortune. She is in such distress and Atos has told her that her referral is subject to a quality check to see whether Atos is doing its job properly. Clearly, if it has taken eight months to get to this stage, it is not doing its job properly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Interventions must be short because a great many Members are waiting to speak and it is simply unfair if people make speeches instead of interventions.

[Rachel Reeves]

Eight months is far too long for anyone to have to wait and, clearly, any further delay is totally unacceptable.

On the work capability assessment, the Government spend £100 million a year on the contracted assessors, as well as tens of millions more on decisions that are appealed. Now, the process has almost reached “virtual collapse”, according to the senior judge overseeing the trials, with Atos walking away from the contract, the Government yet to identify a replacement and a backlog of more than 700,000 assessments in a queue. As a result of the disarray, we are seeing spiralling costs to the taxpayer, with the latest report from the Office for Budget Responsibility showing an £800 million increase in projected spending and leaked documents revealing that the Government now see this as one of the biggest fiscal risks, with spending on course to breach their own welfare cap.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

This debate is also about employment, so will the hon. Lady welcome the rise in employment, not least in her constituency, where, according to the House of Commons Library, the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants has reduced by 23% in the past year, with youth unemployment down 26% and unemployment among those who are 50 and over down by 17.6%?

[Rachel Reeves]

But what we have also seen in my constituency is that average wages in Yorkshire and Humber have reduced by £26 a week since the coalition came into government and employment and support allowance claims have increased by 0.9 percentage points during the same period.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

On that previous intervention, does my hon. Friend share my sense of deep frustration that even after the 1980s the Conservatives have failed to learn that the important thing is not a falling claimant count, but the unemployment rate? Although that is thankfully lower, there are loads of other reasons to think that we still have problems in our economy.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is still an awful lot to do to reduce unemployment and ensure that everybody in work is earning enough to be able to support themselves and their families.

Let us now deal with universal credit, the Secretary of State’s pet project and the Prime Minister’s flagship welfare reform. Where are we with that? It was supposed to be the Government’s way of achieving £38 billion of savings over 10 years and £7 billion a year thereafter by reducing fraud and error and by encouraging more people into work. Today, with more than £600 million spent on set-up costs, we should be starting to see the benefits—1 million people should be claiming universal credit now, as part of a roll-out that the Government said would be completed by 2017—but instead we find that £130 million of this expenditure has already been written down or written off and only 6,000 of the simplest cases have so far received the benefit, which is less than 1% of the level it should be at now. Most worryingly of all, we now have no reliable timetable and no Treasury-approved business case to tell us how, when or whether this project will ever be fully operational or deliver value for money.

We have repeatedly called on the Government to come clean about the state of universal credit. The rescue committee, which we appointed to advise on the future of universal credit, has recommended that the books be opened for a warts-and-all review, with the National Audit Office signing off any new business case before it goes forward. But instead of moving on from the culture of secrecy and denial, which has been identified as the biggest fatal flaw besetting universal credit, the Government are instead spending yet more taxpayers’ money fighting freedom of information requests and court cases to try to stop the publication of documents setting out the risks, milestones and state of progress of this multi-billion pound project. They are hiding behind a veil of secrecy that is making universal credit harder, not easier, to deliver.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I respect the hon. Lady’s real world experience and the things that she has done in the business world before coming to this place. In that vein, will she not understand that it is vital to roll things out on a test-and-learn basis and not, as the previous Government did with tax credits, on a crash-and-burn basis?

[Rachel Reeves]

What I know from my business experience—I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows it as well—is that writing off and writing down £131 million of expenditure is not good value for money. It is good to test things, but I do not see this Government doing much learning from the mistakes they are making.

The evidence is now clear that the Secretary of State’s record has been a complete car crash.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

On the point about learning lessons, is my hon. Friend aware that I have been making freedom of information requests to the Department in relation to mandatory reconsiderations? When people get their work capability assessment, and it has failed, before they can appeal there has to be a mandatory reconsideration. The Department does not know how many cases have been overturned, how many claimants have been left without any money and how long the longest period is for reconsideration. It cannot answer a single one of those questions under a freedom of information request.

[Rachel Reeves]

That links in with what I was saying earlier. If the Government do not learn from their mistakes, how can they make improvements?

Universal credit is widely off track; the work capability assessment has almost completely broken down; personal independence payments are a fiasco; the Work programme is not working; the Youth Contract is a flop; support for families with multiple problems are falling far short of its target; the jobmatch website is an absurd embarrassment; the unfair and vindictive bedroom tax is costing more money than it saves; and the Government cannot even agree on a definition of child poverty let alone take action to deal with it.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde: to fail to deliver on one policy might be considered unfortunate; to miss one’s targets on two has to be judged careless; but to make such a complete mess of every single initiative the Secretary of State has attempted requires a special gift. It is something like a Midas touch: everything he touches turns into a total shambles.

Meanwhile, the Secretary of State will spew out dodgy statistics, rant and rave about Labour’s record, say “on time and on budget” until he is blue in the face and, in typical Tory style, blame the staff for everything that goes wrong. We have all long given up hope on the Secretary of State ever getting a grip on his Department. The real question today is when will the Prime Minister learn and take responsibility for the slow-motion car crash he has allowed to unfold? The DWP has the highest spending of any Government Department, and the responsibility for handling some of the most sensitive situations and some of the most vulnerable people in our country. We will all be paying a price for a long time to come for this Government’s failure to get a grip, and the lives of too many people, such as Malcolm Graham who is still waiting for his personal independence payment, have been irreparably damaged. It is clear that this Government will never take their responsibilities in this area with the seriousness that is needed. Let me pledge today that a Labour Government will. They will help those thousands of families who have been let down by the system and the millions of taxpayers who are seeing their money wasted. That change cannot come soon enough.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the Secretary of State, let me say that Members know perfectly well that making a long intervention instead of waiting to make a speech is simply rude and it is unacceptable. Interventions must be short. As there are so many Members waiting to speak, I will have to impose a time limit of six minutes on Back-Bench speeches, after the Secretary of State has spoken.

17:39

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

I welcome today’s debate. We have waited and waited for a debate on welfare in Opposition time, yet today we see a cynical motion from a cynical party, pandering to their unions and chasing media headlines. They have cynically avoided the topic of welfare reform, missing the real point, which is the impact and success of what we are delivering. More people are in work than ever before, with the figure up 1.7 million. More people are in private sector work than ever before, with the figure up more than 2 million. Unemployment and youth unemployment are lower than the Opposition left them at the last election, and workless households are at the lowest rate since records began.

The Department processes 7.4 million claims successfully, issues more than £680 million in payment to 22 million claimants and carries out more than 24 million adviser interviews. To date, since we introduced the efficiency programs, call volumes have been at their lowest level, as have complaints. We have seen record debt collections of more than £2 billion—and, by the way, debt is lower than the figure we were left—as well as record online claims. At the same time, we have saved £2 billion from the Department’s baseline spending compared with 2009-10—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am going to make a little progress, as you have told me that we need to, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will give way later.

Let me repeat that: £2 billion has been saved from the Department’s baseline expenditure compared with 2009-10, when the previous Government left office. Let me give two examples of where, when we came into office, there was ridiculous, excessive and personal waste. When I walked through the door, I found that the previous Government and their Ministers had had six cars and six drivers sitting permanently inactive, costing more than £500,000. We have reduced that to one pool car used by all of us, or we get taxis or the tube—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will give way in a second.

Equally, under Labour the DWP spent £13 million on first-class travel. I honestly wonder whether anybody wanted to see them that much more quickly as they got off at the other end—I doubt it. We have banned that.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will give way in a second; I want to set out the ground rules. The motion contains no mention of those efficiencies or achievements, no suggestion of what Labour would do and—there is no better illustration of how cynical the Opposition are—no admission of the shambles they left behind. The economy was at breaking point, £112 billion had been wiped off our GDP and we were burdened with the largest deficit in peacetime history. Welfare bills were completely out of control. Housing benefit alone had doubled, contributing to overall spending increasing by 60%. The benefits system was in meltdown, with a mess of 30-plus benefits that meant that work simply did not pay.

Under Labour, the safety net had become a trap—

[Ian Lucas]

Give way.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

At its peak, 5 million people on out-of-work—

[Ian Lucas]

Give way!

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Mr Lucas, the Secretary of State is not giving way. Do not shout.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I said that I will give way, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I wanted to set out the successes of this Government against the nonsense of the Opposition’s debate.

At its peak, when I walked through the door, our inheritance was 5 million people on out-of-work benefits, a million of them for more than a decade. Youth unemployment had increased by nearly half and long-term unemployment doubled in just two years. One in five households was workless and the number in which no one had ever worked almost doubled.

[Ian Lucas]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I want to talk about incompetence on his part. Every week, people come to my surgery who cannot have their personal independence payment claims processed. Will he take some responsibility and apologise to them for the incompetence of his policy and his Department?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We take full responsibility for ensuring that that benefit is rolled out carefully, so that when we do the full national roll-out of the whole benefit, we will know that it works. We have made a series of adjustments and also have more recruitment going on and more staff going in. I will give some pointers about where we will be when I return to this point. I simply say to the hon. Gentleman that when Labour rolled out tax credits, more than 400,000 people failed to get their money and the Prime Minister had to make a personal apology. I do not want to repeat that in this case. I want to ensure that those most in need will get the benefit.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Amid the litany of failures of the previous Government, which my right hon. Friend was recalling, and their dreadful legacy in this area, does he remember that of all the new jobs that the property boom-fuelled growth generated, three quarters or more went to foreign nationals? Is that not a circumstance which this Government have reversed entirely?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Well over 70% of new jobs now go to British nationals, as opposed to 90% that went to foreign nationals before.

I want to repeat the figures: there were 5 million on out-of-work benefits, youth unemployment increased by nearly half, long-term unemployment doubled in just two years, and one in five households—it is worth stressing that—was workless, and the number of households where no one had ever worked almost doubled under Labour. Now, as the Opposition themselves seemed to admit over the weekend, as I noticed in the papers, they have no plans, no policies and no prospects—only, as the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) put it put rather succinctly, an

“instrumentalised, cynical nugget of policy to chime with our focus groups and our press strategies and our desire for a top line”.

I agree. Today’s debate is just that—a cynical nugget of short-term policy to put to the unions.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I make no apology for speaking up for constituents who are very concerned about what is happening to them, having been caught up in the system. He attacks us for cynicism. Is he also concerned by the report last week from Macmillan, which showed that 60% of people who went through the PIP assessment were waiting four and a half months, and a quarter were waiting six months? That could be somebody in my family, in his family or in our constituents’ families? That is not cynicism—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No one ever complains about someone raising issues to do with their constituents. That is what we are all here for. However, instead of scaremongering, we deal with these points. I do not say for a moment that what we are trying to do is anything but difficult. We are trying to reform a system that was in many senses broken. It was not delivering money to key people. DLA was, by common agreement, not doing what it was meant to do. The delivery times that the hon. Gentleman talks about are out of date. As regards terminally ill people, nobody should wait for more than 10 days under the PIP programme. That is happening.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I want to move on, but I shall give way to one of my hon. Friends.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Does it surprise my right hon. Friend that the shadow Minister made no mention of the 80 constituents who have benefited in her constituency from the new enterprise allowance, creating successful new businesses? There was no mention of them in her speech.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No, that does not surprise me. The purpose of today’s debate is to avoid anything to do with welfare reform and just pick away at issues that the Opposition think will get them some kind of coverage. That is the cynicism that the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham was talking about.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I want to make a little more progress and highlight a couple of programmes. First, let me deal with the issue that shows the cynicism of the Opposition more than anything else—the issue that the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) did not want to raise, child maintenance, the enforcement commission and the Child Support Agency, on which the Opposition have remained silent. When we came into office, £500 million had been wasted on scrapped IT, including £120 million on a botched rescue scheme. I notice that the Opposition now want a rescue scheme for universal credit. At that rate—£120 million lost—we do not need any of their rescues.

On child maintenance, 75,000 cases were lost in the system. There were no effective financial arrangements at all for more than half the children. The IT system cost £74 million a year in operating costs alone, even as the number of expensively managed clerical cases hit 100,000. [Interruption.] Instead of becoming his party’s megamouth, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) needs to keep a little quieter and listen to reality. It was his party that made a shambles of the IT introduction when it was in government.

As the NAO has confirmed, our phased roll-out is ensuring that we have a new, efficient system that works: 60% more parents than we expected are paying directly; processing procedures are down, from an overall 21,000 to 450; and we expect savings of £220 million a year once it is complete.

[Emily Thornberry]

I just want to make sure that I understand correctly what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I believe that he has just given an undertaking to the House that work capability assessments will be done in 10 days. [Interruption.] He has not given that undertaking. I wrote to the Department about a constituent who applied for PIP on 19 November, and I received a letter on 18 June telling me that it did not have a time scale for when he would get his work capability assessment.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I was referring to PIP and the fact that the terminally ill will not have to wait longer than 10 days to be seen. I think that the hon. Lady is referring to WCA. They will go straight to the support group. [Interruption.] Well, I have given an undertaking that they should not have to wait more than 10 days to be dealt with.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend mentioned the shadow Secretary of State’s four-point rescue plan. Part 1 is a three-month delay, which would lead to a write-off. Parts 3 and 4 include scope increases, which at this phase in the programme would be bound to cause further write-offs. That is precisely why Labour lost £20 billion in the previous Parliament.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is right about that, and I will come to that point in a minute. That is what happens in the development process. Universal credit is rolling out against the time scale I set last year, as I will demonstrate.

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

On behalf of my constituents, I want to thank the Secretary of State for all the excellent and essential work he is doing on welfare reform and for the part his Department is playing to deliver the Government’s long-term economic plan, which has seen unemployment in my constituency fall by 40% and youth unemployment fall by 50% over the past 12 months.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

What an excellent intervention. It is a testing one, but I will try to live up to it.

Let me move on to universal credit. Across all 44 programmes of change in the Department, we are taking a careful and controlled approach to achieve a safe and secure delivery. For example, the benefit cap started with an early roll-out and is now fully implemented, seeing 42,000 households capped and 6,000 move into work. Universal credit is on track to roll out safely and securely, against the plan I set out last year. The hon. Member for Leeds West quoted a figure of £12.8 billion but, as ever, shows a poor grasp of the finances. We have always been clear that universal credit’s total budget is £2 billion, and we will not overspend.

Furthermore, we have taken decisive action so as not to repeat the way in which programmes were rolled out under the previous Government. The reset will avoid the “big bang” concept that they put forward at the last election. They did a number of things that led them to have to write off huge sums of money. For example, their benefit processing replacement programme was not even introduced; it was just scrapped after £140 million had been wasted on IT that could never be used. Lectures about money that has to be written off with nothing to show for it should be directed at them, not us.

We have introduced the pathfinder in order to test and learn. We are now rolling it out, as I announced the other day, to 90 jobcentres across the north-west, and that process will be completed in the autumn. Furthermore, I have announced that, from today, new universal credit claims for couples will be rolling out into the live status, and claims for families will follow that roll-out. That will complete universal credit’s roll-out in the north-west, as we set out last year.

On the digital solution, nothing offers clearer proof that the existing live service works. It is delivering universal credit and will continue to do so. As I have always said, the majority of the existing IT will continue to be used, even as we develop the final element, which is the digital service, using all that equipment. It is about an end-state solution—fully online, fully secure and responsive to all digital threats—enhancing what we have already built. Universal credit will roll out on time, and it will deliver what we have said it will deliver—at least £38 billion in net benefit to the Exchequer.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I wonder whether the Secretary of State can explain what an “end-state solution” actually is, or what it will mean, and why he did not properly test PIP, which had only a two-month pilot, meaning that every applicant is now a guinea pig?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I think that I have been pretty clear about the end-state solution. It is universal credit completely delivering to everybody in the UK. That is the end-state solution—live, online and fully protected. Perhaps I need to spell it out to the hon. Lady again. On PIP, I will simply say that we did not rush it. We have kept control of the level and scale of the roll-out. As we have learnt what the difficulties are, we have made changes, working with the providers. I will demonstrate in a moment that we are driving those numbers down to reasonable levels, as expected.

[Guy Opperman]

Government Members welcome the rise in job numbers, which have improved by 30%-plus in Hexham. I also welcome the transformation in universal credit, which is fixing a broken system. The pathfinders, the pilots and the reform are necessary and we must stick to our guns. My right hon. and hon. Friends are behind the Secretary of State.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend.

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

Can the Secretary of State tell me how in touch he is with those people who have wasted over six months waiting for PIP? What are we to say to our constituents when they cannot get an answer from his Department? Where is his humility and his accountability? How is he dealing with this?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

First, no wait that is not in accordance with the time it takes to do these assessments is acceptable. We are driving those down. For anybody who has been waiting, I accept that for them it is a personal tragedy. We want to change that, which is what we are doing. That is why we are doing it in this way, and I will come back to that point with some figures later. The point is that we introduced the changes with PIP because ultimately it will be a better system than DLA. Many people did not get the kind of service they needed under DLA, and that is the purpose of PIP.

[Joan Walley]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will come back to that point in a moment, but first I will make some progress.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Okay, but then I must make some progress.

[Gareth Johnson]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the most effective way of getting people out of poverty is by ensuring that they achieve employment? To that end, is he aware that not a single Labour Government, from the time they took office to the time they left, have ever reduced unemployment? I therefore urge him to stick with his policies.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I will return to the matter of unemployment later, but the reality is that we are driving unemployment down and employment up. Youth unemployment and long-term unemployment are falling as a result of this Government’s actions.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will make a little progress, because I am conscious that many Members wish to speak.

With regard to employment and support allowance, I make no secret of the fact that the process of reform is challenging; I have said so from the word go. There will always be issues when dealing with such delicate matters, but the question of how we deal with them and what lessons we learn is important. Let me remind the House that the previous Government, with our support—I thought that they were moving in the right direction—introduced the WCA, but the contract was a very difficult one. To break it arbitrarily would have cost over £30 million. What we saw at the beginning, and then had to change, was some very harsh decision making, particularly in relation to those with cancer and mental health conditions. Some 200,000 cases were then locked in the system in a growing backlog, and there were a very high and rising number of appeals. In fact, the previous Government had to increase spending on appeals by 1,500% at the time.

We have taken decisive action to deliver improvements. There have been four independent reviews, which have accepted over 50 Harrington recommendations. There is now an easier route into the support group for cancer sufferers, and there are three times more people with mental health conditions in the support group than there were in 2009. We ended the Atos contract a year early, with a significant sum paid back to the Department by Atos. More than 1.35 million incapacity benefit claimants have gone through the reassessment process, and 720,000 more people are now preparing or looking for work. Furthermore, appeals against ESA decisions are down by just under 90% and we are bringing in a new provider. The hon. Member for Leeds West pressed me about the new provider, so let me say something about it. We are going through the competition process and companies are willing to bid and compete. In due course, we will announce which companies secure the bid in the end. There will be a new provider.

Now we are doing the same to drive down the ESA backlog, which has fallen by 100,000 in the past few months—it is now about 688,000 and falling further. That is a good start, but I understand that there are concerns and issues that people want to raise. [Interruption.] I thought that somebody at the back wanted to intervene.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

You’re begging them to intervene.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I do not need people to intervene on me; the hon. Gentleman makes enough noise for all of them. One thing I do know is that he needs to listen more and talk less.

We made the deliberate choice to introduce PIP in a controlled and phased way. [Interruption.] It is good fun being opposite the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant); one does not need much of an audience with him sitting there.

We have taken the right approach. On PIP, the NAO said, “The Department has learnt from the controlled start in April 2013…the MPA identified the controlled start as a positive way to implement the programme and reduce the risks”. As I said, the delays faced by some people are unacceptable, and we are committed to putting that right. Already we have introduced a dedicated service to fast-track terminally ill people, and that is down to around 10 days and below. The Public Accounts Committee has said that too many people have waited longer than six months. By the autumn, no one will be waiting longer than six months, and before the end of the year, no one will be waiting for more than 16 weeks, which brings things back into line with where we were expecting them to be.

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

I am sure that the Secretary of State would not wish to mislead people watching this debate. Will he clarify what he means by “terminally ill”—somebody who is terminally ill, or somebody who has to die by a certain date?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is the definition given by the consultants who refer the people in question to the programme. That group will be seen and dealt with within the 10 days. That is the definition.

I repeat that by the end of the year those on PIP will not be waiting for longer than 16 weeks.

I say to the hon. Member for Leeds West, who made a poor speech, that my Department has a proven track record of delivery—[Interruption.] In that case, perhaps she will answer this question, which has been raised before. A little while ago, in March, she is recorded as having said that, left to her, “all the changes that the Government has introduced” in welfare reform would be reversed “and all benefits” could be and should be “universal”. She has been asked this question before. It was a quote. I will give way to her if she wants to deny it.

[Rachel Reeves]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

There we have it—we now know what the policy is.

[Rachel Reeves]

The right hon. Gentleman did not read out a quote and I deny what he said.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I have to say to the hon. Lady that it is reported that she said that “all changes that the Government has introduced” in welfare could be reversed and “all benefits can be universal”. That is what she is quoted as saying. I will send her the quote if she likes. This is important.

[Rachel Reeves]

As I said, what the right hon. Gentleman read out is not a quote of what I said and I deny that that is my view.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

In that case, will she explain why she was saying—to a group called the Christian socialists, I think—that all the changes that the Government have introduced to welfare can be reversed and all benefits can be universal? That is what she said.

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

To be fair to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), she spent 30 minutes not saying what she was going to do, so she may not have said what she was going to do then either.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

This is what is so interesting. Over the weekend, the lid was lifted on what is really going on. [Interruption.] They do not like this, because it is the truth. The hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham said of the Opposition employment policy announced the other day:

“We managed in the political world to condense it into one story about a punitive hit on 18 to 21-year-olds around their benefits. That takes some doing, you know, a report with depth is collapsed into one instrumentalised policy thing which was fairly cynical and punitive.”

He was making the point, I think, that the Opposition are failing to say what they really want to do. The hon. Lady let the cat out of the bag when she made it clear that the Opposition want to spend more on welfare and to reverse our changes to the welfare system.

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

Perhaps we could get back on track and scrutinise the performance of the Department for Work and Pensions. Will the Secretary of State confirm when he anticipates actually delivering 1 million people on universal credit? Will it be by 2191? At the current rate, it will be.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The hon. Lady asks that ridiculous question time and again. We are rolling out in accordance with the plan. Universal credit will have rolled out by 2016, delivering massive benefits. It would be good if the hon. Lady said at any stage that she wanted to support universal credit. Her party has voted against it and all the savings.

My Department has a proven track record of delivery. Nothing illustrates that more clearly than our employment reforms. Universal Jobmatch has transformed how almost 7 million jobseekers look for work, with an average of more than 4 million daily searches. Work experience has been one of the Government’s great successes for young people, with half of participants off benefits at a 20th of the cost of the future jobs fund. The Work programme has been better than any Labour programme. It helps more than any programme before, with half a million people having started a job and 300,000 having moved into lasting work. That was not the case under Labour. We are confident that the programme’s performance will improve, and the payment by results de-risks taxpayers and ensures value for money.

What we are seeing is remarkable. Unemployment is down by 347,000 on the year, the largest annual fall since 1998. Long-term unemployment is down by 108,000 on the year—again, the largest annual fall since 1998. Youth unemployment is down among those who have left full-time education; it is now at its lowest since 2008, down 94,000 on the year.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is making excellent points about the Government’s reforms and the maladministration under the Labour party. What about the other issue of the maladministration of pension credit? Under the last Labour Government, pension credit in my city was under-claimed to the tune of £10 million a year.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend makes a huge and important statement. The inefficiencies and chaos under Labour were so great that the welfare system was haemorrhaging money. There was a 60% increase in welfare spending—the party that really presided over chaos and malfunction is the Labour party.

Before I get on to some of Labour’s spending commitments, I should say that the hon. Member for Leeds West said to the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), that she had never had a letter from him. She has had many. In future, instead of making allegations, she might like to read her correspondence.

With a little over a year to go to the general election, this is the choice facing the electorate. On the one hand, there is the party that in government wasted £26 billion on botched IT programmes and lost £2.8 billion on catastrophic tax credit implementation, £500 million on scrapped Child Support Agency IT and £140 million on the axed benefit processing replacement programme in 2006. In opposition, the party has opposed every single measure of welfare reform and it would turn back the clock to reverse our progress—back to more borrowing and spending. Reversing the spare room subsidy would cost £1 billion over two years. The unfunded jobs guarantee has costs underestimated by £0.6 billion in the first year and £1.7 billion in future years. Skills training for all 18 to 21-year-olds below A-level would be hugely expensive given that 92% of all those not in education, employment or training do not even have GCSE numeracy skills. Paying older workers higher JSA would mean, because under-25s are already paid less, that money would have to be taken from those with lower contributions such as young people and carers. The welfare party has learned nothing.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

At one of my first Public Accounts Committee hearings in 2010, the permanent secretary of the Department said that, with the systems he had, he could not get losses through fraud and error much below £1 billion. Does the Secretary of State think we can do better?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We have already saved over £2 billion on fraud and error. We continue to drive that process forward, and there are more savings to be made. We have done remarkably well considering what we were left by Labour, which, as far as I can make out, did not even bother to try to save any money on fraud and error.

[Julie Hilling]

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why only one in 20 disabled people is getting work? He says that the number of people on benefits has dropped. How many of them have stopped claiming because of sanctions? Can he at least tell us what is the quality of the jobs that people are getting? How many are unpaid, how many are zero-hours contracts, and how many are part time?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

In fact, we have been more successful in getting disabled people back into work. The proportion of disabled people in work is now rising as a result of what we have been doing. On the back of the work capability assessment, some 700,000 people will now be seeking and finding work.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I hope to be able to raise this matter again if I am called to speak. Why did the Treasury have to borrow £13.5 billion extra above its target? The reason given was the fall in income tax receipts. People are now living on poverty wages—they are being forced into what the Secretary of State calls jobs, but they do not pay a wage that they can live on.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Fond as I am of the hon. Gentleman, the reality is that this coalition Government have raised the tax threshold, meaning that 26 million people now pay less tax and millions have been taken out of the lowest tax band altogether. That is a huge statement.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will give way one last time and then I must finish.

[Anne Marie Morris]

The Secretary of State should be truly proud that self-employment is now much more on the agenda of those going through jobcentres. When I did a review with the all-party group on micro-businesses, only half the job centres and Work programme providers were able to help people into self-employment. That is not the case any more. In my constituency, unemployment is down in the past 12 months by 33%, and many of the people coming into work are setting up their own businesses.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. By the way, the situation is the same for every Labour MP. They do not want to talk about the improvement in employment or the fall in unemployment. They do not even want to talk about the successes in getting the long-term unemployed back to work, on which we have done so much.

We have got Britain back to work. There is record high employment, with three quarters of the rise over the past year accounted for by UK nationals. Half a million people have started a job through the Work programme. We have seen the creation of nearly 50,000 new businesses through the new enterprise allowance. There is the lowest rate of economic inactivity on record. There is the lowest rate of workless households on record. We have a proven track record of delivery. Departmental baseline spending is down by £2 billion. The welfare cap is bringing £120 billion under new controls. Welfare spending is falling as a proportion of GDP. Reforms are set to save £50 billion. This is a record we can all be proud of—one of success, unlike Labour’s waste and failure.

18:13

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

We have to remember three things about welfare reform: first, it is fiendishly complicated; secondly, there are always unintended consequences; and thirdly, enacting such change takes a very long time and can often cost quite a lot of money. It is fiendishly complicated because people do not lead simple lives; they lead very complex lives. In modern Britain, we have very complex family circumstances. The welfare system has grown up over the decades with things being added and, very often, not being taken away because to do so might result in unintended consequences.

The unintended consequences arise because whenever any Government propose change, there are always things that they do not think about. I often think of welfare reform as being like a big blancmange—when you press down on one bit, something pops up somewhere else. For instance, when the Government decided that they were going to raise the pension age, I am pretty sure they did not think of the unintended consequences for the group of women born in 1953 or 1954 who have found that their state pension age has risen by almost two years. The Pensions Minister, who is in his place, has tried to get round that particular unintended consequence, but not with much success, and that group of people feel very aggrieved.

Even more complicated is universal credit, with six pre-existing benefits going into one benefit. It seems so simple to say, “Let’s have a single working-age benefit,” yet it is incredibly complicated. As soon as we start putting things together, as in universal credit, we get unintended consequences when we start to introduce things such as free school meals or child care and suddenly the disregards and tapers that were in the original plan seem to be not as good or generous as they might have been.

It takes a great deal of time to implement any change. That is why, over the years, previous Governments have looked at one area of welfare reform at most, and tackled that one area, only to find that it takes much longer than expected. When the previous Labour Government introduced employment support allowance and the work capability assessment, they thought that perhaps it could start to migrate two years into the process. Part of the problem in this area is that when the coalition Government came into office in 2010, they speeded up the migration process at a time when it was not working properly for new claimants. That is exactly what we see again with the introduction of the personal independence payment that is going to replace disability living allowance. The Secretary of State keeps saying, “We want to take time to get things right.” Well, there is taking time to get things right and there is a sensible speed of implementation.

The problems with ESA started when we started to migrate people from incapacity benefit to the new benefit. Those problems should have been solved for new claimants before the migration started. The Government have decided to slow down the migration of people from DLA to PIP for the very good reason that they have not got PIP working for new claimants. Part of the problem was that instead of doing a proper pilot so that there was a cohort who had gone through the whole process before it was rolled out across the country, the Government allowed only a month before rolling it out. As a result, not one single individual had gone through the whole process, so the Department did not know how long each assessment was going to take.

Reform takes a long time and needs to be done in stages. It is hard enough for any Government and any Department to implement change in one area of welfare, but this Government and this Department are trying to implement it in several areas. The problem is that they have bitten off more than they can chew. At last Monday’s DWP questions, I asked about the various backlogs. The Secretary of State said today that the backlog of those awaiting assessments for employment support allowance—work capability appointments—had fallen to 688,000. It was 700,000 at the beginning of last week, so it is certainly falling, but it is still a huge number and a huge backlog.

The Government have bitten off more than they can chew because they have forgotten the three basic lessons about welfare reform: it cannot be done easily, it cannot be done simply, and it costs a great deal of money.

18:19

[Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

It is a great privilege for me to be able to contribute to this debate, having worked in the Department for a number of years with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb). I believe these reforms are one of the most important parts of the plan for this country’s long-term economic recovery, because they are helping to recreate the environment for work and enterprise, rather than disempowering people and writing them off to a lifetime on benefits.

I listened with disbelief to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves). I expected a slightly more thoughtful contribution from her, so I was disappointed. These reforms were ducked by the Labour party when it was in government for 13 years. It had 13 years to put things right and missed the opportunity. I think it was clear to many Labour Members that things could not continue as they were. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the safety net had become a trap. Labour saw that, but it simply did not have the courage to act. My right hon. Friend does have the courage to act and it is he and his colleagues who will make progress.

It is this Government who are creating the environment that has allowed for 2 million more people to be employed in the private sector since the election, but it is the welfare reform programme that has helped to make sure that the jobs that have been created can be taken by the people who were on benefits. Some 3.6 million people have been helped off jobseeker’s allowance, including through the Work programme. The benefit cap has also encouraged more people to take up those new jobs, and universal jobmatch is enabling 4 million daily searches.

The hon. Member for Leeds West is right to say that this Government inherited significant challenges, but if we are going to succeed we have the right team to make it happen. They are not just taking forward a set of practical measures, as outlined by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee; they are also overseeing a cultural change. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not been afraid to talk about the role of work and its importance to families, as well as the corrosive effect of unemployment and intergenerational unemployment. The Labour party was perfectly prepared to sit back and see a generation of people trapped on long-term benefits. That is entirely inexcusable. It is this Government who want to consider what people can do, not simply disregard them for what they cannot do.

This debate would benefit from a few more facts being put on the table, particularly the fact that the overall spend on disability benefits will have been higher in every year up to 2015-16 than it was in 2010. My colleagues on the Front Bench are continuing to spend some £50 million a year to support disabled people. Under universal credit, the expenditure will increase by some £300 million. We will not write people off to a lifetime on benefits. We will provide the right support to help them get back into work.

We have not finished the job yet—there is a great deal more to do—and we will always have to make choices about the way that money is used, but we want to make sure that it is used for those who need it most. I am most pleased that that continues to be this team’s philosophy.

I am particularly concerned about the position in which many young people find themselves when they enter the job market. If we look at countries such as Spain, we see that the level of unemployment for many young people is pretty scary. Under Labour, youth unemployment increased by some 24%, but it has fallen under this Government. We should be proud of those figures and we should continue to make sure that they move in the right direction.

The future jobs fund failed so many thousands of young people and cost up to £6,500 per placement, but it simply did not provide young people with the long-term jobs that they wanted and expected. By contrast, when I visited my own local jobcentre recently I heard how, under the Youth Contract, work experience is enabling so many young people to get their foot in the door, to prove themselves and to convert the experience into a proper long-term job. That is the sort of programme we need more of, and I commend my colleagues for the work they are doing.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Maria Miller]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not; there is a time limit.

I urge my colleagues on the Front Bench to make sure that we do more to support more businesses to take on young people and give them the sort of opportunities I heard about at my local jobcentre in Basingstoke.

Time is far too short for me to make all the points I would have liked to make. The hon. Member for Leeds West said that this debate was about how we treated our fellow citizens, and I agree with her wholeheartedly. It is right that every one of our constituents is valued for who they are. It is important that we view them according to their abilities and do not simply write them off to a lifetime on benefits.

18:26

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I am sorry that the Secretary of State believes this debate is cynical and nonsense, because I have received more correspondence on, and more people have come to see me about, this single issue than any other over the past two years. That cannot be unique to North East Derbyshire; it must be true across the country. The experiences of my constituents and hundreds of thousands of others across the country suggest that the DWP and its programmes are in serious trouble. Given that more than 700,000 people are still waiting for work capability assessments and that the length of delays people are experiencing are pushing them into destitution, we really are getting into trouble.

This cannot only be about saving money. I said as much when the previous Labour Government were in power and I say it again in opposition. It has to be about finding work for those who are able to work and looking after those who are not able to work. It is really important that we prioritise that, rather than saving money from the DWP budget, because even under those terms the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the cost of the employment support allowance has risen since December by a shocking £800 million. It is very important that we focus on people.

It is also important that we concentrate on language, because we are sometimes in danger of talking about deserving and undeserving people on benefits and in poverty. Most people who are on benefits and social security are desperate to work. They are looking as hard as possible for work and they should not be called scroungers and skivers simply because the jobs are not there for them.

A constituent of mine is registered blind and has been on a Work programme for the past two years. He was given plenty of help to find work but could not find any. After two years, he has returned to the jobcentre, but he is no longer being given the support he needs as a blind person who is desperate to get into work. This man is not a scrounger—he is desperate to find work.

By the same token, Jamie Thompson, who is paraplegic, has been coming to see us for two years. He is not able to work—he is paralysed from the chest down—but he is being called in for face-to-face interviews every three months. Jamie knows how to contact his MP’s office and how to work with welfare rights, but it is wrong that he is constantly being called in. His condition will not change and his medical records will be the same every three months. I do not understand why the system is pulling Jamie in when it needs to focus on other things.

The last person I want to talk about is Andrew Birks, who has a 15-year-old daughter so severely disabled that she needs around-the-clock care. Both her parents work—they have always worked, and never claimed benefits—but Ella has now had her disability allowance withdrawn, which has pushed her parents into serious financial trouble. They have already waited three months for an appeal, and there is still absolutely no sign of it.

These are the sort of individual cases that I am getting. I have loads of them, and each demonstrates that there is a failure in the system with the DWP. As the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said, it is really complicated: the DWP has taken on a huge number of programmes, and many of them are just not delivering what they are supposed to deliver.

The welfare state is designed as a safety net to catch people who absolutely cannot help themselves—that is especially true for those with severe disabilities, who just cannot work—but I am really worried that that safety net is being withdrawn under this Government, which is certainly pushing some of my constituents into destitution. Not only my constituents but hundreds of thousands of people are being affected by the failings of the DWP. They cannot wait 10 months for the next general election; they need help now.

18:30

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

In the short time available, I want to make a few brief points. The first is that from listening to Labour Members one would never have thought that they had a record. In rolling out universal credit, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking the right approach. It is slower than we would originally have liked, but taking a careful approach has a lot to recommend it. When we were in opposition and the Labour party rolled out tax credits in a big bang, constituents of mine who needed the money were given the wrong amount and had to pay it back, so they were getting to the point at which they were pleading for the tax credits to be taken away. Taking a careful approach is very sensible. If she has not already done so, I hope that the shadow Secretary of State takes up my right hon. Friend’s offer to go to a jobcentre that is rolling out universal credit to see how the system is operating in practice. That would be very welcome.

It is worth saying that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been right to allow my right hon. Friend to be the Secretary of State for a significant period so that he can see the reforms through. I looked at what happened under the Labour party: in the nine years that the Department for Work and Pensions existed, there were eight Secretaries of State. To be fair, one or two Secretaries of State tried some reforms, but they were barely in the job long enough to think about them or to design policies before they were moved on. It is to this Government’s credit that we have allowed Cabinet Ministers to be in an office, come up with policies, implement them, deal with the difficulties—there will inevitably be some in making the largest welfare reform programme for decades—and see them through. My hon. Friend the Secretary of State discussed and was passionate about the issues before we entered government, and it is very welcome that he has had the chance to see the reforms through.

To turn to my constituency, I want to draw the House’s attention to the benefit cap, which the Labour party opposed. I must say that the only feedback I have ever had in my constituency is that we set the benefit cap too high. In a constituency where the average individual salary is only £24,000 to £25,000, my constituents think that £26,000 net income, which is equivalent to £35,000 gross, is quite generous. Families who work hard for many hours to support themselves do not see why other people should take away more money from hard-working taxpayers than they get for working. The cap is the right policy, and it is to the Labour party’s discredit that it opposed it instead of supporting us in doing what is right. I suspect that many Labour voters support the benefit cap, and think that we are right and that the Labour party is wrong about the policy.

On the difficulties of assessments, I have checked with my office to make sure that I can speak with the facts. On the employment and support allowance, that difficult welfare reform was started by the Labour party with, to be fair, our support. When the Labour Government tried to do the right thing, we supported them, but Labour Members have been sorely lacking in such a cross-party approach. I am afraid that the instant they were on the Opposition Benches, any pretence of being interested in welfare reform fell away. I do not know what the reason was—whether it was their union paymasters or just opportunism—but they have never supported anything that we have done, despite our more cross-party approach.

The main issues about assessments are related to the performance of Atos. As I said in an intervention, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has responsibility for disabled people, looked into the issues I raised, and wrote thoughtful and considered replies, which I shared with local citizens advice bureaux, and we have managed to speed up the assessments for my constituents. However, I must say that the problem was inherited from the Labour party. The contract was very poor. I know that Ministers took action—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will not give way, because I am very limited on time.

I am very pleased that Ministers took thoughtful action so that the contract could be ended with Atos having to pay compensation to the Department and to the taxpayer, rather than the taxpayer having to compensate Atos.

[Dame Anne Begg]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Harper]

I will give way to the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Dame Anne Begg]

If the hon. Gentleman is right that the Atos contract for the delivery of the work capability assessment was a mess, why is he not criticising his Government for using the same company on a new contract for a very different benefit called personal independence payment?

[Mr Harper]

That is partly because she did not give me a chance. I was talking about the employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment. Atos has not performed well on the work capability assessment, and I am very pleased that that has been terminated, but it had to be done thoughtfully so that compensation was due from the company to the taxpayer, not the other way round.

The Secretary of State set out very carefully the Government’s approach to rolling out personal independence payment. It is the right policy to deliver more support for disabled people, and to help them to get into work and to live independent lives. I am not pretending that it is easy—it is a difficult thing to do—and I am pleased that the Secretary of State has had the courage to continue.

On employment, we must recognise that there are 2 million more jobs in the private sector. I forget which Opposition Member tried to suggest that all these new jobs are simply schemes. The fact that there are 2 million more jobs in the private sector means that, even with the difficult decisions we have had to take in reducing jobs in the public sector, there has been an overall net increase of 1.7 million jobs.

What I am proudest of—as a combination of our immigration policy, employment and welfare policies and skills agenda—is the fact that three quarters of the jobs created since the election have gone to British citizens. In the five years up to the crash, the Labour party’s policies meant that less than 10% of the jobs that were created benefited British citizens. That was a disastrous failure and a policy mistake that I am glad this Government have put right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can be proud of his record, and this party can be proud to support him in the Division Lobby this evening.

18:38

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman will in future regret taking such pride in his Secretary of State. We have all become used to the way in which the Secretary of State avoids answering any kind of direct question or actively engaging in any of the serious issues about the destruction of the welfare state and his Department’s total and utter incompetence by opting for a self-serving, sanctimonious sermon as opposed to any direct speech. I seem to recall, to go back a very long way, that he stood at the Dispatch Box and avowedly took exclusive responsibility for the delivery of everything from IT systems to universal credit in order to take people out of poverty, when what he has in fact done is to plunge thousands and thousands of our fellow citizens into the most abject penury.

Today, the Secretary of State still managed to avoid any kind of reference to the realities of the situation for all those people affected when Atos had its contract for the work capability assessment renewed many months ago. I distinctly remember that the Select Committee was quite forensic in examining how Atos would prioritise, as the Secretary of State and the Government told us it would, the needs of disabled and vulnerable people, particularly those with mental health difficulties. Atos confirmed that that would be an absolute target. There would be champions for people with mental health difficulties and detailed examination of every single individual who came forward for a work capability assessment. Despite the Harrington recommendations, to which the Secretary of State referred, there have been no marked improvements for people who are waiting for ESA—we have already heard those figures.

I will give a precise example of just how chaotic the system is. One of my constituents, who is paraplegic, was placed on ESA. Another constituent is 26 years old and has the mental capacity of a six-year-old, and is consistently having to go for work capability assessments. I find it absolutely impossible to believe that Government Members have no constituents coming to them in similar or even worse situations; yet they find the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) hilarious. They find it really funny that we have seen an explosion in food banks being used by people who are working.

I point out to the Secretary of State that he furnished absolutely no evidence—no Government Member did—that the jobs that all Government Members are trumpeting have been created during his sovereignty of the Department for Work and Pensions are actually being created by his policies. Other Government Members trumpet that the new jobs are being created by the private sector.

One certain thing in an uncertain world is that 48% of appeals—I am talking about ESA; I do not want there to be any confusion—are upheld, yet people on ESA are waiting for months before their appeals are heard. During that period they are told to apply for jobseeker’s allowance, but they cannot do so because they are told that they are unfit for work. They are therefore without any financial support at all. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) said, the welfare state was created to protect people from falling through the cracks. But this particular Secretary of State, along with his Department, is pushing people through those cracks and hoping that the rest of the country will not notice that they have disappeared. I believe that the rest of the country is noticing that—that it is the most vulnerable in our society who are being punished.

That is a shame and an utter disgrace for the Secretary of State. At some point I am pretty certain that he will claim that he can walk on water, but he cannot. His Department is not delivering any of the promises that were made, not to the Opposition but to the people of this country. People are being maligned and bad-mouthed. It is being presented to the country as though there are plenty of jobs out there for those people but they are too idle ever to take them. That is not the case, as Government Members know, and as the Secretary of State should know. Perhaps he is floating so high in his self-appointed sanctity that he has forgotten what is actually happening out there in this country as a direct result of his incompetence and failure to accept his responsibilities.

18:43

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I hope my contribution to the debate will be the calm after the storm. I had enormous respect for the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) when, aged 13, I first saw her on television playing Queen Elizabeth I, but her contribution today was over the top and largely unwarranted.

That is not to say that there are not problems that all of us in every constituency across the land have heard about from our constituents. Often the problems are to do with disabilities and with moving from one benefit system to another. Very often they are to do with work capability assessments that have been carried out by a contractor whose contract has been terminated. Let us not forget that that contractor was originally given a monopoly contract by the Opposition.

To some extent we all share in the problems that some of our constituents have had. We all have to recognise that, as individual constituency MPs, we have to do our bit to raise those issues with the Department where necessary, as well as with Atos, and to fight the corner for individual constituents to make sure that their problems are resolved as quickly as possible. My experience certainly has been that the system does respond. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), has listened. I have had meetings with him and telephone conferences with Atos, and am bringing Atos to meet the citizen’s advice bureau in my constituency precisely to go through particular outstanding unresolved cases.

I come back now to the nature of the debate. When I stood for Parliament, my main motivation was to try to make real two simple and uncontroversial goals: first, that work always pays; secondly, that saving always pays. I am afraid that neither was true after 13 years of the previous Government. Arguably the country had moved further from both, because the relationship between work and benefits was made much more complicated by the introduction of things such as tax credits and because we had a system in which the effective marginal tax rate was strongly disincentivising people from coming back to work. Savings did not pay in many cases because a lot of pensioners were better off not through having small amounts of savings but, as they still are, by getting means-tested pensions. I should be grateful to the Opposition, because those two particular goals, which were not truths in 2010, inspired me to get involved and eventually brought me to this House.

Interestingly, in the motion there is absolutely no mention of pensions whatever. I cannot help wonder whether that was precisely because what this Government have done on pensions has been so important and so right, and has been well supported across the House. The motion therefore focuses on the other aspect of what the Department does, which is work and, in particular, welfare benefits.

Let me touch briefly on a few specific points. As I said, we have all had to deal with issues about work capability assessments and some constituents with disabilities. But as I have also mentioned, the Government and Ministers have tried their best to resolve those problems when they have been raised.

The Work programme is not perfect—let us not pretend that everything has been solved—but it is working. People are getting back to work, and the numbers are increasing: I think the figure is now one in 17 people in work as a result rather than one in 26 as it was only a few months ago. The new work experience places, which are mostly in business and so give a greater opportunity for a sustainable future job, are costing one twentieth of the cost of the future jobs fund.

Compassion is incredibly important, but money matters in this game, because there is no social justice in bankrupting the public finances. Neither should there be any pride in the predecessor of the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), saying that he was sorry there was no money left, as if this were some form of teddy bears’ picnic. It is a lot more serious than that. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) mentioned some of her constituents. She is absolutely right that when there is no money left, creative and innovative solutions have to be found.

In the time that remains to me, I want gently to question the origins of the motion. I sense there is an attempt to rewrite the situation as a new dawn. Opposition Front Benchers have no clear policy. I am still not sure whether they support the reforms being made to social welfare, which their entire party opposed, whether they are trying to achieve more savings, in which case I am not quite clear how, or whether they are trying to cast aspersions about waste, especially in universal credit. There have been some problems with that but they are tiny by comparison with the problems with IT in the NHS that the previous Government had.

Let us not pretend that implementing complicated IT programmes is a simple matter: as the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), said, these are complicated matters. Some mistakes have been made, which have been discussed and debated in this House many times, and I believe that we are firmly on the right track. I support the reforms, and want universal credit to be rolled out as quickly as possible.

18:49

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

May I make one point in this debate and seek one undertaking?

The issues that we are debating are immensely important, particularly for large numbers of our constituents. One advantage of being in this place for 35 years is that one notices the changes. I notice that two of the Government Members who are present are part of a parliamentary inquiry into hunger and food poverty. They have therefore had the opportunity to look at what is happening elsewhere in the country and not only in their backyard.

The Secretary of State used one phrase that stung me into action. I wish to address that rather than say what I was going to say. He said that one problem with the Labour Government was that we just paid out money too easily.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Did I?

[Mr Field]

I have the quotation here, although perhaps I did not get it right. The Secretary of State said that Labour “wasn’t delivering the money”. It is the delivery of the money that I would like to take him up on and on which I would like to seek the undertaking.

Many of our constituents—not just those of Opposition Members, but those of Government Members—become dependent only and totally on benefit for part of their life. How effectively, efficiently and quickly that benefit is delivered is of immense importance. For many of our constituents, although not all, claiming benefit is not a pleasant thing to do. They do not do it lightly or think that they gain out of it, other than gaining the hope that they will have money with which to put food on the table. It is quite clear not only from my constituency, but from going around the country, that there is a growing difficulty for people in gaining benefit in an adequate space of time. It is undignified not to have money. It is appalling to have to grovel across the counter for money. The alternative of attending food banks is, for many people, a very last resort.

The Department has rules. It makes judgments about who is out of money, and money is paid to people in those circumstances. I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that an undertaking is given in the concluding remarks that he will look at how well—or not well—those rules are working. Although some people are without money because sanctions have been applied against them, others are seeking benefit genuinely but are not gaining it. When I asked the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb) how many people had been without benefit for one month, two months and three months, he said that the Department did not know. Just imagine what it is like having no money and waiting one day, let alone months, for benefit to come through. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to give the undertaking that the safety measures that the Department has in place will be reviewed and new rules brought in quickly, so that people are not left dangling at the end of a string, destitute, waiting for decisions that do not come.

18:53

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). He is the exception to what I am about to say, because he typified the thoughtful approach to welfare reform that is sadly lacking from the Opposition.

Opposition parties of all persuasions have the habit of falling into a trap. They lose an election and assume that it was the voters who got it wrong, not the politicians. They hope that in three to four years, the voters will see the error of their ways and return to the true path. They think that normal service will be resumed and that everything will be okay. That is what my party did after 1997. It took us many years to understand properly why the voters had rejected us.

Four years into this coalition Government, I fear that the same is occurring on the Opposition Benches. The Opposition still think that the voters got it wrong in 2010 and that all they need to do is oppose, oppose, oppose. We have seen no evidence of any alternative economic narrative to explain what happened before 2010. More importantly, we have heard no narrative on welfare reform. We hear clear criticisms. We heard a thoughtful speech from the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, who made some useful points. However, I am still not clear whether Opposition Members want to see the reforms halted immediately or whether they want the implementation to improve. There is no clarity, just confusion.

Nowhere is that more apparent than in the area of youth unemployment. That is a concern of mine, because I represent a seaside town that has seasonal employment patterns. Yet what do we see from the Opposition? We see a jobs guarantee that shows no sign of not repeating the errors that made the future jobs fund expensive and that meant it was not a pathway into long-term work. Crashing into that policy comes a new punitive regime for those who are furthest away from work and have the most challenges to overcome. Despite that, they seem to be the ones who will be punished the most. It seems to be built in to the Labour strategy that there will inevitably be educational failure between the ages of 18 and 24. I cannot begin to understand that as a policy model. It fits with the critique by the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) that these policies are not thought through or discussed, but are nuggets that are delivered for a Sunday paper. That really does concern me.

I understand that Labour has a paternalistic view of the world. It wants people to see that it has a cadre with a managerial attitude. It wants to ensure that there is a strong state with strong state institutions that will manage away the bad things in life. If only life were that simple.

If there is one individual who has done more over the past decade to understand the real nature of poverty in this country than anyone else, it is the Secretary of State. Despite what the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) said, he has dedicated the past decade or more of his life to understanding the true nature of poverty in towns such as mine. Blackpool has the fourth most deprived ward in the country and I see on a daily basis what poverty actually means for families in real situations. It is not something that I see in my surgery week after week, day after day. I always find it annoying when Opposition Members say that we have no idea what is going on. They should come and sit in some of my constituency surgeries. I offer real, practical help. I do not just read out examples in the Chamber of the House of Commons and say, “There you are. Get on with it.”

I want to make another wider point about Labour policy. The motion promises a guaranteed waiting time for personal independence payment assessments. It is hard to disagree with that. We have heard from both sides of the Chamber about delays to people’s assessments. It is fair to say that many people are still waiting too long. I recognise that the Government are seeking to do something about that.

However, I ask the Labour party to think a little more carefully about what it is promising. If somebody applies for PIP, there is no guarantee that they will have a face-to-face assessment. The moment one implements an arbitrary time frame within which that assessment should occur, one sets up a deadline. Whenever there is a deadline in the benefits system, there will be people who fall either side of it. It is like the unintended consequences to which the Chair of the Select Committee pointed. If there is a deadline and the assessment can be accelerated so that it is carried out within the deadline, we risk people having to go through face-to-face assessments who otherwise would not have to do so. We should all know from our constituency surgeries that such face-to-face assessments can be an ordeal, especially for those with mental health problems. I understand that it is a policy born of sympathy, but it has a dangerous element of the target culture within it.

From my point of view, it is far better to focus on the philosophy of continuous improvement that Ministers have adopted. We were grateful that the Harrington report came in and that it was followed by the Litchfield report. We have tried to act on all that and to make improvements in the delivery of benefits. Waiting times are coming down.

What worries me more than anything else is the constant and complete refusal by Opposition Members to countenance any sort of welfare reform. They regard opposition as an opportunity not to have to reform anything. What we are left with is a party that offers no analysis and no answers, and that, as a consequence, has no credibility on welfare reform.

18:59

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

The original title for today’s debate announced last Thursday was “Chaos and waste at the Department for Work and Pensions”, not “Performance of the Department for Work and Pensions”, and for me, the original title is apt. I emphasise that staff at DWP offices are not the target of my remarks, or those of Opposition Members, because I think the blame lies squarely at the door of this Government who have pursued policies that have been harsh in intent and in effect, and have too often failed to provide the desired results. Today’s motion mentions a fair few of the current catastrophes of policy, administration, oversight and structural areas. I agree with the motion, and Plaid Cymru will vote with the Labour party tonight.

If Labour forms the next Government, the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is quoted as saying that Labour would be “Tougher than the Tories” on benefits. Some of that may well be the froth of political journalism and serious points taken out of context without looking at the detail. However if Labour Members are the victims of a coarse and vindictive press, they seem all too willing to embrace that status—alas, it appears to me, for the sake of headlines.

The motion notes the Government’s policies and their failure to manage the change that they have instigated, and even a cursory glance will bring up areas not covered in the motion that go beyond the delay to universal credit, the crisis in PIP, and the harshness and cost-ineffectiveness of the bedroom tax, not to mention the benefits cap. A whole host of Government policies have contributed to the misery that so many vulnerable people suffer.

Hon. Members will need no reminding of the work of Atos and the work capability assessment—we have already heard a great deal about that this afternoon—as well as seemingly endless cases of people with serious illnesses, or even those at the very door of death, being passed as fit for work. We all have such cases, and the temptation in a situation such as this is to quote the most extreme ones. There are a few extreme cases, but here is one of mine that comes not from the extreme end but is, I am afraid, typical: a man with angina, severe breathing problems, crippling arthritis and who is waiting for surgery was passed as fit for work. He is one representative of many people not on the extreme end, and he was passed through a points system that is clearly still not fit for purpose—I say still, but will it ever be fit for purpose?

My central criticism of the system is that the person in front of the assessor disappears and becomes dehumanised—a collection of tick-boxes and points scored. When I started, more than 30 years ago, representing people to the Department of Health and Social Security, the system was far from perfect. I recall having to plead for an extra blanket for someone, arguing that the applicant lived in a particularly cold area. I had to contend with advice from the Government’s expert advisers saying that food in half-empty tins was better left in the can, so applicants could not possibly qualify for the luxury of a Tupperware pot. I am not, therefore, starry-eyed about the old system, but it allowed workers to build up an expertise, have some discretion and prioritise. They could, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said earlier to the Secretary of State, apply basic, simple common sense, which is denied to them by a system based on ticking the boxes.

Earlier this year the Welsh Government published the second part of their third and final report on the impact of the UK Government’s welfare reform changes in Wales. It shows that Wales’s total loss of income as a result of Westminster’s plans for social security will be around £930 million a year by 2015-16. Of all the local authority areas in Wales, Neath Port Talbot, Blaenau Gwent and Merthyr Tydfil are estimated to be hardest hit by the welfare reforms as analysed. Those last two local authorities are probably the most deprived in Wales, and they are being hit the hardest. Neath Port Talbot has a high level of long-term sickness and disability from its heavy industry.

Although losses will vary widely depending on individual circumstances, the average loss to a working-age adult in those areas is estimated at around £600, compared with £500 for Wales as a whole. The people of Wales—no more than those in north-west or western England, or elsewhere—cannot afford such losses without major ill effects throughout society. We cannot afford this Government, and on present form I fear we will not be able to afford the next one either.

19:05

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

The motion before the House is wide-ranging, and I will concentrate on three fairly niche areas in some detail. The motion notes that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) recently commented in the Work and Pensions Committee on work capability assessment throughput, but it fails to note what officials then said about that issue before the Committee. Those officials told the Committee that the Department has hugely improved performance. What does that mean? They said that a month has been taken off the front end of the application process for WCA, which has been reduced from 92 days to 60 days. Clearly, that is not good enough yet, but it is a huge important improvement at the front end. Once the WCA decision has been made, the further decision has also been reduced by a month: from 42 days to 12 or 14 days. Considerable changes have been going on in the Department that are beneficial to applicants.

We also know that the number of benefit decision appeals fell by 79% to just over 30,000 between January and March this year, compared with the same time last year. Why? It is because mandatory reconsideration put itself into the mix and ensured that fewer such applications go to appeal. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) will say that some of that is to do with legal aid, and I suspect she may be right. However, the load on the costly appeals process is also reducing, so it seems that the Department has an exemplary track record, within itself and its own machinations, of reacting positively to the changes to WCA.

Where is the delay occurring? The answer has to be, with Atos. To understand that, we must look at where the WCA came from. The WCA was introduced in 2008, and within that legislation five annual assessments were put into the mix. We have now had four of those—three from Harrington and one from Paul Litchfield—and it is clear that the design, scope and outcomes from the WCA were wholly inadequate from the beginning. Large numbers of improvements were recommended. Those of the three Harrington reviews and Paul Litchfield have largely been not just accepted by the Government but implemented, but in short, Atos’s capacity does not match the increase in quality demanded. That is because the original contract and the price the Government paid for it is simply not enough to allow it to do the job that Parliament, quite rightly, demands.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[George Hollingbery]

No, I will not, because we all have a limited speaking time.

I think the Minister was right to end the Atos contract and re-let it because it seems that Atos did not have the capacity to do what it needed to do. It is somewhat ironic that the Opposition motion should seek to emphasise something that was caused entirely by actions taken by Labour when in government and that this Government are taking huge steps to improve, and which Opposition Back Benchers have—quite reasonably and vociferously—demanded. I believe that that improvement, which we all want, has made it more difficult for Atos to pursue what it is supposed to pursue.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[George Hollingbery]

No. I have already made it clear that I am not going to give way. The risk register is also identified in the motion—[Interruption.] I notice that my time now seems to be infinite, which is absolutely splendid—[Interruption.] The clock has now dropped down to three minutes. I should have said nothing.

The motion demands a publication of the risk register held by the Department. That is hardly a new argument, and in the short time I have been in this House it has been made many times about a similar document held by the national health service. Let me quote the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)—the shadow Health Secretary—from 23 March 2007 when he was asked whether he would release the NHS risk register:

“Putting the risk register in the public domain would be likely to reduce the detail and utility of its contents. This would inhibit the free and frank exchange of views about significant risks and their management, and inhibit the provision of advice to Ministers. We cannot therefore agree to place a copy of the current version of the register in the Library.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2007; Vol. 458, c. 1192W.]

That was then, as now, very sensible advice.

Do we really think it a good idea for the Government to make public all their plans for the management of every conceivable risk that they might encounter in any particular programme? Surely we cannot. As the right hon. Member for Leigh pointed out, it is essential that Ministers and officials can have free and frank exchanges behind closed doors on the risks to their Department. If they are inhibited from doing so in any way, they are most likely not to consider those risks in a free and frank way, and we will not have the benefit of the exercise in the first place. It is a preposterous proposition. All officials and all Ministers need a place where they can talk safely about what might happen to their Departments in extremis.

Finally, I have some facts and figures on the Work programme—I am sorry, but it is hard to avoid statistics in the argument. Some 300,000 long-term unemployed people have found lasting work using the Work programme. There has been an increase of 44,000 people in jobs in the past three months alone. Long-term unemployment has fallen by 108,000 in the past year, which is the largest fall in 16 years. Some 296,000 people have so far found lasting work, which is up from 132,000 a year earlier. The vast majority of those who find sustained employment remain in work beyond the six-month point or, for the hardest-to-help, the three-month point. More than 274,000 participants have gone on to find work beyond those points.

Performance has continually improved, with all contracts meeting the minimum performance levels in the third year of the programme. In the most recent cohort, nearly 28% were placed in a sustained job, up from 22% of those who joined at the beginning of the programme. Out of any group, young people proportionately have secured the largest number of sustainable jobs—71,640 have done so since the programme began. In short, the Work programme is truly working for those participating in it, and I shall certainly not support the motion.

19:11

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

This is an important and timely debate, given the serious concerns that have been raised about systemic problems in the Department for Work and Pensions in recent times. However, the most visible sign of those problems is the increasing number of people at the sharp end of welfare reform—those who have been incorrectly assessed, or those who have to wait inordinate amounts of time for claims and appeals to be processed.

It is only fair to say that there have been problems in our welfare system for many years, but what disturbs me is the steep increase in the number of people who are looking for help with disability benefits in the past couple of years. Significantly more people in desperate need are looking for referrals to food banks and other forms of charitable support.

A lot has been said in the debate about the introduction of personal independence payments. I am glad that the Government have set out a timetable. I asked a question on that last week but did not get an answer. For people who have no money, 16 weeks is still an incredibly long time to wait. What are folk going to do for those three and a half months? Two constituents of mine have waited more than 37 weeks for PIP assessments. They got them only after my interventions. In one case, I had to send not one but two chaser letters. Quite a bit was said about letters going back and forth. Surely the point is that, if the system worked, we would not have to send all those letters. If the system worked, letters would be an exception, not the rule. Instead, we have dozens of cases on our books. Another constituent has waited 25 weeks for an assessment. When he had the assessment, it took a further nine weeks for the outcome to be forwarded to the disability and carers service. That, too, needed to be chased.

On the work capability assessment, I met a constituent in her early 50s just a couple of weeks ago who lost her employment and support allowance in November last year having been found fit for work, even though her GP considers her unfit for work. She is now in the bizarre and unacceptable position that the jobcentre will not let her sign on for jobseeker’s allowance because it recognises that she is not well enough to be available for work. She cannot even get to the jobcentre without assistance. Currently, her sole income is £84 a month in disability living allowance. She is living off food parcels from a local church food bank. That is not acceptable and such women are being very badly let down. The other serious issue is that local authorities, housing associations and voluntary sector organisations are picking up the tab. They have to deal with the consequences, whether that is rent arrears, crisis support or dealing with the emergency needs of people who would otherwise be destitute.

Another constituent’s claim for ESA was initially disallowed. The consequent accrual of rent arrears led to her being evicted, becoming homeless and being separated from her child. After a period of sleeping rough, she was housed in temporary accommodation. After my involvement, the DWP accepted “errors and delays” both in the handling of her claim and in the mandatory reconsideration process. The woman now receives ESA, which she should have had in the first place, and she has been re-housed, but the human cost of her homelessness and being unable to care for her child is incalculable, as is the impact on her child. The cost to the local authority and the public purse was massive. Money was wasted unnecessarily and it would not have been spent if the DWP functioned properly.

I have concentrated on individual cases, but I have a more general observation. People who are losing out on incapacity-related benefits such as ESA are also those most likely to lose out as a result of changes to DLA and the move to PIP. They are also the most likely to lose out on housing support, especially if they live in private sector accommodation. Of course, with the cost of living rising much more quickly than benefits uprating, those most dependent on state support are falling further behind everybody else and are being squeezed ever harder.

ESA claimants tend to be older and have tended to work in lower-skilled manual occupations. They are also disproportionately concentrated in areas with the most challenging labour market conditions. That geographic distribution is extremely problematic for those with less severe disabilities and health conditions, who are less likely to qualify for support under the new regime. They will be seeking work in the areas where they are least likely to be able to find it.

The Government’s argument today is as it has been since they embarked on the welfare reform process: they argue that they are removing barriers for disabled people and those with long-term conditions. Who can argue with that? Hon. Members agree with the Government on that, but the Government are failing to come to terms with the fact that we cannot assume that a greater supply of sick and disabled people entering the labour market will lead to increased demand from employers for older workers with poor health records, especially in areas where the local economy is weak. The Government need to understand that the income lost by people who lose support is unlikely to be fully replaced by earnings, even for those who find work, because that work is likely to be low paid and part time. That divide between the very poor and everyone else, and between the wealthiest and most deprived communities, is likely to grow as a consequence.

Welfare reform was an opportunity to address some of the systemic problems in our social security provision, but it has been used as a vehicle to slash support to those with disabilities and health conditions. It has created chaos not just in the machinery of government, but in the lives of people who depend on that essential support. Any of us could be in that position at some point in our lives.

The bottom line is that the Government have not shown that they can be trusted to deliver a fair and decent welfare system. The sooner such decisions can be made in Scotland, for Scotland, by people we have voted for, the better.

19:17

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

We are talking about chaos and waste in the welfare system, but I can think of no bigger risk than for a new country to try to produce a new welfare system at top speed. Who knows what damage will be done in that situation? I therefore cannot agree with the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford).

If we want to know what chaos in a welfare system looks like, we can look back four long years to 2010, when far too many people claimed too many different benefits for far too long, at too great a cost to the taxpayer. The incoming Government had to tackle that situation. I normally agree with the Work and Pensions Committee Chair, who is wise and learned on such issues, but I do not think she was right to imply that the solution to the risks and unknown problems of welfare reform—she was right about those—is to do nothing. We have been bolting on new and enhanced bits to the system for decades. She says, “Let’s leave it like that. If we bolt on a few more bits and make a few tweaks, we can sort it all out,” but at some point a Government had to bite the bullet and say, “We need a new system. We have to make it simpler and clearer for people to understand what they are claiming. We need to make it easier for people to know when they need to notify the Government of changes.” Fundamentally, the Government needed to make it easier to administer the system. We could not continue with people claiming six different benefits at the same time, not knowing what they were doing. That was not fair on them or on the system. That is what led to the huge amount of fraud and error that this Government and the previous one have been trying to tackle in different ways without getting the number down by very much. The only way out of the mess is a simpler benefits system that everyone can understand.

We must all accept that progress on universal credit has not happened at the speed that the Government planned and that we would all have liked, but what was the alternative? Was the alternative for the Government to press on and say, “It would be bad news to slow down. Let’s press on at full speed and hope we get it right”? That would have been a complete disaster and a terrible political decision to take. It would have risked people not getting the benefits to which they are entitled. In the early days, they might have got more than they were entitled to, before finding that they had to pay it back a few months later. That situation would have been unacceptable. We saw that with tax credits and were right to learn from the mistakes. The Government are right to say, “Look, we have problems with the system. Let’s slow it down and trial it properly. Let’s get it right before we put millions of people through it and risk making their lives even harder.” That was the right decision.

I note that the motion does not mention the positive things that the Department has done. It does not mention that unemployment is down—by 31% in my constituency in the last year. It does not mention the pension changes, which are huge steps in the right direction. Nor does it mention the child maintenance reforms. I shall not suggest that they will work perfectly first time—that would be a brave claim after the history of the last 20 years—but the system now looks fairer and tries to encourage the right behaviour, not the wrong behaviour.

The welfare reforms are very important and we need to get them right. We need people to have faith in the welfare system. What we hear on the doorstep is that people do not believe that the system is fair. They do not believe that the people who get benefits actually deserve them, but we all know that most people who get benefits are entitled to them, they claim the right amount and they try to work the system properly. The only way to change the public perception so that people see that the system is fair is to get it right, drive out the errors and complexity, and show that it is fair.

As part of that, assessments need to work. It is clear that the Atos contract was failing miserably. It was too tight a price and the company was forced to try to go for volume rather than quality. We need to go in the right direction on that. I also accept that the PIP assessments started out too slowly. The contractors were trying to get them right, but they were taking far longer than it was thought they would. What did we want the contractors to do—rush the assessments or have unqualified people perform them? That would not have been a sensible approach.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the important thing about the PIP assessments is that they are done correctly? Interestingly, some people are getting a higher award because the assessments are being done properly now.

[Nigel Mills]

My hon. Friend is right. We both represent Derbyshire, a region that was in the initial phase of PIP, so we have seen how the system went wrong at the start. I would be the first to blame the contractor for some of the mistakes that were made, the speed at which the assessments were done, and how hard it was to get any information. That is now improving slowly, and I commend the Minister for making real changes that are helping. I sincerely hope that when we let the new work capability assessment contract, we learn from the problems of too little money, too much volume and too slow a pace. We need to get these contracts right because we need people to have faith that the assessments produce the right answer; otherwise, we will be in a right mess and have no one who can deliver these assessments in a way that is trusted. We need the next contractor to be supported to get this right. It needs to perform and we need to help it perform. We need to watch the next contract award carefully to make sure that it is got right. We all want a welfare system that is fair and seen to be fair, but if we cannot achieve that it will be a disaster for our society.

19:23

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). I agree with a couple of the things he said; I agree that the programme has had a bumpy start, but I disagree that the bumpy start is over. I also agree with him that we need to get things right in order to build confidence in the benefit system. For many reasons, that confidence is not as high as we want it to be, and one of those reasons is the corrosive language that we often hear about people who claim benefits.

Darlington is in the north-east, but unemployment there is consistently lower than the regional average. People in my constituency work hard, and they want claimants to be challenged and people to demonstrate why they need benefits, but the system is not working. I shall give a few examples of real case studies. They are still live cases that have been raised with the Department, but they have not been resolved. I would like an assurance from the Minister that we will get a better service from the Department when things go wrong. They go wrong frequently, and despite what the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box earlier, we are not getting an adequate response from him or his officials.

One case involves a woman who was advised to claim DLA in April 2013. She had a medical and waited to hear what would happen next. She was told she would have to have a medical, but she had already had one. She was told that PIPs were replacing DLA so she would have to claim all over again. In June 2013, she received a letter referring to a letter she had been sent in May, but she had not received that letter. She asked about progress in September 2013 and she was told that her claim was with Atos for internal audit. In October 2013, she raised the issue with me, because she had no money and had to go to the food bank to feed herself and her five-year-old son. She was unable to pay her rent and her gas, electricity and water bills. I contacted the PIP office in October and again in November. It said that it was having trouble getting Atos to respond to its queries. In February this year she finally got her PIP payment. It took nearly a year to resolve, but we got there in the end. Other people are still waiting.

A young man with autism desperately wanted to work, so he volunteered for help from a training provider—Avanta—which then sanctioned him for not complying because he did not understand what he was meant to be doing. Three months later, that case is still not resolved.

I received an e-mail from someone who suffers from various diagnosed mental health problems. He has been found fit for work by Atos so he decided to stop taking his medication. After all, as he said, Atos had said that he was cured. He was later sectioned having been found in a distressed state.

I am not revealing the names of these people as they have asked me not to do so, but their cases give a flavour of the problems that my colleagues and I frequently deal with. Another person had an appointment for an Atos medical in Thornaby on 27 June. Thornaby is a perfectly good place, but it is tricky to get there from Darlington on public transport. It takes at least two bus journeys and the building has stairs and is not properly accessible. My constituent has spondylosis, tennis elbow and sciatica after years of working as a labourer. He telephoned Atos and was told that his GP had to fax a letter explaining why he needed a home visit. He asked Atos to give him a later appointment so that he could get there on time. Because the Thornaby site is so difficult to get to, Atos seems to think that if people can get to their appointment, it is proof that they are fit to work.

In another case, the jobcentre agreed that a constituent, who has a wife and two kids, could do a part-time care course, but he was sanctioned—incorrectly—for being on a full-time course. He has no money for food or rent while that is being sorted out. In the end, he was offered a job, conditional on his completing the course, which only had a month to run, but the jobcentre had sanctioned him for being on the course.

The response from the Department on PIPs is dreadful. It can take 12 to 16 weeks to get an appointment for a face-to-face assessment, and 21 to 26 weeks from date of claim to a decision being made. That is six months, and that is not acceptable. We need to know how long it will take. The whole system is shambolic. My complaint is not that constituents are being challenged or assessed or asked to demonstrate why they should receive ESA or PIP: it is that the delays, the poor administration and the lack of answers when cases are raised are unacceptable.

19:28

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I have been very interested to hear some of the contributions from Labour Members as well as those from my hon. Friends. It is interesting that the terms of the motion address the so-called chaos in the administration of the Department. To me, that is an admission by the Opposition that they are not challenging the need for reform. As a consequence of the fact that Labour Members cannot engage in a debate about whether the reforms are necessary, they have sought to propose this secondary motion, as it were, based on looking at the administration of the Department.

Everyone here knows that we faced a significant budgetary problem when this Government came to power in 2010. It will be remembered that the last Labour Chief Secretary said there was “no money left”, which clearly was the case. There was a deficit of £160 billion, and a large component of that overspend was a consequence of overspending in the welfare department. In 1997, the amount spent on welfare and social security was £93 billion. Within about 10 years, that had gone up by about 60% in real terms. Today we have a bill of well over £200 billion. Anyone can see that that was not sustainable. Anyone can see—the public do see—that it was not a viable proposition to keep adding to this welfare bill. What this Government have done very effectively has been to focus on this problem, to try to address it and to bring about reforms to make our welfare spending sustainable in the future.

It is quite irresponsible for Labour Members to say that we Conservative Members do not care and that it is the same old evil Tories. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) made a passionate speech, giving full vent to all her theatrical skills in denouncing my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Everyone knows that his attention to detail and his commitment in this area have been second to none. Over 10 or 15 years, he has devoted himself to trying to understand the system and the causes of long-term poverty and long-term unemployment. In fact, after four years, he and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer between them have turned around this floundering ship.

If we look at the employment figures and see how much employment is being created by a prospering private sector, and if we look at the numbers of people entering employment, we will see a marked success in this area. It is no good Labour Members wailing about the changes being made. We all know that the country faced a significant budgetary problem and we all know that a big part of the overspend related to this precise area of welfare spending, welfare dependency and so forth, and it is quite right for the Government to tackle it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) mentioned the benefit cap of £26,000. He was quite right to suggest that this policy is widely appreciated and widely supported by people across the country who cannot understand why any family in any constituency should be in receipt of £26,000 a year in benefits. The results of polls done on individual policies show that the benefit cap is the most popular Government policy of any party since 1945. This is well documented, and there is a reason for it: people understand that the benefit bill had been expanded way beyond anything that was sustainable.

It is quite revealing that in the course of this debate, the Labour party, which should be re-christened the welfare party, has failed to engage with any of the real reasons why reform was needed. Labour Members have relied on what I am calling a subsidiary motion related to the Department’s administration because they know that on the substantive issue of welfare reform and of trying to reduce spending and ensure that welfare goes to the people who most need it, they have been found wanting. Frankly, the British people do not accept any of their arguments.

19:34

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

I can tell the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) that the only wailing I hear is the wailing from my constituents, many of whom are very poor. He should be more respectful of that fact. The overall impact of UK tax and benefit changes between January 2010 and April 2015 will be to cut the bottom half of the population’s net household income by over 2%, with the bottom 20% seeing a loss of 4% or 5%. The top half of income distribution other than the richest 10% see a loss of less than 2% of net income. If the hon. Gentleman could tell me how that is fair, I would be interested to hear it.

I shall concentrate my remarks on the effects that the current policies are having on my constituents. I come from a former mining area and a coastal area that is suffering badly with increasing poverty. It is a disgrace that child poverty is heading for the steepest rise for a generation, which will wipe out the progress made since 1998-99 and push at least 50,000 children into poverty in Scotland alone. That accords with independent projections, which the Government of course ignored in their child poverty strategy report for 2014 to 2017. Half of the respondents to the consultation are concerned about the impact of welfare reform on low-income families.

The Child Poverty Action Group says that the Government’s strategy does not amount to a plan to end child poverty and fails to set out what actions, milestones and progressive measures could set child poverty on a downward trend. Instead, it is more of the same, even though it is clear from expert studies that families are being impoverished across the UK, at a cost of £29 billion a year. This can only get worse. Two thirds of poor children live in working families, so the problem is not just about getting people into work. What kind of work is provided and what support is given to families with children are what really matters. Tackling low pay and promoting affordable housing and affordable child care are fundamental.

In my 17 years as an MP, I have never witnessed so many desperate people appearing at my surgery with little or no money in their pockets. The Minister has a lot of explaining to do regarding the abject failure of universal credit to date, especially in respect of simplification of the system, in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State has held up universal credit as the pinnacle of welfare reform.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) said, the Secretary of State has bitten off more than he can chew. I want to thank my hon. Friend for coming to my constituency recently to give a talk on the implications of independence for welfare issues. I will not try your patience by going into that any further, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I just wanted to mention it because it was very welcome.

I am most concerned about the number of vulnerable people being thrown off benefit as a result of a work capability assessment that is not fit for purpose. Some people are terrified of the impact that PIP will have on their daily lives—even if they can get an interview at all—and of a Work programme that provides very little work.

The sanctions regime can be described only as bullying. Citizens Advice Scotland is not the only organisation inundated with people needing help with inaccurate assessments or unfair sanctions. In years gone by, I had very few cases where sanctions had been applied and it was usually for fair enough reasons. There are now numerous cases each week and sanctions are applied for the flimsiest of reasons. No doubt Conservative Members will think that to be a good thing, and perhaps it would be if it was fair. In a recent case, a young man with learning difficulties had been sanctioned three times since last September because, apparently, he had not done enough to look for work. On looking at his calendar and diary in which he had to fill in details of the jobs he had applied for, it was clear that he had applied for a reasonable number of jobs, most of which he had absolutely no chance of ever getting.

This is a farce. Employers are fed up with being inundated with unsuitable applicants, and, far from raising the confidence of the jobless, the system is undermining morale and increasing poverty. In the case that I have cited, it has increased the pressure on the young man’s mother to support him, although she herself is poor. In another case that I encountered, a woman from New Cumnock was “sanctioned” because she did not have access to a computer, although it is not easy to have such access in her community.

The Minister should be embarrassed by the amount of taxpayers’ money that is being wasted while distress is being caused and parents are being deprived of an opportunity to meet the most basic needs of their children and provide them with food. On Saturday, I will go to one of the local food banks to help with the collection. There are now about six food banks in my constituency. Is it not deplorable that the Government have tried to hide the fact that referrals to food banks often result from delays in benefit payments, including hardship payments? Adding insult to injury by presiding over an inefficient and frankly cruel system only makes things worse.

19:40

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

This is a cynical, mean-spirited and dubious motion. It was tabled by a Yorkshire Member, and, as a fellow Yorkshire representative, I cannot tell the House how surprised I am. The economic results achieved by the Government in Yorkshire are incredibly positive. Business confidence is growing: the number of business start-ups in north Yorkshire is now double the national average, and we have more private sector jobs than we have had for years. However, as we get set to welcome the Tour de France to Yorkshire at the end of the week, the economies of Britain and Yorkshire are being been talked down, and that is a total disgrace.

The Government’s welfare policies are key to our long-term plan, and also to our economic recovery. There has been a 22% drop in the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants in Yorkshire, which is at a five-year low. We have seen a bigger reduction in the number of claimants of employment and support allowance than the national average, and 920 new businesses have been set up under the new enterprise allowance. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) failed to mention any of the 80 success stories in her constituency: she did not refer to any of the businesses that have been set up under NEA over the past few years. Just last week, I heard from a company called Lime Tree Europe in Halifax, which is a key marginal seat. That company has been trading for three weeks. It is delighted by the benefits that the NEA has brought, and is greatly looking forward to building its business.

Even more odd and sinister is the fact that the Labour party has kicked the men and women who work in our jobcentres and at the DWP—and who are working hard to change the culture—firmly in the teeth. Anyone who has been to a jobcentre and observed people working hard to return our fellow citizens to employment will know that there has been a complete revolution in the way in which those organisations operate. When I visited a jobcentre in Skipton recently, I went from desk to desk and saw every woman and every man working flat out to get my constituents back into work. Everyone knew their numbers; everyone was on top of what had to be done. It is not surprising that 300,000 people are now in sustainable jobs, thanks to the Ministers and other hard-working people in the DWP.

A couple of weeks ago, with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), I visited a jobcentre in Harrogate. The first person whom we met was Paul, who was doing work experience and was showing older people how to use Universal Jobmatch.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some important points about the success of universal credit. When we visited that jobcentre, we met users who emphasised the fact that universal credit was making work pay. Surely that is something to which Governments have been aspiring for decades.

[Julian Smith]

Absolutely—and the two people whom we met said that it was giving them the confidence to go out and find work. Representatives of recruitment firms told us that universal credit would make it much easier to place clients, because they would not be losing their benefits.

A surprising aspect of the shadow Minister’s speech was the implication that she and her colleagues had not visited a jobcentre in recent months. If they had done so, they would have heard from jobcentre staff that they want more of the Government’s reforms. They want people to have more work experience and zero-hours contracts, because those things will give them a foot on the ladder leading them back to employment. They want universal credit to work, because it gives them an opportunity to motivate people who are not currently boarding the work bus.

If the hon. Member for Leeds West will not listen to jobcentre staff—the people whom I have met—she should listen to the Yorkshire people, her constituents. What they want is a lower benefit cap. They want the Government to get on with introducing their national insurance cut for young people, which will encourage employers to take on more of those young people, and they want the Government’s benefit reforms to include even tougher measures.

Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and I saw in Harrogate, I hope that universal credit will be rolled out throughout the country as quickly, but as responsibly, as possible. Rather than hearing criticisms of the DWP and jobcentre staff, I want to see more incentives given to those staff, who are performing incredibly well. They currently have an opportunity to receive a bonus amounting to 0.25% of their salaries. I want them to have more such opportunities.

Labour Members have to admit that if they ever get their hands on the tiller again, they will never reverse the reforms that the Government have introduced. They have to come clean about their proposals for a national insurance rise. Are they going to place a burden on British business as a result of which it will again fail to employ the necessary numbers? We want the Secretary of State and other Ministers to press ahead with these reforms. I say to them: please turn up the volume.

19:47

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), but I must tell him that I think I speak for all Opposition Members when I say that I rather resent his suggestion that any criticisms of the inefficiencies of the Secretary of State’s Department are laid at the door of hard-working civil servants. Let me also tell him that when he next makes assertions about what people who work in jobcentres actually want, he might wish to prove those assertions rather than simply stating that they are in favour of more reforms and more sanctions.

The DWP touches all our lives at some point. I think that when we talk about welfare, we should bear it in mind that welfare payments—that generic term that we trot out so easily—also include our pension system. The Minister may correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that about 54% of our welfare payments are pensioner payments. We should never forget that.

Today’s debate results from the fact that a Government Department has failed miserably to achieve its objectives, namely reform of our welfare system, a Work programme that works for people, and the reform of disability payments. I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Select Committee—who, on cue, has just entered the Chamber. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) suggested that the Conservatives were the only party that was in favour of welfare reform. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we did object to—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

rose—

[Mrs McGuire]

Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish my sentence? I had only got as far as a comma.

The hon. Gentleman should realise that, in fact, we had a consensus on welfare reform. Indeed, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) mentioned that we had worked together in the last Parliament. We are now debating a reform programme that is not about consensus—it is not about talking to other people. It is the brainchild of the Secretary of State. He went at it with zeal, and he was not prepared to accept that there were any ways in which he ought to finesse its implementation. We cannot simply dismiss the 700,000 people who are waiting for WCA as somehow a blip or a glitch in the system. Those are individuals who, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said very powerfully, find themselves quite literally without money on many days of the week; people who find themselves in the humiliating position, as they see it, of having to go to get food from friends, family and food banks.

We have PIP now. I think the Minister deserves just a little credit for PIP and I have said that to him before. He has stalled the implementation, however, and I hope that at the end of this debate he will tell us exactly what the waiting times are now, because they have been bandied around but I have not seen any evidence for them.

We cannot just ignore what other organisations are saying. The Public Accounts Committee says the DWP has “yet to achieve” savings and it has an “unacceptable level of service” with

“uncertainty, stress and financial costs for claimants”.

Even the DWP’s own annual report last week said:

“The volume of assessments undertaken by providers on both contracts has fallen consistently below”

the expected demand.

We have called over many months now for a cumulative impact assessment of the impact of the policies on disabled people. What we have here is a cumulative disaster area of a ministerial team, which introduced major change projects without suitable testing. The objective assessments have clearly identified that. Ministers continued to advise this House that everything was, and was going to be, hunky-dory. They have sought to camouflage all the failures of their Department. We now even have a new technical term that we did not know we had: reset. Actually, that is a term for a new project; the Secretary of State ought to admit that.

We have a Secretary of State who has stretched credibility on universal credit when he has said time after time that it is on budget and on time. I hate to disillusion the Secretary of State, but when I asked the chief executive of the Major Projects Authority whether universal credit was on budget and on time, he might have said certain words, but his body language gave a whole different interpretation of what he said, and the Secretary of State should look at that evidence in the PAC record.

This ministerial team is living in a virtual world in Caxton house. It is not the same world most of us—even the Ministers’ own Back Benchers—have said they live in, and, frankly, if the Secretary of State does not get a grip on the chaos within his Department in working with people, one has to ask, “Why is he still in his job?”

19:53

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Three principles underlie the Government’s welfare reforms: ending dependency, establishing a ladder of aspiration, and social justice and redistribution.

In 1874, Benjamin Disraeli said—I apologise to my Liberal colleague, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb)—that the Conservatives had done more for the working man in five years than the Liberals had done in 50. That continues to ring true today.

When I was elected as Harlow’s MP in 2010, there was a feeling of negativity in the town. Unemployment, and particularly youth unemployment, was rife—a hangover from the last Government’s disastrous policies which suggested that a life on benefits was a way of life. Worse than that, despite welfare spending increasing by 60% under the last Government, the number of food banks increased tenfold, and median real wages stopped growing in 2003. Notably, the Office for National Statistics says that inequality is now at its lowest level since 1986.

Since then, there has been a new optimism. Unemployment is down by one third in my constituency, with youth unemployment decreasing by 30%. There is renewed confidence in the local economy, and businesses are creating jobs. The number of apprenticeships in the town have increased by a staggering 83%. What is happening in my town is not unique; it is happening up and down the country. Employment is up and welfare dependency is down, and according to the OECD Britain is a more optimistic place than it was in 2010.

The best way to get people off welfare and into work is by creating a conveyor belt of aspiration. That starts in the family, continues in schools, and carries on into skills training and post-16 education. Excluding those in full-time education, despite what the Government have done on youth unemployment, there are still 500,000 young people out of work, so we must make it easier for young people to get the skills that they need to give them the best chance in life.

In last year’s Queen’s Speech, the Government said that it should be typical for school leavers to go to university or start an apprenticeship. Significant progress has already been made, with the Government on track to deliver 2 million apprenticeship starts. The university technical colleges are part of this ladder of aspiration, giving young people—those on low incomes, who would never otherwise have had the chance—the chance to get a state-of-the-art technical and vocational education alongside traditional academic education, and we need to bring that through. We need to ensure that doing training and vocational work and taking up apprenticeships are as prestigious as going to university.

We also need to be the party of social justice and redistribution. The Government have done a lot of work on redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor by cutting taxes for lower earners. Even the 45p rate has raised an extra £9 billion for the Treasury, and I urge the Secretary of State to lobby for that £9 billion extra to be put into a special fund that we can use to raise the national insurance threshold for the poor—part-time workers and those on lower pay. We have the money now as a result of the 45p rate, so let us redistribute the money we have gained from tax cuts to the rich and give it in tax cuts to the poor. Let us be the party of social justice and redistribution.

Finally, I want to tell two stories of what has happened to me as a constituency MP. A man came into my surgery and said, “The Government won’t let me go to the zoo.” I said, “What do you mean?” He said, “Because I don’t get enough on benefits to go to the zoo.” I said to him, “Do you realise the average wage in my constituency is £23,000 and people are paying £1,250 in their taxes on welfare benefits, not including pensions, and are you saying that those people, who struggle every day, should be paying more in taxes so that you can go to the zoo?” He said, “Yes, it is my human right to go to the zoo.” He was brought up on a diet of dependency so beloved by the last Government.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is in challenging these suppositions that this Government are really making progress in the reforms they are bringing through, and that we need to look very carefully at the level of the cap as we go into the next year?

[Robert Halfon]

My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I want to give a contrasting story—one which shows the difference and the battle between the two sides. We have the diet of dependency—the man who believed it was his human right to go to the zoo and to get as much in benefits as he liked paid through taxation—and we have another man, who was helping me fix my car, and who said to me, “I just want to let you know that my whole family have been Labour but I’m going to vote Conservative.” I asked why. He said, “Because I’ve got a job; because the Government have got me off benefits and back into work.” That is what the mission of the Secretary of State has been all about: welfare into work; redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor by cutting taxes for lower earners; and social justice.

19:58

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), and I congratulate his constituent on finding a job, but we need to understand in the round the impact that the social security and welfare reforms are having on most people.

Once again I was absolutely stunned by the Secretary of State’s hubris in his speech. The DWP is in absolute chaos. The welfare reforms have been nothing short of catastrophic. Not one of the projects, from the introduction of universal credit to the revision of the work capability assessment and the replacement of DLA with PIP, has been delivered with even a modicum of competence. I just await the next fiasco in the replacement for the Child Support Agency. Ministers have wasted hundreds of millions of pounds of public money—these are Ministers who pose as the defenders of the hard-working taxpayer. Such is their arrogance that they blame everyone for the problems they have experienced, from their own civil servants to the Trussell Trust, which runs so many of our food banks. What has been reported, and what I have had confirmed by Trussell Trust members, is disgraceful. Anyone who tries to investigate these Ministers or hold them to account, including the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, has been subject to hostility and obfuscation.

We supported the principles of universal credit, and the Secretary of State would be sensible to remember that. We support the simplification of the social security system and the principle of making work pay, but the Government’s reforms are not working. The introduction of universal credit has been an unmitigated disaster, with delays, increasing costs and fewer participants than predicted. In November 2011, four pathfinders, including one in my Oldham constituency, were meant to pilot UC before the national roll-out in October 2013. In July 2013, it was announced that there were to be six more pathfinder areas, yet by December 2013 we were informed that the national roll-out was not taking place but UC would be extended to couples and families. Members of the Select Committee were informed of that on the very day of the announcement. The latest figures show that fewer than 6,000 people are claiming UC, so I repeat my question to the Secretary of State: when exactly will 1 million people be on it?

In the middle of all that, in September we got the National Audit Office report on the various IT problems that the Government had known about for at least 18 months. Some £40 million spent on software has had to be written off and a further £90 million has been written down. Good money is being poured after bad as the Government continue to spend millions—the estimates are between £37 million and £58 million—on the old IT system while spending extensive sums on an end-state solution. As the NAO and Major Projects Authority reported, there are significant issues to address in governance, lack of transparency, inadequate financial controls over supplier spending and ineffective departmental oversight.

The Government’s incompetence on universal credit is matched by the measures to which they have subjected people on PIP. Anyone attending the Macmillan Cancer Support report launch last week could not have failed to be moved by the people there and their stories. In my constituency, I have encountered numerous cases where PIP has been delayed. One constituent made an application for PIP on 5 August 2013, but there were mix-ups with assessment appointments and delays with reports—the left hand did not seem to know what the right hand was doing—and only nine months later was a decision taken. The Public Accounts Committee report was rightly critical of PIP’s introduction. In the first 12 months, the Department made decisions for 84,900 people, or 7,000 a month, at which rate it is expected to be 42 years before the 3.6 million people who have been targeted will be seen.

I could go on about PIP, but I just want briefly to mention the work capability assessment. The Select Committee is undertaking an inquiry on its revision, and I was stunned by what we heard when we visited Newcastle. The final point I wish to make is this: if a Department judges people as fit for work and they subsequently die, can we possibly regard that Department as competent? No, we definitely cannot, as that is not what we expect in a civilised society. We must remember why we developed our model of social welfare and retain its principle of inclusion, support and security for all. Any one of us could be struck down by an illness or accident and we would need our social security support system—we should value it.

20:04

[Mr Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con)]

I have sat through this debate and listened carefully to speeches made by Opposition Members, and it appears to me that they believe that history started when this Government came into office. A collective act of amnesia has taken place, as demonstrated by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). She needs to remember that employment and support allowance and the work capability assessment were introduced when her party was in government. It designed the system and the process, and it awarded the contract to Atos, so Labour Members have to think about their role in all this. Not only did they demonstrate collective amnesia, but they have not put forward one idea as to how we can reform welfare, how we tackle dependency and how we help more people get back into work. Labour Members have forgotten their record and the scale of the challenge this Government inherited when we came into office in May 2010.

The Opposition have forgotten that they left behind a complex system of benefits, where it was unclear to those out of work whether they would be better off in work or out of work. I have sat down in jobcentres and heard Jobcentre Plus advisers spend 15 minutes with unemployed people trying to work out whether they would be better off working than not working. It was not clear all the time whether someone would be better off in work, which is why it is right to introduce universal credit. We cannot have a welfare system that sends inconsistent and unclear messages to our constituents who want to work. Universal credit is vital, not just because it changes and modernises the IT the Department uses, but in order to change the culture, so that people know automatically that they are better off in work than out of work, and that they are better off working more and earning more rather than working less and earning less. That shows the mess we had to deal with when we came into office in May 2010.

The previous Labour Government, as with every Labour Government, had left office with unemployment at a higher level than when they came into office. That is another part of the legacy we have had to deal with. What should we say about youth unemployment? It had gone up by 50% under the previous Government and, worse still, it had increased when the economy was growing quickly. That is not my observation; it is the observation of David Miliband, the former Member for South Shields. That is the situation we inherited, and what we have done in the past four years is reform the welfare system to ensure that it encourages people to work, that it is stable in terms of the fiscal position and that it is fair.

How is it fair for someone who is in work and working hard to take home less every month than someone who is on benefits? That shows why it was absolutely right to introduce the benefit cap. Not only did we do that to control the cost of benefits, but as a result of hard work by the staff of Jobcentre Plus and local authorities, 6,000 people who would have been affected by the benefit cap have now gone into employment. We should recognise that, and we should be applauding people for doing that and tackling the culture of dependency we inherited when we came into office in May 2010.

The other thing we have done that the Labour party will not like is ended the spare room subsidy in social rented accommodation, thus saving the taxpayer money and promoting exactly the same principle which Labour implemented when it was in government but has carefully forgotten about; the Labour Government did not have the spare room subsidy for private rented accommodation but they did have it for the social sector. Labour Members will not accept that what we did was provide consistency and fairness, and help tackle the housing benefit bill which rose so catastrophically quickly while Labour was in office.

[Heather Wheeler]

I have mentioned this once or twice before in the Chamber, but when I was the leader of South Derbyshire district council, winning in 2007 for the first time for the Conservatives, we had to implement the Labour policy in 2008 on the spare room subsidy for the private sector. So what is fair? People only want fairness, and I am sure my hon. Friend would agree with me on that.

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and what she says again highlights the amnesia of Labour Members. They have forgotten what they did in government and they are pretending that any changes happened after we came into office in May 2010.

One thing that had struck me was just how technology had bypassed the jobcentre; the previous Government had let Jobcentre Plus become out of date and inefficient. The launch of Universal Jobmatch was a huge achievement—modern technology was being used to help match the right people with the right vacancies—but do we hear any praise for its roll-out from Labour Members? No, they are not interested in the good news. They are not interested in the fact that the Youth Contract has helped get young people into work by offering work experience places with the private sector, as opposed to the expensive schemes produced by the previous Government. We see hints of those schemes return again in the future jobs fund, which is one of the few ideas that Labour talks about in opposition.

We need to ensure that we get value for money and that we get people to work in the private sector. It is the private sector in this country that is creating jobs. We have seen a tremendous improvement in private sector job creation over the past four years. Some 2 million jobs have been created by the private sector, which is five times the amount of jobs lost in the public sector. That is a tribute to the businesses in this country, which have responded to our long-term economic plan and created the opportunities. It says something else as well: if we create clear incentives for people and make them understand that work pays, we will see more people coming forward to take up the jobs. That is why the employment rate is currently just shy of its all-time record. We are seeing jobs being created in this country, and three quarters of them are permanent jobs. We never hear about that from the Labour party. All it wants to do is talk down the jobs that its constituents get and the jobs created by businesses. That is damaging this economy and the confidence of communities up and down the country.

If Labour wants to demonstrate that it is fit for office, it needs to stop talking down the economy and start talking up the achievements of companies up and down this country. If it does not do that, the message that people will get is that Labour has learned nothing from its time in government; nothing about how to tackle the dependency culture; nothing about the complex benefits systems it left behind; and nothing about how to be on the side of those who work, those who want to play by the rules and those who want to see everyone else treated in the same fair fashion. That is what we have sought to do.

Welfare reform is a key part of our economic legacy. It has helped to provide the supply of workers that we need, and it has given hope to people. We know that people in work are far less likely to be in poverty than those who are out of work. That is why welfare is a key part of this Government’s reforms. If we get welfare right, the economy right and ensure that people have education and skills, we will continue to see the job creation that this country deserves.

20:11

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

I had a six-minute speech prepared, but I fear that I may need to ditch part of it to deal with some of the extraordinary points raised by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) who, until recently, was in the Treasury. To hear him allow no facts to get in the way of a good party political slogan is really very depressing.

Let me deal with the four worst points of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. First, he said that, under Labour, work did not pay and that people were better off on benefits. He needs to understand what tax credits and in-work benefits are. The whole point was that people would work. They would not be paid very much and, instead of paying tax, they would be able to get tax back. The idea was that it was worth working and that was the entire purpose behind in-work benefits. That is why we introduced them and why it is such a shame that they are being undermined by this Government.

Secondly, the bedroom tax has not been introduced by this Government in the same way that the previous Government introduced a bedroom tax for the private sector. The difference is that when a private sector tenant moved from one private rental place to another, he or she would not get housing benefit at a level for a flat that was far too big for them. When we introduced it, we were not going to say to them, “You are in a two-bedroom flat, so we will not give you all your rent”. We were going to wait until they had moved into a new flat and then say, “I am sorry, but you have to move into a flat that is appropriate to the size of your family.” That is the difference. Now the Government are saying to people in social housing, “You must move, and if you don’t and you can’t, because there isn’t social housing available for you of an appropriate size, we will not give you all your rent. You will continue to be charged all your rent, and out of the tiny amount of money that you get on welfare, you will need to pay that towards your rent or you will be evicted.” That is a big difference. [Interruption.] It is such a shame that the hon. Member for Fareham is not listening, because if he were, perhaps he would stop making such comments.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

On the bedroom tax, Advice Nottingham provided me with a case study: Arthur, who was living alone in a two-bedroom council property, had rent of £70 a week. He moved to private rented accommodation to avoid the bedroom tax, and is now being paid £88.85 a week in housing benefit and still has a spare bedroom. Does that not show the ridiculous nature of this Government’s housing benefit reforms?

[Emily Thornberry]

I could not have put it better myself. I do hope that the hon. Gentleman was taking notes.

Long-term youth unemployment eats into people’s souls. It eats into their future, their ambition and their very character. Worryingly, under this Government, long-term youth unemployment is going up. That is a fact that the hon. Gentleman really should have at the forefront of his mind and that the Government should be thinking about as an entire generation are losing their chance of life.

Let me touch on my last point before I move on to the speech that I had intended to make—[Interruption.] No, no, let me make my fourth point, which is that it is not fair that people on an average income should be getting less money than people on benefits. Let me explain this to the hon. Gentleman. If someone is on an average income in central London, they cannot live. They get in-work benefits, their rent paid or some assistance with their rent, and tax credits—as long as the Government continue to pay them out—because it is not possible to live in certain areas on an average income. We are in favour of caps on benefit, but we are in favour of them on a regional basis, because that is fair. The reason why the benefit bill is higher in certain areas is that property is more expensive. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed this, but it is more expensive living in London and the south-east, or even the south, than it is in other areas. These people on benefits are not getting the money themselves; their landlords are getting it because the rents are so high. For that reason the benefit bill continues to go up. What is Labour’s solution? We will build 200,000 homes and that is the radical politics that is necessary to be able to address the problem of the cap.

In the two minutes I have left of my speech, I will talk about the problems with work capability assessments. The difficulty lies in the enormous delays in the system. Until recently, I had constituents who were waiting for an age to get their work capability assessments. I have a number of cases, which I now cannot read out, of people who have been waiting for more than six months for their work capability assessment to be done. Once it is done, it may be unfair, so they will have to appeal, and the appeals are taking a year. To get around that, the Government have introduced a mandatory reconsideration. The problem with that is that they are also taking an age. I have asked the Department how many claimants are left without any income during the reconsideration process. The Department cannot tell me. I have asked the Department what is the longest period that people have had to wait for their mandatory reconsideration. It cannot tell me that. The Department cannot tell me how mandatory reconsideration is going, so how can it know whether it has been a success?

People now have to wait for the work capability assessment, the mandatory assessment and then the appeal, 45% of which, even after jumping through all of those hoops, are successful. Is this a Department that is working properly? No, it is not. It has a new baby—the personal independence payment, which is supposed to work. In my area, we have only new claimants on PIP. The PIP assessment is also a nightmare. I have a constituent who, as a result of being in the war in Helmand, cannot stand or sit, and he has been waiting since 9 July 2013 for his assessment. How can that be? The reason is that he cannot move, so cannot get out of his home. He has been applying for PIP, but he cannot get his assessment. The latest letter from the Department, which has not been signed by a Minister, says that it cannot give me a time scale for how long he needs to wait for his assessment. Is that fair? It is not. Is this a Government who care? They do not. Can it be right that a Department allows seriously disabled people to be without any source of income for extended periods, and is still able to look itself in the mirror? I fear that it does, and it should be ashamed.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I regret to say that there are more Members wishing to speak in this debate than there is time for them all to speak at six minutes. I will take the time limit down to five minutes from the next speaker. I have to say that it may not be possible for every Member to get in even on five minutes.

20:19

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I am confident that the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) will forgive me for not responding meticulously to five minutes of sanctimony and histrionics.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on making an important set of points that received only giggles from the Opposition. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne), who is not in her place, demanded respect, while those on her Benches laughed at his points.

I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), who pointed out that the title of today’s debate on the Order Paper, “Performance of the Department for Work and Pensions,” is a big bash at civil servants. As I make the first of the four points I want to make during my substantive contribution, I pay tribute to the staff of the Department for Work and Pensions with whom I work at the jobcentre in Norwich—in particular, Julia Nix, the district manager, Tom Adams, a project manager, and a young man called Jamie who is on work experience.

I have had the great honour of working with those three people on a project that seeks to halve Norwich’s youth unemployment and I am delighted to say that we are succeeding. Only last week, we were able to announce the 1,000th young person to go into work through that project. That has only been possible through the hard work of those civil servants. I have been humbled to be able to help them in that project and I want to continue to do more of that.

Secondly, we need universal credit to come in. It is crucial to make work pay. Let me give two examples from my constituency that demonstrate that. One father of four is trapped needing housing benefit at the level at which he receives it. He is unwilling to ask his wife to go to work because if he did so they would lose the benefits they receive. He is frustrated as heck in that trap and it is not fair on him.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Is the hon. Lady not aware that once universal credit is finally extended to couples and couples with children, second earners will be worse off than they are at present?

[Chloe Smith]

I will make sure that I discuss that with my constituent, who is disgusted about what Labour ever did for him during its 13 years in office.

I also want to talk about the group of mums I recently met at Asda, which had kindly organised an event off the back of its Mumdex, a scheme that will be known to Members of the House. I hold my surgeries in Asda anyway, so it was a doubly good opportunity for me. Hon. Members will know very well the trap that occurs at 16 hours, which we have spoken about at length.

The next point I need to make about universal credit is that it will start to treat people as individuals. It will not continue to put people in the boxes of income support, JSA and ESA. It is crucial that we consider people’s individual circumstances and I suggest that the desire to free people from labels is what divides this side of the House from the Opposition. That is what drew me to the Conservative party and that is what I am proud to stand for. I resist any attempt from the Opposition to suggest that it is not respectful to see people as individuals rather than to label them.

Thirdly, I welcome the benefit cap. Many hon. Members have spoken about it already. I know many people in Norwich who would be only too happy to see the benefit cap set at the minimum wage rather than at average earnings. Norwich is another place where those things are out of kilter. It is a crying shame that Labour opposes the benefit cap and that shows the truth of what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said: Labour seems to think that it owns voters. That is another disgraceful demonstration of how Labour likes to label people as its people, but there will be no people left in support of the Opposition when they are not on the right side of the welfare debate.

Finally, I want to thank the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who is responsible for disabled people, for a move that he has recently made. He has changed the location of the work capability assessments carried out in Norwich. The company, Atos, which we have talked about many times today, formerly used an office on the second floor of a building in Norwich. The Minister has just put the wheels in motion to change that location. It is obviously not acceptable for some of the most vulnerable people represented by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) to be turned away and sent to Ipswich by public transport or sometimes by taxi. None of that is acceptable and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister for turning that situation around. It is the right thing to have done. Do you know what? Who signed the contract on that building in the first place? Who has forgotten history, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban)? Who thinks that that it all began in 2010? The Labour party signed that contract in 1998 and my right hon. Friend the Minister has put things right.

20:25

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I am wondering where to start, with only five minutes to speak. I wonder whether anybody was surprised by the Secretary of State’s opening remarks. He said that the Labour party was the cynical party—what a laugh that is. He said that the debate was just pandering to the paymasters in the trade unions, which has also been said by a number of Government Members. He went on to mention that they have had a good look at the Department in that they use taxis now and some Ministers use the tube. That is great. People in the constituencies will be absolutely delighted that such cuts have been made. Do the Secretary of State and the Ministers not realise that the people we are discussing tonight can barely afford to use taxis and that some disabled people cannot use the tube?

The Secretary of State said that the debate was nonsense and that Opposition Members were scaremongering. That could be described as arrogance in abundance from the Secretary of State. Only an out-of-touch raving lunatic would dare suggest that everything in the Department for Work and Pensions is on track and under control. It is in utter chaos. I would not suggest for one minute that the Ministers or the Secretary of State were stark raving lunatics—quite the opposite. These people know exactly what they are doing to disabled people, vulnerable people and poor people. They are some of the brightest people in Parliament, if not in the country. They know the consequences of their actions when it comes to cuts to the welfare state. They know exactly what is happening.

I would dare to suggest that this is the unbridled brutality of the nasty party coming to the fore—[Interruption.] Of course, they say, “Good grief, how can the hon. Gentleman suggest that?” That is the reality and that is how that party is portrayed in constituencies up and down the country. This is an ideological attack on poor people and on people on benefits, as has been said before. It is an absolute disgrace.

If we look at the universal credit, the work capability assessment, PIP or the bedroom tax, how on earth can anybody even suggest that they have been a success? They are in absolute turmoil. All the analysis and all the experts are saying exactly the same. How can PIP be successful if 700,000 people are waiting to be assessed? We are talking about 700,000 people, yet the Minister and the Secretary of State get up and say that there is nothing to worry about and that things are fine.

Let me end by saying that I will not accept what the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) said about the Labour party having a go at people in the DWP. The people who work in jobcentres up and down the country are working their socks off. People are being laid up because of mental stress caused by the backlogs, the hassle and the way in which they are working. They get support from the Labour party, not from the Conservative party.

In relation to the so-called trade union paymasters, the trade unions have done more for vulnerable, poor and disabled people than the paymasters in the City have ever done or are likely to do, so I resent comments from the Government Benches that the subject for today’s debate was chosen to placate the trade union movement. The trade union movement has done more than they will ever do to support those people, who do not have a voice in Parliament.

20:30

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

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), I have sat through most of this debate. The contribution of my hon. Friend and that of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Glenda Jackson) show in stark contrast how, with some notable exceptions on the Opposition Benches, the two sides of the House approach the vital issue of welfare reform. There can be no one in the House who does not want to live in a country that provides a safety net for people who cannot work—for people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in difficulties and need the support of their fellow citizens. That unites the House; it does not divide us.

However, when we move on to how we deliver a fair welfare state that not only looks after the most vulnerable people in our society, but enables everyone to be the best that they can be, there is a gap far greater than those few feet separating the Government and the Opposition Benches. What we have heard from Opposition Members this evening is unfettered ideology. What we have heard from Government Members, by contrast with the Opposition’s cynical party political scaremongering, are practical examples and pragmatic approaches to what we are going to do to enable people of working age who can work to work, and to give them a ladder out of poverty, with a good education and employment as the essential rungs on that ladder. We believe passionately in that, and we have spent the past four years building that ladder. It will take years more to make it a sound and lasting ladder, but we have made significant progress, as we have heard this evening.

Perhaps we are finding out tonight the real heart and soul that divide the two parties here. Member after Member on the Government Benches has demonstrated the practical work that he or she is doing in their constituencies on projects with the DWP, in schools and with employers—projects that are making a difference by improving employment, driving up salaries, and increasing people’s skills and opportunities. Those are all things that Opposition Members could be doing, but we have heard little about that this evening. Even our approach to food banks is remarkably different. Colleagues on the Government Benches are engaging with their food banks, and understand that this is not just about food; it is about making sure that people who fall between the cracks in our society get all the support they need to help them turn their lives around.

It is Government Members who are rolling up their sleeves and making a positive difference, not throwing out cynical party political comments which do nothing for the people who sent us here—the people we need to be mindful of this evening. It is shameful to listen to some of the contributions this evening, which undermine the excellent work that people in businesses and in the public services are doing to get alongside the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society to make a positive difference.

As our economy grows—it will take some time before it is the sort of economy that we want it to be—and as we rebalance it so that all parts of the nation feel the benefit, I want to make sure that no one is left behind. I am sure that our Front-Bench team has the right ideas and the right character to make sure that no one is left behind. With growing prosperity in our country, every part of our country and every person will have the opportunity to be the best that they can be and to improve living standards for themselves and their family. Based on the performance that we have seen tonight, the Opposition do not have the team or the ideas to help those people get on.

20:35

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Some of the aspirations of the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) are indeed shared across the House. The problem is that for all those cheery words, many of the policies that the Government have put in place are not working. That is a fact and that is the purpose of this debate, not necessarily to reprise the entire debate on the Welfare Reform Bill, on the Committee of which the hon. Lady and I both sat. Many of the things that we said at the time were wrong and would not work have come to pass.

On Saturday morning I spoke to a constituent who cares for her daughter who has severe learning disabilities. She said to me, “My daughter is 25. She’s not going to get better. She’s not going to change, so why is she constantly being reassessed for employment and support allowance? What is all that about?”

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Picking up on the point that my hon. Friend is making, I know a young girl, Nieve Evans, who has cerebral palsy, which of course is an incurable disease. She is four years old and is on the highest rate of DLA. Her parents are forced to fill in forms continually, and those documents are endlessly long. Every time they have to apply for the highest rate of DLA for her, and she will never improve. Is this the type of welfare state we want?

[Sheila Gilmore]

The issue that I want to raise is not just the stress caused to my constituent and her mother, but the extra expense and time involved. In debate after debate, I and others have suggested that one of the simple changes that could be made, which would be humane and would save money, is not to carry out constant reassessment. Even that minor change has not been accepted by Minister after Minister who has been responsible for people with disabilities.

The Minister for disabled people now admits that there is a backlog of 700,000 people awaiting ESA assessments. That comes as no surprise to us, because our constituents have been telling us for the past few months that the delays have been getting longer and longer. All these things—ESA, PIP and universal credit—seem to follow a pattern. First, Ministers deny that there is a problem, arguing that the Opposition, voluntary groups and advice agencies are scaremongering. Eventually an announcement is made that some changes are necessary because the benefit is not quite working out, but that is accompanied by a reassurance that everything will be fine very soon.

In 2011 the Government ignored concerns about how ESA was working out and rolled out the migration from incapacity benefit, despite the Select Committee’s concern about capacity. Simultaneously the Minister told us that Atos was being asked to make savings. I wonder whether some of those savings are in part the cause of the further capacity problems. Last year we heard that there was a slight glitch and Atos was being asked to improve its reporting. Within months, Atos was out of the door, so the problem was much more serious than we were told at that time.

Ministers want to blame anybody but themselves for this situation. Suddenly Atos is the bad guy, after years of being defended whenever Opposition Members dared to criticise it. The current Minister for disabled people has occasionally tried to claim that Atos was allowed to take the original contract knowing that it could not make it viable, so it was therefore the Labour Government’s fault. If that was the case, why did one of his predecessors tell the Select Committee in 2011 that there was room for cost savings? Why did the Government roll it out if they had concerns about the nature of the contract?

More recently, the Minister for disabled people has tried to blame the previous Government for the current backlog of 700,000, suggesting that it was somehow inherited in 2010. If there was any truth in that, why go ahead with the roll-out? Why did his predecessor say in March 2012 that there was a small backlog caused by some improvements that followed the Harrington report, but that it was on track to be cleared by the summer of 2012? He was not aware of any huge backlog inherited from the previous Government; he is just trying to avoid any responsibility for what is happening.

Crucially—this is fundamentally important—we have a system that is not only really hurting many of the people going through it, but is not succeeding, even on the Government’s own terms. The number of people in receipt of either incapacity benefit, as some people still are, or ESA has not fallen by anything like as much as we might expect, given the number who have apparently been found fit for work, who no longer get ESA on a contributory basis and who fall out of ESA altogether. The numbers just do not add up, and that is probably one of the major reasons why the savings are not adding up either.

Why is that important? What is actually happening to people? When we ask the DWP, it says that it does not know because it does not track what is happening to people. I think that many people are being found fit for work but are nowhere near finding work. The Work programme is failing people with disabilities, and sooner or later—in a few months or perhaps a year—they reapply for ESA. The numbers are not falling in the way the Government are trying to claim. That suggests that the system is failing even on its own terms. It is not making the savings, but it is making life very hard for individuals. It is time to look at it all again and quickly make some changes, some of which are quite straightforward, in order to bring savings and improve many people’s experience.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Paul Maynard]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was extremely disturbed to hear over the monitors the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) describe cerebral palsy as an infectious disease, which implies that it can be caught by other people. That is not the case; it is a neurological condition. I wish to place that on the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Mr Maynard, I think that you know that that is not a point of order for the Chair, but a continuation of debate in the Chamber. You have got your point on the record and it is now part of the debate. I am sure that others will want to clarify the position.

20:42

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, like the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), I have a unique opportunity to examine the successes and failures of the complex system that this country has in place. Fundamentally, every colleague in the Chamber harbours the same desires: to protect those who are unable to work and to equip jobseekers with the skills and support they need to get into work.

With colleagues from across the House, I have sat in the Select Committee and listened to accounts of waste, error and fraud. I have listened to the accounts of people who, thanks to the system the previous Government presided over, have been taught that there is no opportunity for them. As someone who spent some time unemployed in my youth, I know how disheartening the situation can be, quite apart from the assumptions of a system that says, “Because you aren’t in work now, you never will be.” The accounts we have heard have shown time and again that reform is not only important but essential.

Certainly, the outlook is brighter for active jobseekers across Britain under this Government. Employment is now running at over 30 million, which is an increase of 1.7 million since the general election. On the day it was announced that private sector employment had risen by more than 2 million since the election, figures show that in my constituency the number of jobseeker’s allowance claimants had fallen to a record low of just over 3%. That is a drop of 31% since I became the Member of Parliament. Running my annual jobs and apprenticeship fair, the third of which I held in May, is a great tribute to the jobcentres and the people who work in them, as was ably demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). They do an outstanding job helping the neediest people get into employment.

I have spoken in the Chamber before about PIP and how the Government’s reforms offer responsible protection for those who need it the most while supporting those who can move back into work. Let me first set out how this Government are committed to supporting those with disabilities. Last year in the UK we spent over £50 billion supporting disabled people. To better serve those who need support the most, we need to look at how to address people’s needs as they change. Some 71% of DLA claimants are given indefinite awards, with no need for reassessment, so it is no surprise that changes in conditions are not picked up. That means that people whose conditions improve are not identified and, crucially, that people whose health has deteriorated further are not given what they need. How can we be surprised that people feel they have been labelled as lost causes and written off, given that no one takes the time to see how their lives have changed? I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) who gave an excellent example of what I am talking about.

DLA is clearly now an outmoded system that fails to address the needs of the people concerned. PIP will ensure that a responsible support network is in place to protect disabled people by providing regular assessments. That will mean that the proportion of people receiving the highest rate for both components will increase to 20% and that those receiving at least one component at the highest rate will increase to 56%. We are committed to a responsible transition, so the Government have set up, among other services, a dedicated phone service and electronic transfer of information, a streamlined assessment report form and a faster process for people with terminal illnesses.

The work capability assessment has also demonstrated the failings of the previous Government. The system was designed to ensure that those who are able to work get the help they need and that those who are too sick or disabled are fully supported. However, it proved unfit for purpose after its introduction in 2008. The hypocrisy of an Opposition debate about welfare should not be ignored, given that the Labour party left a 200,000-case backlog of employment and support allowance applications after its 13 years in power. As with the economy, it has been this Government’s job to fix its failure.

There are people who were written off by the state as unfit for work who are victims of poor assessments and a fundamental lack of support. Of those now accurately described as fit to work, 29% have been claiming incapacity benefit for more than 10 years and 10% have been claiming it for more than 15 years. The Government are committed to reviewing and continually improving the assessment process to make sure that nobody gets left behind. They are taking the vital steps needed to ensure that each person is seen as an individual. It is this Government who are making sure that each person has a place in our society. The message is: it always pays to work.

[Paul Maynard]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my zeal to correct the record, I inadvertently attributed the phrase “infectious disease” to the hon. Member for Hyndburn. I apologise to him; in fact, he said “incurable disease”. I place that on the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Good. I am glad that has been cleared up.

20:47

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

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Opposition Members have been called cynics this evening; if I am a cynic, it is because the Government have made me one. I thought that we had seen the worst excesses of the Tories under Margaret Thatcher, but what we are seeing under this Government is even worse. Notably, not a single Lib Dem has spoken so far; I suspect that they are all out trying to hold on to their seats. The Minister has no choice but to contribute to the debate as the Opposition have tabled the motion.

As hon. Friends have tried to point out to Government Members, the motion is not just about the Government doing wrong; it is about them doing wrong badly. The Secretary of State always struggles. He is okay when he is talking about figures—he can be as macho and nasty as fits his character. However, as we saw on BBC’s “Question Time”, when Owen Jones talked about the human toll behind the figures, when he is actually faced with the stories of real people he becomes very uncomfortable.

In the limited time I have, I want to try to get practical support for constituents of mine who have brought forward their concerns. I want to talk about PIP in particular. That change was brought in by the Government; our fingers are not on it. It was not meant to save money, because we have been reassured that it will not involve cuts to any support to people with disabilities.

May I have some clarification from the Minister? The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) said that the Secretary of State was good at the technical detail, but if the hon. Gentleman had been sitting where I was he would have seen that the Secretary of State constantly had to turn to the Minister for advice on the detail of how PIP works. Will the Minister confirm that when the Secretary of State talked about the terminally ill, he meant that there will be no time limit for anyone who comes from their consultant with a verification of terminal illness? I have been advised—I will wait until the Minister gets to his feet; he will have longer than I have—that there is a criterion of six months. If what the Secretary of State seemed to say is really the case, that is good news, because for people diagnosed with motor neurone disease, half of whom live for only 14 months, time is short. Getting benefits paid back in arrears is not the same for someone whose life is limited.

I hope that when it takes a long time to assess someone for PIP, carer’s allowance will also be backdated. A young man in my constituency diagnosed with cancer waited over a year for his assessment. In the end, he received £4,000, which could have been of huge benefit to him and his family at the most difficult time in their lives, but his mother was not entitled to carer’s allowance. Will the Minister give an assurance that carer’s allowance will also be backdated to the date when the PIP claim was put before the DWP?

Labour Members have said that we believe that there is a place for sanctions—but sanctions that are fair. The Minister needs to ask himself: what is the purpose of a sanction? Is it to punish someone or is it to change behaviour, and what evidence do the Government have that the system is working in the way they would hope? I do not doubt that Government Members do not want to see people left with no support, having to turn to food banks or losing the tenancies of their homes, but they have to face up to the fact that that is what is happening under this system.

Bridges Project in Musselburgh in my constituency does a brilliant job in supporting young people. A young man, still at school, whose mother had died was left on his own in the house, and because he was late turning up to sign on he was sanctioned. That, to me, is a disgrace. While this may not be the intent of this Government, it is what they are doing to people up and down the country, and they have to face up to that. They have to be honest about the impact of these changes and start to redress the situation, because it is not just ruining lives but costing lives. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope he will be able to answer my questions.

20:52

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

I did not prepare a speech as I wanted to come into the Chamber and listen to contributions by Members on both sides of the House.

This has been an interesting debate and some of the points made, especially given the drafting of the motion, will make interesting reading. We are all aware in this House that we pass legislation here, but the running of Government is often much more important. We pull the lever and it is important for us to follow it through. Nobody is going to pretend that we live in a state of nirvana and everything is perfect. Constituents have approached me about issues and I have had written responses from Ministers.

The sentiment is perhaps the most important thing. What are we trying to do and what message are we sending out? I will be interested if Labour Members agree with this. The sentiment of having a welfare cap, controlling housing benefit and believing that work always pays is absolutely crucial. I say that, as a Conservative Member, because I have lived it. I have been poor—dirt poor, to give the technical definition. I was born in a two-up, two-down and used to share my bedroom with my sister and, in fact, some of my cousins. According to the technical definition used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), I was homeless. My wife is one of seven children, and it was exactly the same; they used to have an outside toilet and an old tin bath in Derby.

[Graham Jones]

rose—

[Paul Uppal]

I am not going to give way, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will respect that, because we are pushed for time and other Members want to get in.

For a few years, I was at a state school in south-west Birmingham, where, candidly, some of my teachers thought I could not speak English. Eventually a teacher approached me and said, “You can actually speak English, Paul”, and I said, “I can read it too, sir.” If that teacher had not approached me, I would not be standing here delivering this speech today. The message is absolutely the most important thing. People should be told that they can do it and there is no limit on their aspirations—that just because they come from this background or that background, there should be no limit to how far they can go in society. In our welfare reforms, we are sending out that message very strongly and proudly.

I am a bit of a film buff and I occasionally watch TV. There is a wonderful line in the documentary—I do not know whether anyone saw it—where Stephen Fry went across the United States. He met parents celebrating at football colleges where 60,000 Americans would come out and watch their children play of an evening. He would ask them, “Why are you out when you have to go to work tomorrow?” His response to the situation time and again was, “Only in America,” and he observed that, when people here say, “Only in Britain,” they are often in a queue or it is raining. That is a simple use of words, but it shows the difference, which is the most important thing.

I have listened to all the points that have been made during this debate, but what do Labour Members actually want to achieve? It is often said that Labour was the great party of socialism. Is it the party of the public sector? The motion suggests that it is the party of the focus group and of not doing the right, long-term and difficult thing. It is being populist and looking for the easiest box to tick. I am proud that we are not just talking the talk, but walking the walk. That is the important thing—providing a ladder for social mobility. It is very easy to talk about these things, but very difficult to do them.

The vast majority of the caseload in my constituency of Wolverhampton South West comes from the centre of the city. Constituents approach me time and again. I have lived in the real world and we know that people will play the game, so it is absolutely vital that we change that and have a system that is open to everybody and makes work pay.

Two generations ago, my grandparents would often go for 48 or 72 hours without eating. My father came to this country with less than a few pounds in his pocket, but he came here because he wanted to work. During his first few days here, someone whispered in his ear, “Do you realise you can claim benefits?” It was total anathema to him that he should do that. His idea was to come here to work, better himself and contribute to the system, and that is what we are trying to inspire in everybody in the UK. We want to send out that important message.

I am glad that we are taking those difficult decisions, empowering people and giving them an opportunity. Thank goodness we are doing that, because I do not think it would happen under any other party represented in this Chamber.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Five minutes simply will not give enough time for everybody to be able to contribute to the debate. My judgment is that those who have sat in the Chamber all day would rather have four minutes than no minutes at all. Therefore, I am now setting the time limit at four minutes. It will be very tight to get everybody in, but I hope nobody will be disappointed. The time limit is now four minutes.

20:57

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I remember the introduction of the much-needed welfare reform under the previous Government and the teething problems that materialised early on. At that point, Labour MPs stood up, questioned their Government and said that we needed to see some change. The situation in the Chamber today has been totally different. This Government are just ploughing on and we have not heard a squeak about it from Government Members, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), who did touch on his constituents. Frankly, we have been listening to sheep living in a parallel universe.

This motion is about system failure, not the principle of welfare reform or making work pay. Given that I have had 300 cases across my desk recently, I had hoped to raise 10 of them today, but I am not going to be able to do that, so I will raise just a couple. Mr M applied for PIP last September. In January, an assessment was set in Tavistock, 20 miles away, which prompts the very good question: why does he have to go to Tavistock when we live in a city with a population of 250,000? His paperwork was lost and he had to go for another assessment in May. When he arrived he was told it had been cancelled, but nobody had thought to tell him.

Mrs P applied many months ago and continues to have major operations for cancer of the lung, liver and bowel. She had to postpone her last assessment because of a lung operation. I am not quite sure whether she is considered to be terminally ill, but according to Atos she is not and she is still waiting for a decision. Mrs P applied last December and has been through various processes, including being told she has to go to Portsmouth, which is three and a quarter hours away, for an assessment. I hope the Minister will look into that. I know Whitehall has a problem distinguishing between two naval cities, but that, quite frankly, is ridiculous. When Mrs P finally arrived, Atos told her, “We’ll help you back into work,” which is interesting because she is self-employed and has told Atos as much on a number of occasions. The system is in chaos and does not take account of people’s problems.

There are also legal issues. It is believed that such delays are discriminatory, because the failure of companies carrying out the assessment and the guidelines that the DWP has to work to mean that the Government are actively supporting institutional disability discrimination. Under the Equality Act 2010, unfair treatment of a person or group of people by a public body due to a protected characteristic—in this case, disability—constitutes unlawful discrimination. The service provided to claimants of the disability benefit PIP is worse than the service provided to claimants of non-disability benefits administered by the DWP. PIP and ESA claimants are unfairly treated in comparison with claimants of non-disability benefits in that the norm for claimants of non-disability benefits is to wait for no more than 12 weeks, while, from all the experience of the many cases that I and other hon. Members have seen, that is simply not the case with disability benefits.

I think that this callous Government are failing morally and legally to administer welfare reform correctly. I urge hon. Members to support the motion, which, as I have said, is about the system, not the principle that some welfare reform is needed.

21:00

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

I apologise to the House for having been in a Statutory Instrument Committee—in fact, on DWP issues—listening to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) padding out his speech while saying very little. That is essentially where we are: we are not quite sure what the Labour party’s alternative is to what we are doing. However, Labour has a motion. In it, Labour complains that

“projected spending on Employment and Support Allowance has risen by £800 million”.

That tells us that Labour would prefer that perhaps another 160,000 people who currently get ESA not get it.

I am concerned about some areas. I have taken over as chair of the Lib Dems Back Bench parliamentary policy committee, and one issue I have expressed concern about is sanctions. There is no question but that people are sanctioned who should not be sanctioned. I thought that we should find out about more such cases, so I asked my local jobcentre to put on the wall a letter saying, “I am worried about people being wrongfully sanctioned. Can you please contact me if you have been wrongfully sanctioned?” The jobcentre said no—that it would not put a letter on the wall—which caused me concern, so I have written to Ministers to ask them to consider that issue. I take the view that jobcentres should make people aware of alternative advice services, be they the local Member of Parliament or the CAB.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Hemming]

I am sorry, but I will not take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman because it will knock somebody else out.

The Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), was quite right to say that welfare reform is a very complex area. However, there is no question about it: we have to make it so that people are better off in work than out of work. I was very pleased when I heard universal credit proposed, because I have supported its principle for a long time. I thought that it might be a bit too radical for the Government, but we are in fact managing to make progress down that route, even though there are difficulties in our way.

Things such as the welfare cap are right, because it sends this message: “You should be in work.” The local Labour party in my constituency of Birmingham, Yardley opposed all the Government’s welfare changes during the local elections, but it got 27%, while we got 46%. My local constituents in Birmingham, Yardley agree with the welfare cap. Many of them do not earn that much money, and they think the cap is reasonable.

We should concentrate money on low-paid workers. Universal credit, which will top up their pay, will be good. I want an increase in the minimum wage above what is proposed. I would go for a figure of about £7 an hour as a way of starting to make progress on that.

The welfare benefits system is a complex area. Now that we are one year out from a general election, I really think that the Labour party has a responsibility to put forward some alternatives. We have heard noises from Opposition Members complaining about the cost of housing benefit going up, but if we freeze housing benefit payments, the people who will suffer are those on low incomes, whether in work or out of work, who have difficulty paying their rent. There has been talk of the Labour party adopting the Institute for Public Policy Research’s proposal about the transfer or localisation of housing benefit, but that would cause great difficulties, and I do not think that local authorities want it. Less than a year from a general election, with the Government doing a good job in improving the employment situation—getting young people into work and making it worth while to work—the Opposition have got to offer an alternative.

21:04

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

The motion refers largely to the work capability assessment and the personal independence payment, but it also refers to the disarray in other benefit programmes. I want to concentrate on the independent living fund, which the Government are proceeding to abolish.

On Saturday a group of people with severe disabilities turned up with their carers and in their wheelchairs and chained themselves together in Westminster abbey gardens in protest against the Government’s proposal to proceed with the abolition of the independent living fund. The protest was organised by a group called DPAC—Disabled People Against Cuts. They wanted to remain there for a couple of weeks to try to engage with parliamentarians and others on this issue, but unfortunately 200 police arrived and evicted them from the site, with the support of the Dean of Westminster. I wonder what happened to the sermon on the mount.

I thought that there was cross-party support for the independent living fund—that it was one of the benefits that worked. The idea was to fund carers and others who enabled people with severe disabilities to ensure that they were no longer trapped in residential homes but could live independently in their own homes and participate in wider society, and that as a result of that support some could go to work and earn their income. I thought we had cross-party agreement that it was one part of the welfare system that was working effectively, but the Government have proceeded to abolish it.

Responsibility is now being transferred to local authorities. The Government are arguing that the Care Act 2014 will enable local authorities to provide a similar level of service, but that is not the case for many of the people who already experience the services offered by local authorities. There has been a cut of £3 billion in expenditure by local authorities on social care for people with disabilities. We have already seen significant cutbacks on levels of care. People who are severely disabled are now anxious that as the money transferred to local authorities is not being ring-fenced, local authorities will cut support for people with disabilities, and that support will not be protected in future.

That is causing concern and desperation among people with disabilities and their carers—so much so that they took the Government to court because of the lack of consultation on the proposals and the lack of consideration of the equalities implications. They won in court, but only a few months ago the Government decided nevertheless to proceed with the abolition of the independent living fund. I believe that will be challenged again by a number of claimants. I hope that this time around the Government will not contest that challenge and that we can come back, discuss the policy and arrive at a consensus again about how we can support the most severely disabled people in our country. We need to do exactly what the ILF was funded to do: to provide care and support so that disability can be overcome at least in the sense that people with disabilities are able to participate in wider society.

The policy is causing extreme consternation not just among disabled people but among their families. We know what will happen: local authority cuts will fall on the individuals and care will fall on to the families themselves—I have to say that in my constituency many of those people are ageing parents—and eventually, because of the abolition of the independent living fund, people will be forced back into residential establishments. At the end of the day, that will prove even more costly than the 17,500 people who are currently receiving the benefit.

I appeal to the House and to the Government to think again on this one. It is one benefit that we all thought we had got right. In the 1980s I served on the Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People. It was the first committee to try to ensure the integration of disabled people in this country. We thought that the independent living fund was the benefit that could succeed. Everyone agreed at that time, and they should agree now.

21:08

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

All of us across the House are concerned about the most vulnerable people in our constituencies. It is deeply disappointing that many Opposition Members have implied today that universal credit, changes to the benefit system and the PIP are the function of a harsh Government who have no sympathy for the weakest among us. That is wrong: it is precisely because we have recognised that it was unsustainable to struggle on with over 50 separate benefits that did not respond effectively to minor changes in people’s day-to-day lives.

How could it be right that around 50% of decisions on disability living allowance were made on the basis of the claim form alone without a face-to-face assessment, and that changes in circumstances—for good and bad—went unaddressed by a benefits system that was not attuned to individuals and the needs of their conditions? Some 71% of DLA recipients got it for life. That was not right either for the taxpayer or for the people who had been written off callously by the state. More than 4 million working-age people were on out-of-work benefits and almost 2 million children were growing up in workless households under the last Government.

Yes, universal credit is the most ambitious programme to reform welfare in a generation and it is essential that it succeeds. However, as the Government have always said, it cannot happen overnight. It would not happen overnight under any Government. It is a task of substantial complexity. It is therefore unsurprising that there are challenges in its smooth delivery and the smooth delivery of the IT systems that are required to make it work.

Universal credit is just one part of the bigger picture. It is far from the chaos that the Opposition have presented this afternoon. Forty-five welfare reforms are under way, 42,000 people have had their benefits capped, 23,000 staff have been trained in universal credit and 550,000 participants have started a job following on from the Work programme. As we have heard, the welfare reforms are set to save £50 billion over the course of this Parliament, with the cap bringing almost £120 billion of Government spending under control. We have done all that on top of dealing with the backlog of ESA cases that was inherited from the previous Government.

It is crucial that we get universal credit right and that we do not replicate what has happened with previous programmes by rolling it out too quickly. That would be truly irresponsible. Any programme that changes a system that affects more than 7 million people will be challenging. The question is whether the Government have the courage to do the right thing, no matter how difficult, and whether they will give in when emotive political challenges are cynically deployed to give the impression that if only the Government changed, all would be well.

Where universal credit has been implemented, it is working. In the pathfinder areas, more than 60% of claimants said that it was easier to understand, provided a better financial incentive and rewarded small amounts of additional work. People on universal credit are spending twice as long looking for work each week as a result.

I say, let us continue down this difficult pathway—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I call Michael Connarty.

21:12

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

The fact that we know about the work capability assessment is that 700,000 people are still waiting to be assessed.

We have heard a lot of talk about DLA. Disability benefits, including DLA, were basically Margaret Thatcher’s Government’s dumping ground for people she did not want to put on the unemployment register.

Employment and support allowance and PIP are a problem because people are not getting assessed. The problem is not about the delivery company. It is not about whether it is Atos or someone else. It is about the basis of the assessment. I had two recent cases. I had a letter in January from a woman who said, “Thank you for believing in my husband. He got his benefit back. Sadly, he died over the Christmas holidays.” He clearly was not fit to work.

I met another lady who said that the DWP had killed her husband. He had a Co-op book. Perhaps people who do not know about working-class communities do not know what a Co-op book is. It is where people pay their insurance to somebody who comes round every Friday night. He was told that he was fit to work. He got no benefit, so he took a book back. He literally dropped down dead going round the village with his book on a Friday.

The contract had no penalties. Even though 158,000 cases were overturned by the DWP and the benefit appeals system cost £40 million, the contract had no penalties for Atos or anyone else. I hope that the Government will not let a similar contract in the future.

The system must be based on medical assessments. That has gone under this Government. People relied on the assessment of a consultant. That would be taken really seriously and people would keep their benefits. It would be realised that they were not capable of work. That has all gone. Now someone is partly trained to sit at a computer and tap away, without even looking at the person who is asking for the appeal or for the benefits. That has got to stop; we have to go back to medically based assessments.

We are told that there are fewer people on the claimant count—people are in employment—but the fact is, as I said to the Secretary of State, that £13.5 billion more had to be borrowed because of the fall in income tax receipts. He said that that is because the personal allowance has now been raised to £10,000—that is £200 a week; that is 20 hours maximum. People are still getting tax credits to top that up, which is why we still have basically the working poor claiming benefits while they are working.

On jobseeker’s allowance, everyone I talk to about the Universal Jobmatch says, “Oh, it’s out of date. The jobs have gone by the time you apply.” People are searching the world for jobs when they are looking for a job locally, and they may not have the skills or education to take the things that are on offer. Telephones have been removed by the DWP from jobcentres. People cannot phone in to make their claims so they have to go and find some other way of doing it.

The Government refuse to believe diligent jobseekers. I know someone who made 20 job applications a day and was told, “We do not believe you”—sanctioned. Another person was sent for a training or work interview on the same day as they were signing on, so they did not turn up for their interview—sanctioned. Another was told at their job interview, “14 hours at a basic minimum wage”, so they would therefore lose all of their benefit to keep their home, which was a private rent—sanctioned. Those are the case-by-case facts. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State lives in a parallel universe, and so do most of the people who have been defending him.

Pathways to Work worked, and I remember the pleasure of people being trained back into work capability. Finally, we must have some concerns with DWP and jobcentre staff. I opened a telephone bank, and I said at the time, “You need counsellors to support people because they are stressed; they are missing work because they are ill, and that is caused by this Government.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order.

21:16

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I was fortunate in the late ’70s and early ’80s to be doing voluntary work in the great cities of Liverpool and Manchester, and I gained a great appreciation for the character and resilience of the people who live in those communities and throughout the north-west. In 1981, when the riots literally exploded on to the street in Toxteth and Moss Side, they brought to the surface the real depth of complexity, and the challenges that those communities were facing. Those challenges were profound and very complex, but what I learned from that experience—I still believe this passionately—is that the way to help people out of poverty is through work. The way to help people out of being disadvantaged and to cope with the challenges in their lives and take care of their families is through work, and having an engaged, stronger community is helped by providing worthwhile work.

That whole experience brought me into politics, shaped my thinking of what I needed to do in my career, and got me involved with wanting to create sustainable jobs in the private sector. One of the most rewarding things in my career has been the creation of hundreds of jobs for people so that they can go on and pay their mortgages, look after their families, and help build their careers by creating more jobs and moving the virtuous circle further forward.

When we consider welfare and welfare reform, the tragedy since those days is that it was such a missed opportunity for people to bring about the reform that obviously needed to happen. Yes, it was challenging and difficult, but too many people ducked the issue and missed the opportunity, and they parked welfare reform into the “too difficult to do” box. In his autobiography, Tony Blair speaks with real regret at not having seized that opportunity early on with his landslide majority in 1997. Even now the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is quoted as saying in November 2010:

“I don’t think we did enough on welfare reform. I agree.”

There have been notable exceptions. As always, the strong contribution from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) stands out as a beacon to us all as somebody who takes these matters seriously. However, the courageous and honourable approach to welfare reform has been brought about by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. His pioneering approach has brought the Conservative party and the coalition Government on a journey, and tackled the big issues that have been ducked for so long. They have tackled the fundamental challenges, including through universal credit. Opposition Members have been quick to point out the challenges along the way. Okay, there were teething problems and challenges, but the key is that we have learned from the mistakes of the previous Government, and learned how to roll things out on a phased basis to make them possible.

We have seen progress on the Work programme, which other hon. Members have mentioned. One of the key things is that we are looking to make our approach relevant to the world of work today. Self-employment is not something to be shirked. We should encourage people into it. I am delighted that the new enterprise allowance recognises that. Forty-six thousand people in total have been able to create their own business on the back of that scheme, and 8,600 of them are disabled. That is a refreshing approach when self-employment is clearly becoming such an important trend in employment. The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce predicts that self-employment will be more important than the public sector in due course.

I commend the Government’s approach and will not vote for the motion.

21:20

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Our welfare state was established to protect the most vulnerable in society, and to protect us all with support in times of need, so that whether we are young or old, sick or unemployed, we are not reliant on charity. I am incredibly grateful for the work of Nottingham’s churches, faith groups and voluntary organisations, which are seeking to mitigate the worst impacts of the Government’s welfare changes, but their work in trying to meet unmet need is no substitute for citizens’ rights.

We need a social security system that is fair and affordable, and one that supports those who need help while tackling the underlying causes of that need, be it worklessness, low pay or lack of affordable housing. The Government have launched a series of reforms that are failing to deliver. Key programmes are behind schedule and over budget. Taxpayers’ money is being wasted and those who need support are being left to rely on food banks or, worse still, to go hungry.

My constituents deserve so much better. Alex McEwan became ill in May 2013 and applied for personal independence payment in September. His claim was referred to Capita for assessment. Twice, visits from Capita were arranged, and twice they were cancelled at the last moment. It was not until mid-January that Alex’s assessment was carried out. It was almost a further three months before Capita provided sufficient information for the DWP to reach a decision. It took precisely seven months for Alex to receive the help he needed.

When I raised Alex’s case with the Minister, he said that his officials had looked into it, but that

“unfortunately there have been quite significant delays with this case.”

I am not sure whether the Minister believed that to be an adequate explanation. It seemed to me and my constituent that it was nothing more than a statement of the blindingly obvious. Alex told me that the delays had caused him great inconvenience and financial hardship when he simply wanted to get a semblance of his life and independence back. The Government let Alex down, and he is not the only one.

Pamela Brown suffers from multiple sclerosis and her husband Mike has given up work to care for her. She applied for PIP in July 2013 and faced numerous difficulties just to secure an assessment. Finally, the Browns succeeded in booking an appointment in October, only to arrive at the assessment centre to find that Capita had cancelled the appointment without notifying them. Pamela’s next appointment was a home visit three and a half weeks later. Capita failed to turn up and, when challenged, said that it had cancelled the appointment. It again failed to notify Pamela and Mike. It took more than five months for that couple to get the support they needed. They asked me to raise their case because they wanted others who apply for PIP in future not to suffer the same troubles.

Pamela suffers from a progressive neurological condition for which there is no cure, and yet five months later, she has to undergo reassessment. The last process was extremely stressful, and Pam and Mike believe it made her MS symptoms even worse. Mike described Pamela as being in tears at the thought of having to go through it again. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has responsibility for disabled people, has agreed to meet me to discuss the case. I hope he can provide answers on why my constituents are treated so badly, and more importantly on how he is seeking to fix the problems. Unfortunately, my constituents are not the exception, but the norm.

Advice Nottingham advisers met the DWP recently to discuss some of the issues they face. They face delays and cancellations of assessments and decisions; clients waiting more than six months simply to be reassessed; and delays to mandatory reconsideration requests. How can it be right that claimants have only 28 days to seek mandatory reconsideration, but there is no time limit for the DWP to respond, despite people waiting with no benefit while appeals are ongoing? It is no surprise that people have to turn to food banks, but in the 21st century, it really should not be necessary.

21:24

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this Opposition day debate on the performance of the Department for Work and Pensions. I have to say that for a while I thought it would be a debate on the shadow Secretary of State, who is in her place. Although I have the highest regard for her intelligence and abilities, which will carry her a long way, hers was a truly lamentable performance today. It focused on who did or did not write letters to her and whether she did or did not make some incendiary remarks to the Christian left. But her speech was important, as is the motion, because they shine a light not so much on the state of welfare and work in this country, but on the state of mind of the Labour party.

Nowhere in the motion does it mention work, the engine of growth in our country. It is also the best mechanism to raise people up out of dependency and despair, on to the road to achieving their aspirations. In 2005, when Labour last won a general election in Tamworth, my constituency was bedevilled by dependency. Because the Labour Government failed to reform welfare and relied too much on public sector work and the financial services industry—and because they spent more than they earned—unemployment was twice the rate that it is today. Those were meant to be Labour’s good times. Fast forward a couple of years to the bad times and unemployment had risen to 8%. Firms were going to the wall, jobs were being lost and down the Tamworth road or the Glascote road, house after house bore repossession notices. Under Labour, people were not simply losing their jobs: they were losing their homes as well. That is the grisly welfare and work legacy that Labour bequeathed to us in 2010.

Because of the changes made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my constituency has just 755 unemployed people today—1.6% of the working population. Marston’s, Jaguar Land Rover and John Lewis have come to town and Spline Gauges is employing skilled professional workers. When I held a jobs fair at the end of last year, 300 to 400 jobs were available and 276 people came along. There were more jobs available than people looking for jobs. BMW is now in town and Tamworth has become the automotive hub of Staffordshire, with an automotive centre at the Torc vocational centre. Thanks to this Government, hope is returning.

When I talk to businesses in my constituency, 75% say that they will expand and take on workers. They say that they are looking forward to the future and 80% say that they will stay in Tamworth. The one caveat they have is the worry that younger people are not sufficiently infused with the work ethic. That is a challenge for the education system, but it is all the more reason why we need to get the Work programme and universal credit going—so that it always pays to work. Young people will be enthused about work and businesses will feel able to take them on.

I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to listen to the siren voices of the Opposition—those serried ranks of overfed Bourbons who have remembered nothing from their history. Press on, because we are behind you and so is the country.

21:28

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Despite the best efforts of DWP staff, no part of the Department seems to be working effectively at the moment. It appears that the Government came into office with the view that those unfortunate enough to be unemployed, sick, disabled or a carer are simply scroungers and malingerers. They decided that the cost of welfare was too high without any empirical evidence and, as a result, have introduced policies that are causing untold misery to my constituents, many of whom have worked all their lives. When they needed the safety net of the welfare state, they discovered that it is now full of massive holes.

The Secretary of State and his Back Benchers tell us that everything is fine, and that there is no problem with universal credit, but the Prime Minister told me on 21 November 2012 that the second phase would be introduced in April 2013. The Secretary of State now says, if we can believe him, that it will be introduced in April 2016—but everything is fine. The Secretary of State and his Back Benchers tell us that everything is fine with PIP, even though at the current rate it would take 42 years to complete all the assessments. They cannot see a problem with the Work programme, even though only one in 20 disabled people is getting a job. They defend the bedroom tax, even when two thirds of the people affected are disabled, and they cannot see fundamental problems with ESA and work capability assessments, particularly for those with mental health issues and fluctuating conditions who, when they win their appeals, are then sent for another assessment. They cannot see how illnesses are getting worse as a result of stress and poverty.

Then there are those with multiple problems who hit the magic 15 points, but not in respect of one measure alone, so they are put in the work-related activity group and have reached 365 days with no prospect of working—and now have no money. Some people are even taking their own lives because they cannot cope with the stress and can see no other way out. Furthermore, the Secretary of State and his Back Benchers cannot see any problems with the sanctions regime in which sanctions are unfairly applied and 58% appealing those sanctions win. They cannot see how people are unable to heat their homes and are driven to food banks and into the arms of payday lenders.

It is very easy when we sit in this place to forget about the real lives of real people outside who have no food in their cupboards tonight and have no gas or electricity in their homes. In my last few minutes, let me say a few things about some of the 91 ESA and 24 PIP problems suffered by my constituents whom we have tried to help.

John, a firefighter, received horrific burns at work. His wife had to give up her job to look after him. He received an initial ESA payment, but had difficulties attending an Atos assessment. He was refused a home visit and was too ill to attend an assessment, so had his ESA suspended and had no income at all. It took 51 weeks to get an award. He said:

“I am currently not making ends meet, yet alone the embarrassment of my wife having to care for me full-time. I have done nothing wrong, only getting injured and I am so upset at my treatment.”

Paul, an ex-serviceman, had serious leg injuries after a walking holiday. He receives DLA, but a processing issue at the DWP resulted in the termination of his benefit, just at the time they decided to amputate his leg. Twenty-five weeks later, he got a PIP payment. With Margaret, a double mastectomy cancer sufferer, it took 46 weeks.

I am grateful to the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has helped me resolve many of my cases, but what about those who do not know where to go for help and who do not come to see their MP? I have so many heart-breaking stories, but no time to tell them. We are the sixth-richest country in the world, yet we have people unable to feed their families. The Secretary of State should move on from his patronising complacency, talk to the people who are being failed by him and sort out the mess in his Department.

21:32

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I am probably tail-end Charlie on this occasion, so I will be brief. The Opposition have given us a tour de force on what they think is wrong in their constituencies, but when they look at themselves in the mirror and see the pain and misery going on in their constituencies, I wonder what it must look like to them when they look over to our side and see, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) talking about how unemployment has been cut by at least a half or my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban) talking about the changes that have happened in his constituency.

We on the Government Benches like to think that the glass is half full, because we are prepared to roll our sleeves up and provide leadership in our constituencies. We have provided job fairs in our constituencies and worked with food banks and mental health charities, for example. I know that there are some good, honourable people on the Opposition Benches—

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Who?

[Heather Wheeler]

I would never name them; Mr Speaker would not appreciate that.

I say to those honourable people who earn their money as MPs and are proud to represent their constituencies, “Actually, guys, what is happening in your constituencies? What is going to change in your constituencies? When are you going to get out of the mental state that you seem to have, whereby everything is bad, nothing is ever going to change, nothing is ever going to get better. Well, it is.” Unemployment in South Derbyshire used to be 25%; now it is 1.8%. We used to have 13 mines; we do not have those any more, but we have apprenticeships, we have engineering, and we have tourism. We have numerous really special jobs, and people are working jolly hard. They are rolling their sleeves up because they want better for their families. They are not prepared to live on welfare. They are not prepared to have that as a lifestyle. They want everything for their families in the future.

It is sad that we have spent four years trying to turn the oil tanker around. Welfare used to be “what you did”, but things cannot be like that any more, and I want Members in all parts of the House to realise that they have to change. We must live within our means. We want people to come out of this in the right way. We want to help all our mental health charities, and we want to help all our young kids to get apprenticeships. That is the way forward; welfare is not.

21:35

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

Let us be clear: this is not a debate about the philosophy of welfare reform. It is a debate about the way in which it is delivered, and about the service that our constituents receive. Today we have presented a catalogue of anxiety, chaos and waste: a catalogue of extra cost to the taxpayer, huge pressures on DWP staff, and inappropriate and hostile language used about benefits recipients—never challenged by Ministers, but hurtful and offensive, as we heard from, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and for Darlington (Jenny Chapman).

We have heard about anxiety, fear and hardship among those who rely on social security, namely most of us at some point in our lives. The Secretary of State, who is responsible for this calamity, is in denial, while his Department is on the brink of meltdown. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Select Committee: the Department has bitten off more than it can chew, and we are all paying the price.

This is what we have heard about today. Universal credit, the Government’s flagship policy, was intended to reach 7.7 million households by 2017, but in April it was reaching fewer than 6,000 people. It will take 1,052 years to roll out fully at this rate, and the cost to the taxpayer is rising. The Secretary of State will be concerned about that. The National Audit Office has drawn attention to the write-off of assets worth £40 million which have never been used, and a further £91 million of assets that will last for only five years. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says that the NAO is talking nonsense. I am surprised that he is prepared to put that statement on record tonight.

The Department is having to invest in two system solutions in parallel. As the Select Committee has pointed out, we have no idea how or when the final system solution will be achieved, or how much it will cost. We still have no idea about the treatment of passported benefits following the introduction of universal credit. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) asked about that in 2011, but we still do not know about the treatment of free school meals. There is no clarity about the scale, the cost, or who will receive them. We also have no idea of how or when housing benefit will migrate. The local support services framework, which the Department itself has said is as important as universal credit, is not in place, and is not yet even being piloted in universal credit areas. We do not know when that framework will arrive.

This is a tale of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) rightly described as cumulative disaster, but Ministers have been determined to deny it. That is why we are demanding that the Government publish the risk register and other documentation relating to the delivery of universal credit, and the courts agree with us.

Then there is the failing Work programme—with overpayments to providers totalling £11 million, and getting just 7% of employment and support allowance claimants into work—coupled with the crisis of confidence in the work capability assessment that has been presided over by this Government. We have been told this evening, and the Minister told the Work and Pensions Committee a couple of weeks ago, that 700,000 cases, or just under, are now outstanding and awaiting WCAs, and 294,000 of those are former incapacity benefit recipients. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and others pointed out, that backlog of nearly 700,000 cases was not created by the Labour Government. It is a product of the mass migration of IB claimants by this Government, despite the warnings that we gave them that the system could not, and should not, bear that.

Meanwhile, nearly half the cases that are appealed are successful; reassessments have been halted altogether for two years; according to a leaked internal document, decisions are taking nine months; and I tell those who have said that the benefit, or annually managed expenditure, cap is one of the great achievements of this Government—the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) will be interested to know this—that it has resulted in an extra £800 million of costs since December on ESA and there will be an extra £13 billion by 2018-19, meaning the AME cap will be breached.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

All I was observing in my speech was that it is the single most popular Government policy since the war according to opinion polls.

[Kate Green]

I think the hon. Gentleman has got two policies confused, which shows how on the ball he is. I am talking about the AME cap, not the £26,000 benefit cap—the AME cap that this Government are introducing and which is now, even before it is in place, going to be breached.

Government Members rightly pointed to trends in employment, and it is good to see more people in work, but too often they are working for poverty pay. I have to say to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) and others that Labour was never content to abandon people to a life on benefits. That is why we introduced the successful new deals that increased lone-parent employment by 15%. It is why we introduced the future jobs fund which, far from being a failure, was extremely good at getting young people into work and keeping them in work when the programme came to an end. We introduced tax credits that made work pay. Making work pay is not an invention of this Government; it was done under Labour first.

PIP is another tale of disaster—it was not piloted, there were misleading statements on Atos’s bids, and there were long delays in decisions. Like others, I have had constituents waiting for an assessment since last October—in one of those cases, my constituent had it only last week. There are huge backlogs already, which at the current rate of progress will take 42 years to clear. To put it another way, the Minister will need to increase the number of assessments from 7,000 a month to 73,000 a month immediately if he is to get the programme back on track, and this is also wasting taxpayer money. Each decision costs £1,500 for a benefit which for many is only worth £1,120. The NAO has said it does not represent value for money and the £3 billion savings are likely to be wiped out by the costs.

We know the bedroom tax is a disaster. Just 6% of those affected have moved. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation points out that savings are £115 million lower than they should be, and many households, including two thirds with a disabled family member, and more than 60,000 carers face hardship and fear.

[Robert Halfon]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

No, I will not.

The Secretary of State said the Child Support Agency was a success. The NAO is rather more cautious. It says it has not really been tested yet and will not be until charging is introduced. In the meantime, full roll-out is expected to exceed by £70 million the costs projected in 2012.

What is really shocking is the effect of all this failure. For the first time more of the people in poverty are in work than out of work—two thirds of children in poverty are in working households. It is leading to a shocking rise in debt and the use of food banks, and it is a catalogue of failure that would be farcical if it were not so desperately serious for us all. It is serious for individuals and families who look to the system to protect them but who are being appallingly let down; it is serious for charities, local authorities, housing providers and others picking up the pieces from this disastrous state of affairs; it is serious for the staff working in the Department, who are under pressure, demoralised and blamed and cannot provide the service they would like; and it is serious for the taxpayer, who is footing a bill that is rising and threatens to spiral out of control. It is serious for everyone except the Secretary of State, who has his head in the sand. He denies the facts when they are inconvenient, but tonight those facts have come out. This Secretary of State has presided over disaster and chaos. It is time to get this Department back on track and to call a halt to this catastrophe—it is time for a Labour Government to clear up the mess.

21:45

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

We have heard 41 speeches in a very worthwhile debate, including some particularly thoughtful contributions. We have heard from many members of the Select Committee, including its Chair, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), and I will respond to her comments in a moment. Let me start, however, by discussing the clue in the title—it is the Department for Work and Pensions. From listening to the debate people would think that nobody is getting jobs these days and that pensions had been left alone in the state in which we inherited them. They would not realise that we have record levels of employment and they would not know that we have had falls in youth unemployment, female unemployment and long-term unemployment month after month after month, Even in the hardest-to-help groups, such as young people not in education, employment or training, the numbers are coming down. The Opposition motion had nothing to say about getting people back to work, yet that is the centre of our welfare reform and our strategy is working.

This is not all just about making work pay, although my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), a former ministerial colleague, made a powerful contribution in which he mentioned sitting in a jobcentre and trying to work out whether or not someone would be better off in work. We are dealing with that situation through the universal credit reform, which will make work pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said, not only are we making work pay, but we are making saving pay. In the pensions space, we have seen state pension reform; effective automatic enrolment, with 3.6 million people auto-enrolled; charge caps, which are new to reform; and new models of workplace pension. Whether we are talking about work or pensions, this Department is working.

Before I move on to deal with the substance of some of the operational issues that have been rightly raised, I want to address the allegation the shadow Secretary of State made and to give her the chance to retract it. She said—I quote from the transcript—that “when we write to the Department with our constituents’ problems we only ever get replies from the correspondence unit.” She made the even more outrageous comment, “Well, maybe there is one rule for Tory Back Benchers and another rule for Labour party MPs”. So we checked our records and we found that she obviously does not read her own correspondence, as since 2010 DWP Ministers—[Interruption.] I hope I do not get in the way of her tweeting—it is #Igotitwrong. Since 2010 DWP Ministers have sent 46 letters directly to her, 33 to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), 86 to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), 93 to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) and 98 to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). So much for not replying to their letters!

[Rachel Reeves]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I am happy to give way if the hon. Lady wants to apologise.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the Minister for giving me a chance to reply, as I have checked the letters I have written to the Secretary of State. I have had a reply from him to a letter regarding a constituent of mine called Latimer Saunders and the reply came from Gabriella Monk. I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State regarding a constituent called Mark Norris and I have received no response at all, despite the fact that my letter was sent last year. I have never received a letter from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in response to any of the letters I have sent to him.

[Steve Webb]

It is a good job I have the transcript of what the hon. Lady said, which was “when we write to the Department…we only ever get replies from the correspondence unit.” When the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who has responsibility for disabled people, rose to intervene, she said “I will give way; I haven’t had any letters from this one either.” We waved a letter that she had received, so I hope she will withdraw that remark.

Moving on to the substance of reform, we talked about the record of the two Governments on reform. Let us take the case of child maintenance. I want to read out what was said about child maintenance reform by the National Audit Office, which was quoted by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston. It said:

“So far, the reforms had cost £539 million for a scheme that had performed no better than its predecessor”.

Unfortunately, that is not our reform; that is Labour’s reform in 2006. That is what happened when Labour reformed child maintenance. The NAO said the scheme was no better than the one that went before, despite costing half a billion pounds. That is why we have to replace it with a new scheme. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said that no doubt this one will go wrong. Actually, we have been running it quietly since 2012, phasing it in, learning the lessons from the other party and, as a result, the scheme is being highly effective. We already have record numbers of people being paid directly under the new scheme. Alongside major reform, we are getting more maintenance paid to more children than ever before. In other words, we are reforming, but not taking our eyes off the day job.

A number of Members mentioned the performance of Atos. As several of my hon. Friends pointed out, there is a bit of collective amnesia regarding who, in 2005, gave Atos a seven-year contract with a three-year option to renew. By last autumn, Labour was saying, “Let’s get rid of Atos; let’s sack it”, but that would have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. Instead, we have terminated Atos’s contract in a managed way. My right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for disabled people has done that, as a result of which the taxpayer gets money and Atos begins to clear the backlog of the work that it has been doing.

As well as the changes that we are making to bring down the backlog on employment and support allowance—it has been said that it has come down significantly in the past couple of months—it is worth remembering that every one of the people in that backlog is getting benefit. It is sometimes made out that they are waiting for money, but they are currently receiving the assessment rate of ESA and incapacity benefit. Those figures relate to people who are getting benefit and are awaiting assessment.

Let me give the House some further examples of how we have been improving the service we deliver to the people who depend on our help. A year ago, the number of jobseeker’s allowance new claims dealt with in 10 days was 66%; now it is 90%. The number of ESA new claims dealt with in 10 days was 66%; now it is 80%. The number of appeals outstanding a year ago was 150,000; now it is 4,000. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, this is at a time when we are taking running costs out to make central Government more efficient.

A number of Members referred to the PIP. We are ensuring that the contractors, Atos and Capital, recruit more health care professionals to deal with the backlog. The number of appeals we are facing has fallen precipitously. It is an extraordinary fall in the number of people appealing against ESA decisions. Back in the first quarter of last year, we received 109,000 appeals against ESA decisions. In the first quarter of this year, it was 11,000. That is an 89% fall in the number of people claiming ESA who are appealing. The reason for that is that we, unlike Labour, are finding far more people eligible for benefit. Let me give the House the evidence for that claim. In late 2008, when Labour was undertaking work capability assessments, it was finding 64% of people fit for work. In the most recent quarter, we found not 64% but 27% fit for work. Far from it being this Government who are using the work capability assessment to throw sick people off benefit, it was the Labour party that used the WCA for that purpose.

During the debate, a number of Members said that we needed to make changes to the WCA, and that is what we have been doing as part of the Harrington review process. We have accepted about 50 recommendations. One reason why we are getting the number of people we are on to ESA and why we have a bigger proportion of people in the support group than ever before is that we have taken Labour’s failed WCA and reformed it to make it fairer. That is what a good Government does. We want to ensure that the right money goes to the right people.

[Ian Paisley]

Will the Minister take the opportunity tonight to make it abundantly clear from the Dispatch Box to all Members of this House that any concessions that the Government intend to make on welfare reform will be made as a result of arguments made in this place by Members who take their seats in this place, and that none will be made to a party that refuses to take its seats?

[Steve Webb]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we believe that our welfare reforms are good for the people of the United Kingdom and should be adopted in all parts of the United Kingdom.

Let me move on to some of the contributions made in the debate. It was a great pleasure to hear from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who I had the great privilege of working alongside and who laid the foundations for a number of the vital reforms we are making. She pointed out that contrary to the rhetoric we sometimes hear, we are increasing the support for disabled people while also ensuring that more of the money goes to those who are most in need, which is absolutely the right priority.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) pointed out that although we have a motion from the Labour party, we do not appear to have any policy options from the Labour party. Despite the fact that there was, I think, some sort of launch last week, we had hardly any reference to the alternative. Once again, it is like talking into a vacuum—we do not know what is coming back from the other side.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) asked about the support given to people waiting for benefit. There are two forms of support. One is the short-term benefit advance, when somebody is entitled but the money has not come through, meaning that they are in financial need, and when somebody has a change of circumstance that results in an increase to their benefit award. The other is a hardship payment, for when people are subject to sanction. We will be happy to respond to the right hon. Gentleman further if he has any further questions.

The hon. Member for East Lothian asked a couple of questions. If I could distract her from her phone for a moment—

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

That is not the Member for East Lothian.

[Steve Webb]

I apologise.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) asked two questions. She asked whether carer’s allowance would be backdated—[Interruption.] I have apologised. It is backdated if someone’s claim for PIP comes through. She asked about the definition of terminal illness, and we use the same definition as the previous Government. There is a six-month definition based on our judgment that takes account of and is informed by the advice of a health professional, such as a consultant or a Macmillan nurse. I hope that that makes it clear to her.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

No, I have already given way.

The shadow Secretary of State asked about zero-hours contracts and how many people were on them. The answer is that they make up less than 2% of employment. The Opposition make out that all the new jobs are part time or involve zero-hours contracts, but nothing could be further from the truth: 98% of jobs are not on that basis. It is simply misleading to imply that the economic growth we have seen and the jobs that have been created are part time, insecure or on zero-hours contracts. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck)—[Interruption.] I am trying to respond to the debate. The hon. Lady asked about a constituent who had had to travel a long distance for a PIP assessment. Clearly, it is unacceptable that someone should have to travel that far. The guidance is that people should not have to travel for more than 90 minutes maximum by public transport. If that has happened, we would like the details and we will seek to address that point.

The heart of the debate is as follows: the Department for Work and Pensions is delivering work and pensions reform for millions of people. It is making sure that month after month, instead of having to rely on benefits people can find jobs and stand on their own two feet. We are reforming through the universal credit and that will be the legacy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in making work pay, in taking children out of poverty, and in helping disabled people to take part-time work and to get back into the labour market. We are making sure that work pays and that welfare is reformed.

The Work programme is working and is ensuring that people who have been failed by Labour’s employment policies get back into work. That is a record of a Department that I am proud to defend, and I ask the House to oppose the Opposition motion.



Question put.

21:59

Division 24

Ayes: 225

---

Labour: 213
Scottish National Party: 5
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1
Democratic Unionist Party: 1

Noes: 310

---

Conservative: 265
Liberal Democrat: 44

Business without Debate

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Electronic Communications

That the draft Communications Act 2003 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 31 March 2014, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Patents

That the draft Legislative Reform (Patents) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 6 May 2014, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Estimates

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 145(3)),

That this House agrees with the Report of the Liaison Committee of 25 June:

That a day not later than 5 August be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimates for financial year 2014-15:

Department for Work and Pensions, in so far as it relates to the implementation of Universal Credit; and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in so far as it relates to the implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy in England.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Backbench Business

Ordered,

That Mr David Amess, Mr David Anderson, Bob Blackman, Oliver Colvile, John Hemming and Ian Mearns be members of the Backbench Business Committee.—(Greg Hands, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Foreign Affairs

Ordered,

That Rory Stewart be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Nadhim Zahawi be added.—(Greg Hands, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Public Accounts

Ordered,

That Ian Swales be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and John Pugh be added.—(Greg Hands, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

Bin Charges: South Gloucestershire

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Lancaster.)

22:13

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I rise to speak about an issue that has divided local opinion in south Gloucestershire: the introduction of green bin charges. On one side of the divide, my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and I, the local MP for Kingswood, along with local Conservative councillors, are determined to stand up for hard-working residents, who have had little say over the increase in the money they have to pay for services that used to be included in their council tax. On the other side of the divide are the local Labour and Lib Dem councillors, whose votes ushered in the £36 charge for green bins and who are determined to retain the charge in spite of overwhelming local opposition that has dubbed the charge the “green bin tax”.

Let us be clear: no resident locally voted for a party pledging the introduction of the green bin tax in south Gloucestershire. No party stood for the local elections in 2011 on a platform of introducing the charge, which takes even more money from local people’s pockets. The way in which the green bin tax has been introduced amounts to nothing less than a stealth tax for which nobody voted and which nobody wants.

The green bin tax came into being late last year, in September 2013, when the communities committee of South Gloucestershire council voted to introduce the £36 charge for green bins. The committee was split on its decision to introduce the charge, with six Conservative councillors opposing the policy. Despite this, the green bin tax was voted in by seven Labour and Lib Dem councillors, with a majority of one. 1 recognise that local councils have the freedom to introduce charges, but it cannot be right that just 10% of all councillors in South Gloucestershire—seven out of a total of 70—voted in the green bin tax.

After local Conservative councillors were outvoted in this way, I, as the local MP, set up a petition for local residents calling on South Gloucestershire council to reconsider its green bin charge. The petition was signed by over 4,200 local people in the Kingswood constituency alone. I presented the petition to South Gloucestershire council and to Parliament. This triggered a debate in the council. However, Lib Dem and Labour councillors teamed up to ensure that the debate took place not in full council, where local people would be able to see how their local councillor voted—for or against the green bin tax—but, again, within the small cabal of the communities committee.

The green bin tax was introduced in South Gloucestershire on 31 March this year. So far it has cost £650,000 to implement, while the most recent figures show that just 36,000 out of 109,000 households have paid for their green bins. On their website, Lib Dem councillors have dubbed this a “success”. Celebrating charging residents more by forcing them to pay for their green bin waste collection seems to me an odd way of defining success. On the doorstep, time and again, I meet local residents who are furious that Labour and Lib Dem councillors have introduced the green bin tax despite having no electoral mandate to do so. For these councillors to declare their forced policy a “success” simply adds insult to injury.

On 29 April this year, I formally submitted my petition of 4,200 local residents to Parliament. On 3 June, I received a welcome formal response from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who stated:

“Ministers believe that councils should not be introducing stealth taxes by imposing new charges on local residents. Instead, councils should be making sensible savings by better procurement, more joint working and cutting fraud, in order to protect frontline services and keeping council tax and charges down”.

I was grateful that in his reply he stated on the record that he

“endorses the Petitioners’ suggestion that the council reconsider its actions in imposing these new charges.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2014; Vol. 582, c. 1P.]

During the debate in the communities committee of South Gloucestershire council triggered by the 4,200-signature petition of local residents, councillors voted to review the impact of the green bin tax on local residents. I hope that they will listen closely to the Secretary of State’s comments on the petition. I would welcome any comments that the Minister has for South Gloucestershire councillors on what they should be doing to focus on further efficiency savings rather than simply increasing and passing on the costs to local residents.

The introduction of the green bin tax in South Gloucestershire has important implications for whether councils can legitimately claim that they have frozen council tax. This Government have rightly urged councils to freeze council tax, and that has taken place in South Gloucestershire over the past three years, in marked contrast to what happened under the Labour Government, when band D council tax rose from £635 to £1,245. In fact, the Government have provided incentives for councils to freeze council tax, at the same time introducing a referendum trigger if they increase it by more than 2%. South Gloucestershire council claims to have frozen council tax this year, yet when the £36 green bin charge is added to the bill of a band D council tax payer, that results in a total increase of more than 2% being paid to the council—something that would have triggered a referendum if the bin charges had been included in council tax alone. The many residents who have pointed that out to me are surely right to claim that the bin tax is nothing but a stealth tax, imposed through the back door to avoid the scrutiny of local democracy or giving residents a say through local referendums.

Rather than confining the trigger for a referendum to council tax alone, I urge the Minister to consider whether the mechanism should be expanded to include any additional charges imposed by local councils, so that the overall cost of local government and the overall amount of money that councils are taking out of local people’s pockets can be more accurately reflected. In that way, rather than the green bin tax being introduced by just seven Labour and Lib Dem councillors, local people would have been able to vote for the waste services they want and the cost of delivering them.

On a similar point, although local authorities have the freedom to introduce charges, I believe that should be done only through a named vote at a meeting of full council, so that local residents can be fully aware of how their own local councillor voted on additional charges that will cost them personally. Surely this is a simple matter of openness and transparency, so local councillors should be able to vote individually on these matters on behalf of their residents. Local people in Kingswood deserve to know if their local councillor would vote for or against charging. Few people could argue that the vote of just seven Labour and Lib Dem councillors reflects the decision of an entire council on behalf of its residents.

Both I and local Conservatives will continue to campaign for the reversal of the green bin tax in south Gloucestershire. As a result of the combined determination of Labour and Lib Dem councillors to defend the bin tax for which they voted, we may have to wait until the next time local residents have a chance to voice their own opinion on the matter at the next local elections in May 2015.

The experience of the introduction of the green bin tax in south Gloucestershire points to a worrying decline in local accountability over exactly how local authorities can impose charging on residents. I hope the Minister will continue to monitor the situation regarding local authority charging policy on waste, both in south Gloucestershire and nationally, and consider taking appropriate action in due course.

22:22

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for securing this debate. I know that he has spoken to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about the matter and, as he has said, that he has submitted a petition signed by more than 4,000 Kingswood residents opposing South Gloucestershire council’s charge of £36 for the collection of their garden waste. I fully endorse the petitioners’ suggestions.

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about the transparency of decision making. Councils that are considering introducing or raising charges might want to think about discussing it at full council, where there is full transparency of how councillors vote, especially given that we are talking about decisions about front-line services. South Gloucestershire residents can rightly ask why a council with about £43.5 million in reserves is looking to impose more charges on them.

I believe the council may be considering a report in September on how the tax can be scrapped. I strongly urge the council to listen to its residents and to do the right thing. Prevailing legislation allows for councils to charge for discretionary services such as the collection of garden waste. However, we have made clear our belief that councils should not introduce stealth taxes by imposing new charges on local residents. Instead, they should make sensible savings through better procurement, more joint working, and cutting fraud, while protecting their front-line services and, quite rightly, keeping down council tax and charges. That can be done in a range of ways. All councils should look at our practice guidance, “50 ways to save”, because taxpayers should not be treated as cash cows, which the residents under discussion would be right to argue is what is happening in their case.

It is disappointing that South Gloucestershire council is introducing a charge for garden waste collection. Such charges threaten to increase fly-tipping, increasing the clean-up costs for the council and harming the environment in the long run as well. Indeed, recent research by the university of Kent has found that the adequacy of garden waste collection is significantly related to fly-tipping behaviour. In areas where respondents reported that garden waste collection was not adequate, they admitted that they were more likely to fly-tip compared with respondents who reported that their service was adequate for their household needs.

It is particularly disappointing that charging has been introduced in an area where fortnightly collections of residual waste have recently been introduced. That means that there has been a significant reduction in services for the residents, as in South Gloucestershire, at the same time as charges have gone up. I hope the council will look at how it can reduce council tax to match the increase in charges.

We of course know where this all started. The previous Government had a policy of actively pushing fortnightly bin collections, and of hitting hard-working families with stealth taxes. Cutting weekly rubbish collections was not originally a locally-led initiative, but an explicit Whitehall mission pursued with zeal. What did the previous Government do? Their “Household Waste Prevention Policy Side Research Programme” report advocated

“collection limitations in terms of rubbish bin size or the interval between collections”,

and sought

“to nationalise this policy among local authorities”.

Legislation in 2005 allowed the introduction of bin fines for minor breaches of complex and confusing bin rules. Further legislation in 2008 watered down councils’ legal duties to collect rubbish. The previous Government funded the covert imposition of “Bin Brother” microchips in families’ bins. In 2009, the pre-Budget report made it clear that a further wave of bin cuts was planned. In short, the town hall Taliban doubled council tax and halved bin collections.

We do not agree with those measures; there are other ways of dealing with such things. This Government believe that households deserve a frequent and comprehensive rubbish and recycling service in return for the average of £122 a month paid in council tax by a typical band D household, especially given that the typical refuse collection service costs councils only £6 to £7 a month to provide. It is reasonable for householders to expect their waste to be collected every week. It is the most visible service people get for their council tax, and it is often the No. 1 item on their list of what they expect for it.

South Gloucestershire council has stated that if it does not charge for the green bin service, it will have to make cuts that might affect other services, such as libraries. It is a very tired old refrain to put front-line services on the line by saying that it is a question either of charging more for discretionary services or of making cuts. The statistics simply do not back up that story, which is why we are so against stealth charges, as is highlighted by this important debate. Instead of moaning, the council could start by collecting all the council tax it is owed: in 2012-13, £2.2 million of council tax went uncollected. The council should focus its energy on changing the way in which it does business, rather than on a back-door bin tax.

We are supporting local areas through a range of opportunities, and we are clear that there is more they can do. Great councils are finding ways of saving money and improving front-line services. Some 337 councils are involved in 383 shared service arrangements, saving about £357 million a year. Shared chief executive and senior management teams can save between £500,000 and £1 million a year for small district councils. We have brought in the transformation challenge award of £410 million to help councils to transform the way they run their local services to put users first. Other examples of good practice include shared services, such as between Babergh and Mid Suffolk councils, and cracking down on fraud, with Ealing council set to realise nearly £7 million of savings by taking action against fraudulent council tax claims.

Moving to a fortnightly collection of residual waste may appear an easy or lazy choice for a council that wishes to save some money, but such a decision can often be made without thinking creatively about how to make cost-effective changes to the service while retaining a five-star weekly refuse collection frequency. There is no need to introduce any more stealth taxes for refuse.

In fact, we are working with local councils to increase the frequency and quality of waste collections, to make it easier to recycle and to encourage reward schemes to increase recycling. If we want more recycling in our country, we need to encourage and motivate people, not penalise them for what seems to be the very normal way of putting out their rubbish.

In February 2012, we set up a £250 million fund to help local authorities to provide a weekly waste collection service. Since November 2012, 82 local authorities have been implementing their successful bids. We will see huge investment over the period of 2012 to 2015 to support the delivery of cost-effective, high-performing weekly collection services. The scheme will safeguard weekly collections for around 6 million households until 2017, with an extra 400,000 tonnes of material being recycled and a million fewer tonnes of waste-related carbon dioxide emitted.

Our recent guidance on weekly rubbish collections demonstrated how local authorities can improve recycling and make common-sense savings on waste collection while preserving the frequency of rubbish collection. It challenged myths we have heard before, such as the idea that people do not want their bins emptied every week. As my hon. Friend has outlined, talking to any resident on any street will prove that to be false. Research found that two thirds of people think frequent and regular rubbish collections are the most important feature of the waste service. Another survey found that two thirds of the public thought that the Government should mandate weekly collections, that weekly collections were better and that problems with flies and smells were much worse with fortnightly collections.

A number of successful bidders to the weekly collection support scheme passed on the views of their residents, which were similar to those my hon. Friend has outlined in Kingswood and South Gloucestershire. Cornwall council told us that its bid

“emphasises our commitment to the weekly black bag collection service that our residents said they wanted to keep.”

North Tyneside council said:

“Our weekly bin collections are one of the council services most valued by the residents of North Tyneside.”

Dartford held a referendum: 95.3% of respondents agreed with the borough council’s decision to keep weekly collections of residual waste.

We have taken a series of other steps to help households. We have supported over 40 innovative reward schemes to back recycling. Through the Localism Act 2011 we revoked the 2008 legislation that allowed for the imposition of new bin taxes. We have been changing building regulations to tackle bin blight. We have removed powers of entry and snooping powers from the “binquisition” inspectors and have scrapped guidance telling councils to rifle through people’s bins. We have issued guidance to stop the imposition of illegal back-door bin charging on household bins. We stopped Audit Commission inspections marking down councils that do not adopt fortnightly collections and abolished the local area agreements and national indicator 191, imposed by Whitehall, which created perverse incentives to downgrade waste collection services.

We scrapped the Whitehall requirement for municipal annual efficiency statements—I am sure many people read those on a quiet Friday night—that allowed a reduction in the frequency of household rubbish collection to qualify as a valid efficiency. We also scrapped the imposition of eco-towns, which would have had fortnightly bin collections or bin taxes as part of the eco-standards, and stopped funding the Waste Improvement Network, which told councils to adopt fortnightly collections.

We challenged the incorrect interpretation by some bodies that European Union directives require fortnightly collections, and resisted the imposition of bin taxes by the European Union. Through the Deregulation Bill we are changing the law to scrap unfair bin fines. In short, ours has been a fundamentally different approach from that of the Labour Government: we are working with families to help and encourage them to go green, but believe in regular and comprehensive collections for tax-paying households. They already pay enough in council tax and deserve a first-class waste service.

To conclude, this charge is unreasonable. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I applaud him for standing up for the residents of Kingswood and elsewhere in this debate. It is a stealth tax. I urge the council to stop treating its taxpayers with contempt and to start looking at reducing unnecessary costs—we have shown a number of ways to do that. Many authorities are radically reducing management and changing the way they deliver services to deliver substantial savings while keeping first-class front-line services, and even improving their services. South Gloucestershire needs to follow suit instead of using taxpayers as cash cows. In September the council has a chance to put things right; I hope it does the decent thing and scraps the bin tax.

Question put and agreed to.

22:34

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Monday 30th June 2014 Ministerial Corrections

Monday 30 June 2014

Protecting Children Online

Monday 30th June 2014 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from a speech given by the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), during the debate on Protecting Children Online on 12 June 2013.

[Damian Green]

In 2012-13, CEOP safeguarded and protected 790 children, an increase of 85% on the previous year, and the highest yearly figure since the centre launched in 2006. That brings the total number of children who have been protected to 2,255 in that seven-year history.

[Official Report, 12 June 2013, Vol. 564, c. 406.]

Letter of correction from Damian Green:

An error has been identified in part of the speech I gave during the debate on protecting children online.

The correct response should have been:

[Damian Green]

In 2012-13, CEOP safeguarded and protected 560 children, an increase of 41% on the previous year, and the highest yearly figure since the centre launched in 2006. That brings the total number of children who have been protected to 1,996 in that seven-year history.

Written Statements

Monday 30th June 2014 Written Statements

Monday 30 June 2014

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Monday 30th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

I am announcing today the Government’s intention to table amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill [HL Bill 30] which would omit clauses 51 and 52 from the Bill. Clause 51 would amend the Contempt of Court Act 1981, in particular, to provide that a publication will not be treated as being in contempt of court under the strict liability rule in connection with legal proceedings where the publication is first made available before those proceedings are active. Under this clause, this defence would cease to be available on my giving notice to the publisher. Clause 52 would provide a related right of appeal against court injunctions.

The genesis of clause 51 was the Law Commission report Contempt of Court (1): Juror Misconduct and Internet Publications (Law Com No 340). The Commission’s consultation and review revealed concern among the mainstream media at their vulnerability to proceedings for contempt in relation to online archive material. The concern was that the law as it currently stands means prejudicial online material, even if published before proceedings became active, is still subject to the laws of contempt. The Commission acknowledged this and put forward a proposal that the Attorney-General should be responsible for alerting publishers to the presence of material which was potentially prejudicial and that proceedings were active. Until such time as an Attorney-General’s notice was served, a publisher would have a defence to contempt proceedings. The proposal was intended to provide the media with a measure of protection and reassurance while at the same time enabling the integrity of proceedings to be safeguarded. The Government agreed with the Commission’s legal analysis and believed the proposal struck the right balance between the right to a fair trial and the freedom of the press.

Although intended as a measure designed to assist and protect the media, the clause has been criticised on the grounds that it gives too much power to the Attorney-General. These representations were made to me, in particular, by the Society of Editors who in addition do not accept that this clause addresses a pressing problem and have suggested that the current powers available are sufficient to protect proceedings. In addition, the Joint Committee on Human Rights—14th Report of Session 2013-14—while considering that the provisions of the Bill are

“in principle an improvement on the position under the current law”,

have raised concerns about the safeguards connected with the notice procedure.

The Government have considered these concerns very carefully. Although the Government remain of the view that this is a balanced and measured proposal, they recognise the disquiet surrounding the proposal. Given that this measure was designed to assist the media, it is significant that representatives of the media consider that this provision does not do so. While the Government consider that the notice provision would be an improvement for the media, courts and Attorneys-General alike, it is satisfied that the existing law will continue to provide satisfactory protection to the integrity of legal proceedings. On this basis, the Government have decided not to pursue this measure or the related clause on rights of appeal. The Government will accordingly table amendments to omit these clauses at the first opportunity.

ECOFIN

Monday 30th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)]

A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Luxembourg on 20 June 2014. The following agenda items were discussed:

Draft general EU budget for 2015

The European Commission presented its draft for the EU’s general budget for 2015. The UK made clear that the European Commission should not be asking for a cash increase to the annual budget of almost 5% compared to the agreed 2014 annual budget at a time when countries across Europe continue to take difficult decisions to deal with deficits.

Parent Subsidiary Directive

Council agreed an amending directive to the parent subsidiary directive, which will effectively close a tax loophole whereby companies operating across Europe could exploit differences between member states in the tax classification of certain financial instruments in order to reduce their overall tax liability.

Current Legislative Proposals

The presidency provided an update on the ongoing work on financial services.

Level 2 legislation on bank contributions under Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive and the Single Resolution Mechanism

The Council discussed the preparation of implementing legislation that will determine the contributions to be paid by banks to resolution funds established under the directive on Bank Recovery and Resolution (BRRD) and the regulation on the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM).

Code of Conduct (Business taxation)

Ministers endorsed the report on business taxation prepared by the code of conduct group, and adopted the report’s conclusions.

European Semester 2014

Ministers approved recommendations for 26 member states and the euro area as a whole, in preparation for discussions at European Council on 26 and 27 June, and subsequent adoption at ECOFIN on 8 July.

Implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact

Council adopted decisions bringing to an end excessive deficit procedures for six member states.

Ministers endorsed terms of reference on the review of the methodology for assessing effective action in the context of the excessive deficit procedure.

Joint ECB and Commission Convergence Reports (including euro area enlargement)

Euro area member states adopted a recommendation on the adoption of the euro by Lithuania, in preparation for discussions at European Council on 26/27 June, and formal adoption at ECOFIN on 8 July.

Reserve Forces (Cyprus)

Monday 30th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Mark Francois)]

With the expiry of the call-out order made on 29 June 2013, a new order has been made under section 56(l)(a) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to continue to be called out into service as part of the UK’s contribution to the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP).



One hundred and fourteen reservists have been called out for UN operations in Cyprus over the last 12 months. Over the period this new order is in force we anticipate calling out around 60 reservists, who will be fully integrated with their regular colleagues. While the use of reserves in Cyprus is now considered routine business, it is fully in line with our policy of having more capable, usable, integrated and relevant reserve forces.

The order takes effect from 28 June 2014 and ceases to have effect on 31 December 2014.

Gifting of Equipment to Afghanistan

Monday 30th June 2014 Written Statements

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

I have today laid before the House a Ministry of Defence departmental minute describing a gifting package which the UK intends to make to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

Towards the end of 2014, UK forces will redeploy from southern Helmand, returning Camp Bastion to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA). The built infrastructure will largely remain in place, together with some equipment that will be required by UK forces to the end and will not, therefore, be able to be sold or redeployed.

This gifting is expected to underpin the transition by supporting the further development of a capable, credible and confident Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF), within a sustainable security footing. The combined effect of training, mentoring and sustainment through gifting will help secure the positive support of the ANSF to UK and US forces and increase the capability of the ANSF. This is seen as being a key factor in enabling a low-risk extraction of the UK and US forces from Camp Bastion.

There has been very little UK property gifted to GIRoA, other than in cases where the handover of infrastructure at outlying locations has offset the cost to the UK of remediation. Our priority has been to seek best value for the taxpayer through redeployment and by the release of surplus property for sale. This policy will remain during our extraction from Bastion and, where the opportunity arises to redeploy valuable equipment for future contingency operations rather than gifting, this will be undertaken.

The departmental minute, which I have today laid before the House, describes the gifting package to the GIRoA.

Subject to completion of the departmental minute process, gifting is expected to be undertaken by the end of 2014.

Tornado ZD743 and ZD812 (Service Inquiry)

Monday 30th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

I wish to inform the House of the findings of the service inquiry into the accident involving two Tornado GR4 aircraft of XV(Reserve) Squadron from RAF Lossiemouth on 3 July 2012, in which Sqn Ldr Sam Bailey, Fit Lt Hywel Poole and Fit Lt Adam Sanders tragically died. On the day of the accident, the two aircraft were conducting training sorties when they collided over the Moray Firth.

A service inquiry was convened by the director-general of the Military Aviation Authority to establish the cause and examine those factors which contributed to the accident and to make recommendations to ensure that the circumstances which led to the collision are avoided in the future. The service inquiry panel has conducted an independent, thorough and objective inquiry and their report is now complete.

A copy of the report has already been provided to relevant personnel and units in defence to ensure the timely dissemination of these air safety lessons. The recommendations from the report have either been addressed or are in the process of being addressed.

A copy of the service inquiry, redacted in accordance with the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, is being placed in the Library of the House today and on the Ministry of Defence website. Our deepest sympathies remain with the families of those who lost their lives in this tragic accident.

Foreign Affairs Council/General Affairs Council

Monday 30th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 June, and I attended the General Affairs Council on 24 June. The Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) was 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) was chaired by the Greek presidency. The meetings were held in Luxembourg.

Commissioner Füle (Enlargement) was in attendance for some of the discussions at the FAC. Commissioners Šefcovic (Inter-institutional relations and Administration) and Füle were in attendance for some of the discussions at the GAC. President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy was present for the GAC ministerial lunch which discussed preparations for the 26 and 27 June European Council.

Foreign Affairs Council

A provisional report of the meeting and conclusions adopted can be found at: http://www.consilium.europa. eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/143347.pdf.

Introductory remarks

Baroness Ashton updated Ministers on the situation in Kosovo following the elections on 8 June. On Iran, she reminded Ministers that the E3+3 joint plan of action was due to expire on 20 July.

Under AOB, the Foreign Secretary raised the global summit to end sexual violence in conflict, which launched the new international protocol. Implementation was the next step, and the Foreign Secretary looked to the EU to mainstream this into its crisis response and conflict prevention work. In addition under AOB, Croatia highlighted the severity of the recent floods in the Balkans, and Poland argued for broadening the remit of the European Endowment for Democracy’s work.

Ukraine

The newly appointed Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin attended part of the FAC to present President Poroshenko’s peace plan. Mr Klimkin stressed that the peace process should be inclusive, and reflected on the risk of further destabilisation of the situation. He acknowledged the need for social and economic development in eastern Ukraine. On Crimea, he set out the political, economic and humanitarian challenges that faced the Government of Ukraine. Klimkin said Ukraine had begun preparations for implementation of the EU/Ukraine association agreement, and noted that the Government of Ukraine was committed to European integration. He underlined the importance of energy security.

Ministers continued the discussion after Klimkin left. The Foreign Secretary noted the importance of continued diplomacy and of maintaining pressure on Russia to de-escalate, including by being ready to move to further measures. Ministers agreed to establish a civilian common security and defence policy mission, a key UK priority, and decided to prohibit the import into the EU of goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol without a certificate of origin from the Government of Ukraine. Ministers agreed conclusions which make it clear that preparatory work on sanctions continues so that further steps can be taken should events in eastern Ukraine so require, and restate the Council’s strong condemnation of the illegal annexation of Crimea. The conclusions also welcome President Poroshenko’s inauguration; express support for his peace plan as a major chance for de-escalation, and call on Russia to support the peace plan and adopt measures to stop the flow of illegal fighters, arms and equipment into Ukraine. Ministers also encouraged the Ukrainian authorities in their reforms, expressed concern about the human rights situation in eastern Ukraine and Crimea, and looked forward to an end to the gas dispute.

Southern Neighbourhood

Ministers discussed Libya, and agreed conclusions calling for political dialogue and peaceful elections on 25 June, reaffirming EU support for improving Libya’s border controls and securing arms stockpiles. The Foreign Secretary welcomed the work of international envoys.

On Egypt, Baroness Ashton issued a statement expressing Ministers’ concern about the recent court cases, including the sentences pronounced against the al-Jazeera journalists. After the FAC the Foreign Secretary told the press that he was “absolutely appalled” and said that

“Egypt has taken a major step in the wrong direction”.

Ministers also discussed the importance of the EU providing more support to Tunisia to promote economic growth to underpin Tunisia’s political reforms.

Iraq and Syria

Ministers discussed the latest developments in Iraq, in the presence of Nikolay Mladenov, UN Special Representative for Iraq. Ministers were united in concern about the rapidly deteriorating security situation, strongly condemning the attacks perpetrated by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Mladenov set out his five-point plan for Iraq, including humanitarian assistance, an inclusive political process, and work with the Kurds.

The Foreign Secretary said that Ministers may need to consider a new architecture to handle the transnational threat that ISIL represented, involving regional actors. He called for humanitarian assistance for Iraq, and continued pressure on the Syrian regime for a political solution, humanitarian access and chemical weapons destruction.

Ministers agreed conclusions on Iraq, condemning ISIL’s attacks and human rights abuses. The conclusions call on Iraqi leaders to unite to fight terrorism and underline the need for political reconciliation and more inclusive Government. The conclusions also pledge €5 million of EU humanitarian assistance to meet the needs of internally displaced persons.

On Syria, Ministers agreed to extend sanctions to 12 Ministers.

Kidnap for Ransom

Ministers agreed conclusions on Kidnap for Ransom, a key step in our drive to develop international consensus against paying ransoms. In line with the commitments made at the G8 summit and UN Security Council Resolution 2133, the conclusions condemn the use of Kidnap for Ransom and unequivocally reject the payment of ransoms and political concessions. They reaffirm the EU’s commitment to uphold UN resolutions which require all UN member states to prevent terrorists benefiting directly or indirectly from ransom payments.

Other business

Ministers agreed without discussion a number of other measures, including the following:

The Council adopted conclusions on Thailand; Afghanistan; on the Union’s approach on responsible sourcing of minerals; on the 10th anniversary of the EU guidelines on human rights defenders; and on the role of the private sector in development.

The Council amended EU restrictive measures against the Central African Republic in the light of UN Security Council Resolution 2127 (2013).

The Council extended the restrictive measures against the leadership of the Transnistrian region of the Republic of Moldova until 31 October 2014.

The Council adopted the EU’s annual report on human rights and democracy in the world in 2013.

The Council approved the EU priorities for the 69th UN General Assembly.

The Council extended the mandates of the EU special representative for human rights and of the EU special representative in Afghanistan until 28 February 2015 and agreed on the budget for their activities.

The Council approved the budget for the activities of the EU special representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina for the period from 1 July 2014 until 30 June 2015.

The Council approved the association agendas between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova, and between the European Union and Georgia.

The Council approved the EU position for the first meeting of the Association Council with central America.

General Affairs Council

The 24 June 2014 General Affairs Council (GAC) focused 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 application of article 10 of protocol 36 to the treaties; the 18-month programme of the Council; the EU maritime security strategy; and the EU strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian region. Under any other business, the GAC discussed EU cohesion policy and the flooding in Bulgaria.

A provisional report of the meeting can be found at:

http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/genaff/143363.pdf.

Enlargement and Stabilisation and Association Process

The GAC considered Albania. Since the GAC last discussed the issue, Albania has made progress on key justice and home affairs (JHA) reforms, including a seven-fold increase in cocaine seizures and action to dismantle a fraudulent passport factory, tackling illegal migration. The Government therefore agreed candidate status, but only on a clear understanding in the GAC conclusions that Albania still has much work to do and will need to show sustained political commitment to tackling deep-rooted problems, including through concrete and measurable steps. Candidate status is a symbolic step which has no implications for migration, no automaticity for joining the EU and is not a decision to open accession negotiations. The Government will adopt a very rigorous approach at every stage of this long process to ensure that Albania roots out corruption, cracks down on organised crime and firmly institutionalises the rule of law.

In my intervention, I also raised the importance of the GAC returning in December to the issue of reform of transitional controls on free movement for future enlargements, in the context of its consideration of the Commission’s annual enlargement package to be published this autumn.

Report on following up European Council conclusions

The presidency presented its report on the implementation of European Council conclusions covering: economic issues; the European semester process; climate and energy; and justice and home affairs.

Preparation of the June European Council

The GAC discussed the draft conclusions for the 26 and 27 June European Council, which the Prime Minister and other EU leaders will attend. The June European Council will include a dinner in Ypres on 26 June to commemorate the outbreak of the first world war followed by a Council meeting on 27 June in Brussels.

The June European Council is expected to focus on: the future justice and home affairs programme; economic issues, including better regulation; climate and energy including a Commission report on EU energy security; and Ukraine. Association agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine will be signed. The issue of the EU’s strategic priorities and institutional changes is also likely to be discussed.

I reaffirmed the need for clear objectives on job creation, growth and competitiveness; and called for text on the EU’s priorities to be as focused and ambitious as possible.

European Semester

Following discussion at the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council on 19 June and the Economic and Financial Affairs Council on 20 June, the GAC approved the European semester country specific recommendations (CSRs) published by the Commission to all non-programme EU member states.

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.

Application of Article 10 of Protocol 36 to the Treaties

The Council discussed the UK’s decision pursuant to article 10 of protocol 36 to the treaties to opt-out of all pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures. The Council noted that the UK Government and the Commission had reached an understanding on the list of non-Schengen pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures that the UK Government would seek to rejoin. In respect of the Schengen pre-Lisbon police and criminal justice measures, the Council recalled that it had previously provisionally noted a broad technical agreement on the draft Council decision although at this stage not all reservations could be lifted.

18-month programme of the Council

The new EU presidency trio of Italy, Latvia and Luxembourg presented their programme for the Council for the period of 1 July 2014 to 31 December 2015. This will focus on: growth and jobs; fundamental rights; climate and energy; and the post-2015 development programme.

The EU Maritime Security Strategy

The GAC adopted the EU maritime security strategy (EU MSS). The strategy aims to define the maritime security threats, risks and interests affecting the EU, while also strengthening the EU’s response to them. It will also serve to inform future action plans—due to be produced under the Italian presidency—which incorporate maritime security considerations more widely across EU policies.

The EU MSS is broadly consistent with the UK’s maritime security objectives and we will continue to work with European and other international partners on this global issue.

EU Strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian region

The Commission presented its communication and action plan for the EU strategy for the Adriatic and Ionian region. Italy confirmed that it would take this forward during their presidency.

Under any other business, the GAC discussed the idea of holding formal sessions of the General Affairs Council dedicated to cohesion policy to allow greater scrutiny at a political level of its implementation over the 2014-20 multi-annual financial perspective, and its contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy. No clear conclusions were reached on this at this stage.

The GAC also considered and expressed sympathy for the recent flooding affecting Bulgaria which has caused considerable damage to infrastructure.

Gifting of Equipment to Pakistan

Monday 30th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

The Government are committed to developing counter-terrorism capability in Pakistan in furtherance of their counter-terrorism objectives under the counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST). As part of this approach, the UK assists key partner nations to develop effective and sustainable counter-terrorism capabilities which operate in line with agreed international human rights standards. By helping countries to undertake counter-terrorism activities locally, it targets the problem at source and reduces the risk of a terrorist attack against that nation or another.

Pakistan has a particularly severe problem with improvised explosive device (IED) attacks perpetrated by terrorist groups and insurgents based within the country. Pakistan has sought assistance from the UK in tackling this threat and developing the capabilities of its security forces. The UK is delivering a counter-improvised explosive device (CIED) programme to assist Pakistan in establishing a multi-agency capability for tackling IEDs. The programme aims to build capacity to dismantle IED networks and improve intelligence available to countering emerging IED threats.

The project is now entering the final year of a three-year programme. A total of £6.995 million was allocated during the first two years which focused on training and gifting of equipment for the Pakistan Army, police, civil defence and frontier corps. Two departmental gifting minutes were laid on 15 October 2012 and 18 November 2013 in relation to these gifts.

The departmental minute laid today sets out our plans to gift counter improvised explosive device (CIED) equipment and training to Pakistan, totalling £4.72 million. Of this, an estimated £3.22 million is related to equipment as follows:

1) Counter Improvised Explosive Device (CIED) Equipment (£2,471,000)

2) Search Equipment (£666,000)

3) Vehicles (£75,135)

4) Storage and flights (£7,865)

Alongside the gift, the cost of training, project delivery, key leader engagement and maintenance costs will be approximately £1.5 million. The training aims to enhance Pakistani police, civil defence and military capacity to dismantle IED networks and improve intelligence available to countering emerging IED threats.

The gift is being met through the supply procedure, together with a contribution of £400,000 from the Danish Government.

The package of equipment and training will provide the military and law-enforcement agencies with a valuable and sustainable capability to deal with the threat.

The request for the UK’s assistance in tackling the CIED issue is an excellent opportunity to work in partnership with Pakistan to develop its indigenous capability and mitigate the terrorist risk to the UK, Pakistan, the UK’s interests in Pakistan and wider south Asia region.

The proposed gift has been assessed and approved against the consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. The proposed gift has been scrutinised and approved by the cross-HMG Overseas Contest Group, which has confirmed that it fits with the Government’s strategic and delivery objectives. FCO officials also assessed the project for human rights risks, using the overseas security and justice assistance guidelines established by the Foreign Secretary in 2011.

The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before the House of Commons, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or a motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval of the gift will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.

European Asylum Support Office

Monday 30th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

The European Asylum Support Office (EASO) is the agency that promotes practical co-operation on asylum between EU member states. It was established by the 2010 EASO regulation and the UK participates in it. The EASO has extended its co-operation to the Republic of Iceland, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Kingdom of Norway and the Swiss Confederation which have now become observers at EASO through external agreements that were negotiated and adopted by the European Union. The UK opted-in to all four agreements on 3 February and two of them were adopted by the Council on 19 May.

These working arrangements will allow Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland to participate in the EASO’s work and be entitled to receive support from it. All four associate countries already participate in the Dublin Regulation and contribute to its effective operation. We welcome the enhanced co-operation on asylum issues that these arrangements will bring and we look forward to their participation in future EASO initiatives.

Inquiries Act 2005

Monday 30th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Simon Hughes)]

Today I have published the Government’s response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Inquiries Act 2005.

Public inquiries are well regarded and valued by the people of this country as a means of holding public bodies to account, investigating matters of concern and maintaining confidence in just and transparent government. They are a means of bringing out into the open, and providing answers to, some of the most troubling events.

A post-legislative scrutiny review of the 2005 Act, carried out by this Government in 2010, concluded that the Act itself was generally working well but identified several areas of concern with the practical application of the Inquiry Rules 2006.

Four years on, the Select Committee’s timely and thorough report has been a great help in advancing the Government’s thinking on such questions as the applicability of the Act, its fitness for purpose, the powers of the inquiry Chair, and how to ensure that best practice is captured and passed on.

The Government have given careful consideration to the Committee’s 33 recommendations, agreeing with the majority of them. We will implement changes as soon as practicable and, where primary legislation is needed, when parliamentary time allows.

The Select Committee has made a significant contribution to the Government’s ongoing efforts to make inquiries more effective and efficient, and the benefits will be seen in the conduct of future inquiries.

Public inquiries which are in the appropriate form, conducted as speedily as possible, respond to public concerns and investigate the facts thoroughly are an essential part of an accountable and transparent democracy.

Copies of the Command Paper are available in the Vote Office and in the Printed Paper Office. The document is also available online, at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-response-to-select-committee-post-legislative-scrutiny-of-the-inquiries-act-2005.

Essex Thameside Rail Franchise

Monday 30th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

On Friday 27 June 2014, the Department for Transport announced its intention to award the Essex Thameside franchise to NXET Trains Ltd. The franchise will begin in November this year (2014) and run for 15 years until 2029.

The new franchise builds on the firm foundation of high standards of punctuality and passenger satisfaction that passengers on the route have come to expect. The bid sets out a clear plan for how NXET Trains Ltd will seek to exceed these expectations and meet the significant demand for transport services that is expected from the continuing strong economic growth in the area.

This is an excellent bid for passengers and will provide a large number of improvements, which include:

Additional fleet of 17 brand new trains providing almost 4,800 extra seats;

More than 25,000 additional seats for the morning peak-time commuters every week by the end of the franchise;

£5 million invested to improve Barking station;

£1.6 million invested to improve Fenchurch street station;

£10 million on improving further stations across the route;

Making staff more visible at stations;

Over 200 new car parking spaces;

More than £457,000 spent on cycle spaces and other accessibility improvements;

Free wi-fi at stations and on board trains;

Better information for customers;

SMART ticketing scheme including automatic delay repay for passengers.

NXET Trains Ltd bid is an ambitious one that not only provides for existing and future passengers but also delivers great returns for the taxpayer with over £2 billion in premium expected to be paid to Government over the course of the franchise.

In accordance with usual procurement practice, we are now in a standstill period of 10 days before my Department will be in a position to enter into, and complete, the formal contractual documentation and make the award to NXET Trains Ltd.

Reaching this milestone demonstrates that rail franchising is on track and providing a world-class railway that benefits the taxpayer and has the passenger at its heart.

Child Maintenance Service

Monday 30th June 2014 Written Statements

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

Today the Government reach a key milestone in their progress towards reforming the child maintenance system in Great Britain, by first bringing into force the regulations allowing the Department for Work and Pensions to end child maintenance arrangements in the 1993 and 2003 child maintenance schemes and, secondly, introducing a range of fees for using the 2012 child maintenance scheme, managed by the Child Maintenance Service.

The Government want to help parents to reduce levels of conflict after a separation and work together more effectively. After a relationship breakdown most parents still want what is best for their children and we want to support them to achieve this. Wherever possible we want to encourage more parents to consider arranging maintenance directly between themselves, rather than viewing statutory child maintenance arrangements as the default option.

Both parents will be offered free information and support to help them make the right choices for them about their child maintenance arrangements through the Child Maintenance Options service.

For those unable to make their own arrangements, there is a new more efficient and effective child maintenance scheme, managed by the Child Maintenance Service.

The introduction of fees is designed to act as an incentive for parents to collaborate following a separation, encouraging them to think again before defaulting to the Child Maintenance Service. The fees are also about people making a small contribution to the cost of an expensive service that will continue to be heavily subsidised by the taxpayer. The Government do, however, recognise that the collection charges for paying parents should be higher as they have greater control over whether or not maintenance is paid. The charges are encouraging not just compliance but also a shift towards collaboration, which is in the best interests of the children involved.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Monday 30th June 2014 Written Statements

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

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council met on 19 June 2014 in Luxembourg. Shan Morgan, Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU, represented the United Kingdom.

The Council approved the country-specific recommendations (CSRs) on the national reform programmes 2014 for each member state, including the macro-economic imbalance procedure (MIP). The opinions of the Employment Committee (EMCO) and Social Protection Committee (SPC) on the examination of the national reform programmes 2013 and the implementation of the 2013 country-specific recommendations were endorsed. EMCO and SPC reports on cross-cutting issues were noted, as was the employment performance monitor (EPM).

During the policy debate on the European semester, the UK stated that it was pleased that the Commission had struck the right balance between providing recommendations and recognising progress. This year’s CSRs reflected the work under way in the UK in a number of areas where we were already seeing significant progress (youth unemployment, child care provision and Universal Credit). The UK also tabled a minute statement reiterating its position that education policies remain a national competence.

Ministers had an exchange of views on the social dimension of the EU and the European monetary union (EMU) for which the discussion centred on the value of minimum income schemes. The UK made it clear that minimum income schemes were an area of national competence and that a “one size fits all” approach would not work.

The presidency’s progress reports on the equal treatment directive, women on company boards directive and the European network of employment services, workers access to mobility services, and further integration of labour markets (EURES) regulation were noted. The presidency gave a progress report on the proposal for a European platform to enhance co-operation in the prevention and deterrence of undeclared work, and Ministers also adopted Council conclusions on women and the economy.

Under any other business, the presidency provided information on the outcomes of the Roma summit which took place on 4 April 2014 and the 2014 International Labour Organisation (ILO) conference. The incoming Italian presidency presented its upcoming work programme which begins on 1 July.

Grand Committee

Monday 30th June 2014 Grand Committee

Monday, 30 June 2014.

Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Green Deal) (Amendment) Order 2014

Monday 30th June 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:30

Moved by

[Baroness Verma]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Green Deal) (Amendment) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)]

My Lords, I am pleased to open this debate. Since its launch in spring 2013, the impact of the Green Deal has been steadily growing. At the end of May, more than 230,000 Green Deal assessments had taken place, and almost 24,000 of those took place in May alone. More than 800,000 energy efficiency measures had been installed in almost 700,000 homes through ECO, cashback and the Green Deal by the end of April. That is a great achievement and I look forward to seeing that momentum continue.

On 9 June 2014, we launched the Green Deal home improvement fund. The fund will help even more people to install energy efficiency measures in their homes by providing them with money back on the contributions they have made towards their improvements. People in England and Wales can now get up to £7,600 back through this new fund so that they can take control of their energy bills and have warmer, greener homes. This includes up to £1,000 for installing two energy efficiency measures from an approved list, up to £6,000 for installing solid wall insulation and up to £100 refunded for their Green Deal assessment.

Those who have bought a property in the 12 months prior to application can also receive up to an extra £500 when they carry out energy efficiency improvements. We have already made it clear that by learning lessons from the Green Deal cashback scheme we will strive to improve it, so we have simplified the customer journey even further and expanded the range of companies that can participate. More than 800 companies have already registered.

DECC is working hard to improve the energy efficiency of the private rented sector. Action to improve the energy efficiency of private rented properties is badly needed. The high proportion of inefficient properties in the sector contributes to the high level of private rented-sector households in fuel poverty: an estimated 21%, or one in five households, compared to 8.5% of households in the owner-occupier sector.

We expect to consult shortly on our proposals for the implementation of new energy efficiency standards in the private rented sector using powers in the Energy Act 2011. The Green Deal provides a mechanism that did not exist previously for tenants to work with landlords to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. We want to make sure that tenants do not live in cold, damp, draughty houses and still pay too much for their energy.

The Green Deal’s pay-as-you-save principle creates a win-win for both landlords and their tenants. Landlords will benefit from having an improved property, and the electricity bill payer, who is normally the tenant, will contribute towards the cost of the improvements through instalments collected via the electricity bill while also benefitting from a warmer house. Green Deal repayments will appear on the tenant’s electricity bill and will be collected by their electricity supplier.

The amount that can be borrowed to pay for improvements using Green Deal finance is protected by the golden rule, which limits repayments to the level of savings that a typical household can expect to make on their energy bills.

Tenants will only pay Green Deal instalments that fall due while they are paying the bill for the property—that is, while they occupy the property and are benefiting from the improvements. When a tenant leaves the property, the responsibility for repayments will pass to the new electricity bill payer—or the landlord if the property is not re-let.

At the end of February, my department made important amendments to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, introduced by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Green Deal) (Amendment) Order 2014. Those amendments clarified who was to be treated as the “debtor” and “creditor” under a Green Deal plan, to help Green Deal providers to write Green Deal plans in the rented sector.

The amendments resolved two key issues. First, to address concerns relating to the difficulty of determining whether a particular Green Deal plan was regulated, the February amendments provide that almost all domestic Green Deal plans will be regulated by the Consumer Credit Act, regardless of who is making the energy efficiency improvements to the property. Tenants moving into the domestic property can therefore be reassured that they will receive the protections afforded by the Consumer Credit Act. Non-domestic Green Deal plans will be regulated only if the person arranging the improvements is an individual, and not a business. That approach greatly simplified the process for Green Deal providers and ensured that in all appropriate cases Green Deal plans would receive statutory rights and protections under the Consumer Credit Act— including, for example, where a Green Deal plan is set up by a corporate landlord during a void period. Secondly, the amendments also ensure that landlords and tenants signing up to the plans will receive the statutory rights and protections that they need under the Consumer Credit Act at the right stage. The Green Deal Finance Company and the landlord organisations have welcomed these changes.

I turn to the amendment that we are debating today. On 1 April 2014, responsibility for consumer credit regulation transferred from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority. As a result, the consumer credit regulatory regime was also transferred to a different legislative framework—that established by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. To ensure that the new regulatory regime for consumer credit remains consistent with the changes that were made to the Consumer Credit Act in February, we need to make some consequential amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, known as the RAO for short. The RAO sets out which activities are regulated for the purposes of the new regime.

The order that we are debating today puts these important consequential changes into effect. The amendments to the RAO mirror the policy approach that was taken in the Consumer Credit Act. The drafting of the RAO amendments has therefore been kept in the same terms as the amendments that were made to the Consumer Credit Act in February as far as possible. The order clarifies who is to be treated as the “borrower” and “lender” for the purposes of the Green Deal under the RAO. The definition of “borrower” follows the same approach as was introduced for the definition of “debtor” as part of our February amendments. The “lender” for the purposes of the RAO will be the Green Deal provider, again reflecting the definition of “creditor” introduced in February. The order also explains which Green Deal plans are to be treated as “credit agreements”, and therefore regulated under the new regulatory regime. Our amendments to the RAO will therefore ensure that Green Deal plans will continue to receive Consumer Credit Act protections in line with the policy introduced in February.

The order makes transitional provision to ensure that—for plans which have been entered into since 1 April and which, but for the amendments made by this order, would not have been regulated—the CCA applies in a way which is appropriate. That balances the Government’s desire to ensure that consumers are protected and receive adequate information about their credit arrangements, with the need to ensure that Green Deal providers are not subjected to unfair requirements.

The amendments brought about by this order do not change Green Deal policy; they are important in consequence of consumer credit regulatory changes that were introduced on 1 April. They ensure that the Green Deal plans will continue in a manner that was agreed by noble Lords in February. These changes will ensure that Green Deal providers will continue to have the clarity and confidence that they need to issue plans to consumers across all sectors. I commend this order to the Committee.

[Baroness Worthington (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her introduction of this order and for her very comprehensive explanation of what it achieves and why it is needed. We fully support it and have very little to say other than it is purely a technical amendment to maintain continuity and to keep things functioning in the light of consequential amendments arising from changes to another piece of legislation.

We still hope that the Green Deal will succeed in its intended aims. It got off to a slow start but there are now signs that it might be picking up a little. In general, we are fully behind the Government’s attempts to bring about a successful policy that encourages consumers to undertake energy efficiency improvements under the pay-as-you-save model. It is important to keep it under review and there will obviously be a point when fundamental changes will have to be assessed to show whether enough people are coming forward.

We are concerned that if this policy is only ever taken up in a small pocket of households it will not become normalised, and there is a risk that people who want to sell property with a Green Deal might have to take a penalty and be unable to realise the true value of their house because of fear over this mechanism. It is likely that that will be the case in the early days of the policy. Therefore, it is important that we have cross-party consensus to try to ensure that we do not see a class of stranded consumers. We will come back to that general point in the future when we have the opportunity to discuss other technical amendments in policy-related debates, but for now we have no problems with this order.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am pleased that the noble Baroness welcomes the order. I absolutely agree that these policies must be kept under review. We have done that, so we have been able to improve and simplify the measures and mechanisms needed to go out there and reach a greater number of people. I accept what the noble Baroness says about wanting to normalise the Green Deal into every home where improvement is needed.

I shall finish on a positive note. Assessments are going on. There were 234,050 assessments made up until the end of May 2014, which shows that we are on an upward trajectory. We cannot be complacent. We must make sure that we are reaching out to the very people who need to have their homes improved. I am very pleased that the noble Baroness welcomes the amendment and I commend it to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

15:44

Sitting suspended.

Banking Act 2009 (Banking Group Companies) Order 2014

Monday 30th June 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

15:47

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Banking Act 2009 (Banking Group Companies) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I am also pleased to introduce the Banking Act 2009 (Exclusion of Investment Firms of a Specified Description) Order 2014, the Banking Act 2009 (Restriction of Partial Property Transfers) (Recognised Central Counterparties) Order 2014 and the Banking Act 2009 (Third Party Compensation Arrangements for Partial Property Transfers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014. I will refer to the statutory instruments respectively as the banking group companies order, investment firms order, partial property transfer order and third party compensation regulations.

The financial crisis of 2007 to 2009 highlighted the need for the government to resolve failing systemic financial institutions in an orderly manner to protect UK financial stability and the economy. Moreover, resolution should be achieved without recourse to public funds. Since the financial crisis, a wide programme of financial sector reform has been under way at domestic, European and G20 levels. The reform has focused not only on banks but on investment firms and central counterparties, which also have the potential to cause major widespread disruption to the financial system.

Since 2009 a special resolution regime has been in place to deal with the failure of deposit-taking institutions such as banks and building societies. The regime gives the UK authorities a permanent framework, providing tools for dealing with failing banks and building societies. It gives the Bank of England a key role in implementing a resolution using the statutory resolution tools. The Financial Services Act 2012 widens the special resolution regime to include banking group companies, investment firms and central counterparties.

The powers provided for within the regime will enable the Bank of England, as resolution authority, to use the following tools to deal with the failure of investment firms and banking group companies: to transfer some or all of the securities or business of a firm or its parent undertaking to a commercial purchaser; and to transfer some or all of a firm or its parent undertaking to a bridge bank—that is, a company owned and controlled by the Bank of England.

The powers provided for within the regime will enable the Bank of England, as resolution authority, to use the following tools to deal with the failure of central counterparties: to transfer some or all of a firm or its parent undertaking to a bridge central counterparty—that is, a company owned and controlled by the Bank of England—or commercial purchaser, and to transfer ownership of a CCP to any person.

The Financial Services Act 2012 also extends the bank administration procedure to investment firms and banking group companies. The bank administration procedure is applicable when, during the resolution of a bank, a partial transfer of property takes place and the “residual bank”—ie, the part left behind—is insolvent. This procedure ensures that the residual bank continues to provide services and facilities required to enable the transferred business to be operated effectively. The same procedure will be available for the residual part of an investment firm or banking group company. The instruments that I present today are required to underpin and bring into force the widened scope of the special resolution regime and bank administration procedure.

The EU’s bank recovery and resolution directive requires there to be resolution tools in place for investment firms and banking group companies, and the instruments presented today are consistent with this directive. There is widespread support for putting in place a resolution regime for investment firms, central counterparties and banking group companies. We first consulted at the end of 2012 on broad policy options, and subsequently took powers through primary legislation. Then, following extensive work on regime design with firms, the Government published detailed proposals on the secondary legislation in September last year.

The statutory instruments I am introducing today take into account the feedback we received from a wide range of stakeholders during the consultation period. These instruments put into place the necessary safeguards and definitions required before the special resolution regime can be extended to investment firms, central counterparties and banking group companies.

The first of these orders—the banking group companies order—specifies conditions which must be met by an undertaking to be considered a “banking group company” for the purposes of the special resolution regime. The aim of using resolution tools in respect of banking group companies is to ensure that resolution over a failing bank in the same group as the company is effective, and in particular to ensure that any intra-group service provision to the failing bank—for example, the provision of IT services—remains in place while in resolution. Subject to exceptions, the banking group companies which may be resolved under the special resolution powers are the subsidiary and parent companies of a bank, investment firm or central counterparty in resolution, and other subsidiaries of its parent companies.

The investment firms order excludes small investment firms from the scope of special resolution regime and bank administration procedure. Specifically, this instrument narrows the scope to investment firms of a type that is required under the capital requirements directive to hold initial capital of €730,000. Over 2,000 investment firms operate in the UK, of which 250 have capital above that threshold. The activities those firms are permitted to undertake, such as trading on their own account and underwriting financial instruments, taken together with the value of assets held on their balance sheet, means that a failure by such a firm could threaten financial stability in a way which the failure of a smaller firm would not. This order reflects that reality.

The partial property order places restrictions on the making of partial property transfers made in respect of central counterparties. This order provides legislative safeguards for the benefit of direct and indirect users of clearing services provided by CCPs. Those safeguards will provide them with greater certainty as to how a partial property transfer might affect their contractual rights, and ensure that there are appropriate restrictions and limitations on the making of a partial property transfer.

Finally, the third party compensation regulations put in place third party compensation arrangements in the event that some but not all of an investment firm has been transferred during resolution. This statutory instrument ensures that creditors are no worse off as a result of resolution action taken by authorities with respect to a failing investment firm which results in the transfer of part of the failing entity than they would have been if the entire entity had entered resolution.

I hope that I have assured the Committee that these statutory instruments represent a necessary step forward in putting an effective resolution regime in place for investment banks, central counterparties and banking group companies.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the statutory instruments, all of which relate to the special resolution regime. I have spent an enjoyable weekend trying to understand them, but it is clear that enthusiasm for such an exercise has not been widespread. Nevertheless, my understanding of them is much as the Minister has described them. The first, on banking group companies, seems to fill a hole whereby service-giving subsidiaries may fall out of scope during the resolution process. The order makes sure that they remain in scope and that the resolution does not end up being tool-less in that area.

I admit that I failed on the second order. Its general intent to exclude small companies is pretty clear, but why it defines small companies as those with initial capital of less than €730,000 in one part and then uses €125,000 as the threshold in another I cannot understand. If the Minister could enlighten me, I would be delighted by the depth of his briefing, but in all probability I shall receive another letter.

As the Minister said, the third order relates to recognised central counterparties. As he well described, if there is a resolution process with a central counterparty, it is possible that some parts of the central counterparty will be an ongoing concern while others will not. There may be differential equity between creditors. The rules seek to make sure that creditors are treated fairly in that situation—I think that that is roughly what the order says. The fourth statutory instrument is on the general rule on partial transfers: creditors are no worse off than if there had been a full bankruptcy or administration. Faced with orders of such stunning reasonableness, I can say no other than that we have no objection to them and wish them luck.

However, learning from the Minister at our previous outing together, I shall stray into the general area of the special resolution regime, as he did into that of mutuals when we were discussing a stunningly small order that we together approved. This has been a very fruitful exercise, because the importance of the special resolution regime is totally misunderstood. The special resolution regime happens only in dire circumstances. If a major firm is failing—let us say, a large bank such as Barclays—and approaching being not viable, we have dire circumstances. The regime set up for such circumstances is illustrated in a document that I have from May 2011, but I believe that it remains just as applicable today. It sets out the extent to which, in a recovering regime, the PRA would seriously interfere with the way in which such a failing firm would work. It would demand changes in management and the composition of the board. It would talk about capital distribution and limiting planned business activities. There would have been a massive amount of activity from the PRA before one approached the situation where the special resolution regime was going to happen.

Essentially, with a large firm—one of the big six, eight or whatever banks—the PRA would have been devoting a large part of its resources to making sure this failure did not happen. We are now facing a situation, where, despite all that effort—the stress test, all the new rules and so on—a firm is either no longer viable or likely to become so, and is put into the special resolution regime. It is put into the special resolution regime— if I have read the supporting paperwork correctly—by the PRA. The PRA, in consultation with the Treasury and the rest of the Bank, takes the view that this failure mode is likely to happen.

The Treasury is involved because one of the ways out of the mess is the way out we used last time. I think Alistair Darling and his people did a brilliant job, frankly, because they were faced with a catastrophic situation, with—as far as one can say—no real prior thinking-through by the regulatory authorities of what the right mechanisms would be. Indeed, as we know from later analysis, there was not even a lot of thinking about who was responsible and so on. They did a brilliant job with a very crude tool— essentially they nationalised the banks. This has the significant downside that the taxpayer ended up footing the bill. The whole objective of the special resolution regime is to create a series of more complex tools which allows resolution to take place without the taxpayer picking up the bill. The most recent part of that has been the extension to central counterparties, which have clearly emerged in analysis, and the bailing provisions, which move the problem to the creditors—to the industry—as opposed to the taxpayers.

If the Treasury decides that it does not want to go down that route, the Bank—no longer the PRA—is in charge of the special resolution regime. Its objectives, as far as I can see, are to maintain all the key functions as going concerns. That does not mean keeping the business alive as a going concern—that was the PRA’s task. The Government are clear that it is not a no-failure situation—they want failure to occur if that is the proper thing to happen. Nevertheless, the resolution regime provides a way of taking the activities forward in such a way that the public, the trading communities and society in general carry on having the banking facilities they need to survive.

The more you think about it, and about our experience of the last crash, the more frightening this scenario is. This looks as though it is a 60-hour exercise—when we have got to this situation we are thinking about close-of-play Friday and having it sorted out by Monday morning. That is a pretty challenging world to live in. I may have called it wrong; it may be being thought of as a more gentle process. However, one has to remember that we are contemplating using this process only in a situation which, at the moment, we cannot contemplate. Broadly, we are trying to put right all the things that typically lead to bank failure—through various ratios, protections and so on. From having read other bits of this stuff, I think that the thing that mitigates this mess is the extent to which the PRA will have amassed a lot of previously unavailable information, including specific information to help the bank in the resolution situation. This will mean that the bank will start with some information. I accept that most of this is about central counterparties, but given banks’ behaviour and the irregularities we have seen, one fears that in such a catastrophic situation it would be even worse than expected; in other words, despite all that information, when you dig into it you have got a real crisis.

Failure would be catastrophic. The impact assessment that accompanies the orders quotes the banking commission as saying that a failure could have net present value of 63% of GDP. That is an enormous impact and would be one of the most catastrophic events that could hit the United Kingdom, short of war. It is difficult to think of anything worse than the financial services of this country in collapse.

Who is actually going to do this resolution exercise? The situation is better than previously because the Bank now has a series of tools, but it is more complex because of the complexity of the tools. The answer is: the Bank of England special resolution unit, headed by Andrew Gracie, who reports to a deputy governor, Sir Jon Cunliffe. I have looked briefly at the CVs of those two men and they are successful and respected public servants. But the questions I have for the Government are: how big is their support? How big is this unit? How prepared is it? How developed are its systems?

Looking through the reports, both of the PRA and of the Bank, it is difficult to see. We can see one or two favourable things and one or two slightly worrying things. The favourable thing is the point I raised more than two years ago about the quality of staff of the regulator and the Bank of England. Mark Carney has made a big point of making the development of people one of his key aims. I am really pleased to see that sense of the value of people, and great chunks of his report are about that resolution. What is less happy is the level of staff turnover. There is 8.1% staff turnover at the Bank and 11.6% at the PRA. The thing that worries me most in the reports is the relative lack of saliency about the special resolution regime and the resources needed to support it.

I have spent most of my career in environments where one faces catastrophic low-incidence events. I started as an aeroplane driver—getting that wrong can be pretty catastrophic—and moved into the rail industry, where, sadly, we did have catastrophic events that killed large numbers of people; I ended it in the nuclear industry. What you learn from those industries is that if you are facing a low-incidence high-consequence event, it is not natural to worry about it and therefore you have to put in place special regimes that focus on it; it has to become almost obsessive.

My questions for the Government are: how are they assuring themselves that the Bank is up to this massive challenge? How does the special resolution unit train and practise for this challenge? That is how other industries I have been involved in face up to these things; they specifically train for them. In 3,500 hours, one engine stopped and that was not very exciting; every simulator detail, engines were stopping all over the place. That is how you do it: you practise for the catastrophic. What exercises have been conducted to test the unit and its systems? You can learn an enormous amount from the conducting of exercises and simulations, which, instead of being a theoretical exercise, come much closer to reality as you play out the events in a real-time way.

What pan-government exercises have been conducted? One of the problems of high-level emergencies is that senior people in government are introduced into the emergency, usually with absolutely no understanding of the series of decisions that they are going to face. You can get into that situation if you do not have a system of pan-government exercises to ensure that everyone knows what they are doing.

Lastly, what mechanisms have been put in place to work with our US and European partners in such an emergency? I gave the Minister a brief overview of the questions that I would be working through but I do not expect detailed answers to all of them. Still, after he has given his general reassuring reply—that is what he is paid for, really, so I expect nothing less—I would value it if he read the report of this session, looked at the questions, talked to people in the Treasury and at the Bank and produced a more researched, thoughtful reply. I cannot stress enough that you have to put the systems in place to assure yourself that, in the unlikely event that a low-incidence high-consequence event actually happens, you will be prepared for it.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having taken so much time to grapple with these extremely technical orders. On the difference between €730,000 of capital and the €125,000 of capital, the reference in the order to €730,000 refers to initial capital while the €125,000 is operating capital. However, the €730,000 figure is accepted across the EU as the slightly arbitrary point at which a firm is potentially significantly important. If I have got that wrong, I will write to him. He raised a bigger point, of course: how can we be sure that, if we are faced with a catastrophic event, we deal with it in a competent manner? One of the challenges here is that, slightly differently from when the noble Lord was an airline pilot or indeed running the Underground, the number of variables that can go wrong or interact with each other in a banking crisis is very high. It is not as though you can plan for 10 eventualities; there will be many more variables than that.

We have tried to put in place a legislative framework that gives us the powers we need; you cannot deal with these crises if you do not have the powers, and that is what the plethora of legislation over the past few years seeks to do. We think that we have an adequate infrastructure—or, rather, a superstructure—in place, with the PRA and the other changes at the Bank and the greater responsibilities that it now has. Secondly, we think that under the governor’s stewardship, as the noble Lord said, the quality of staff of the bank is very high.

The noble Lord pointed to the level of turnover. I think that that is a general concern in the public sector more generally, and has been in the Treasury as well as the Bank. It is fair to say that as far as the Treasury is concerned—I do not know about the Bank—the level of turnover has reduced somewhat over recent years, but it is still pretty high. In reality, that is in the nature of these institutions: there will be quite a lot of churn among people who are coming into and going out of the public and private sectors in the banking world. However, we think that we have a very high quality of staff.

Of course, one of the challenges which the noble Lord referred to is that although there is a special resolution unit, fewer people work in this area outside a crisis than when there is a crisis, otherwise you would have a huge number of people sitting around doing nothing for a very long time. Therefore the way the Bank and Treasury seek to deal with that problem is, of course, that other people in the institution would be brought in—just as they were at the time of the RBS and Lloyds crisis—to help on resolution.

There is a recent example of where it was not in the end necessary to have the full resolution procedure because the PRA and the Treasury—and in particular the Bank—had worked so closely with the relevant institution. That was the case with the Co-op, which last autumn faced quite severe problems. In the end, it was possible for those problems to be resolved by the Co-op without recourse to the provisions in the Banking Act or the Financial Services Act. However, that was possible in part because it was working with the Bank very closely over a period, and as a result of that it came up with an effective solution.

The noble Lord quite rightly referred to the fact that when you get to a crisis, sometimes you have to act very quickly, which is what happened with RBS. I hope that in future most cases such as that would be more analogous to the Co-op case than to RBS. In the Co-op case, it was clear for a while that there was a difficulty, and over a period of months—not a huge number, but over a period of weeks and a small number of months—options were identified and implemented. If the PRA is doing its work, it will not be taken completely by surprise in the way we were with the banking crisis. Of course, that does not mean that nothing will happen as a surprise. As the noble Lord pointed out, while we hope that the degree of information the PRA gets from the banks is always perfect, it will sometimes be less than perfect. One thinks of crises in the past that have occurred because the bank’s senior management and the compliance people did not know what a rogue member of staff was doing. As we know, that brought the bank down, for example, in the case of Barings. Therefore there will always be a risk.

The noble Lord asked specifically about training and practice exercises, and about how we work with our EU and American partners. There have been a number of training exercises to look at such situations. Scenario planning is obviously part of the role of the special resolution unit, and it does that. We work very closely with our American and European partners to see what lessons we can learn, and to have in place good working relationships and mechanisms to activate if we find that a bank is in real difficulty and that we might need to use the resolution procedures.

If I can say anything about that more formally, I will write to the noble Lord. However, both the Treasury and the Bank are acutely aware of the need to be able to use the powers they now have in an effective and timely way, and they are working very hard to make sure that they are up to snuff as regards doing that. As I said, the Government have considerable confidence that we have put a legislative process and structure in place that give the Treasury and the Bank the powers that they need and the people and structures internally to ensure that they are properly exercised. This is some way from the extremely important but rather technical amendments that we have been discussing today. I hope that all noble Lords in the Committee will feel that the statutory instruments are necessary and proportionate, and I commend them to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Banking Act 2009 (Exclusion of Investment Firms of a Specified Description) Order 2014

Monday 30th June 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:19

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Banking Act 2009 (Exclusion of Investment Firms of a Specified Description) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Banking Act 2009 (Restriction of Partial Property Transfers) (Recognised Central Counterparties) Order 2014

Monday 30th June 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:19

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Banking Act 2009 (Restriction of Partial Property Transfers) (Recognised Central Counterparties) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Banking Act 2009 (Third Party Compensation Arrangements for Partial Property Transfers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Monday 30th June 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:20

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Banking Act 2009 (Third Party Compensation Arrangements for Partial Property Transfers) (Amendment) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Anonymous Registration (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Order 2014

Monday 30th June 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:21

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Anonymous Registration (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, unfortunately there has been a fatality on the line from Cardiff, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is unable to get here. At short notice I am moving this Motion, which was tabled in her name, based on my modest expertise on the transition to individual electoral registration; noble Lords will recall that I have moved somewhere around 30 SIs on the subject in the last 12 months. I shall speak also to the four other Motions standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the Order Paper, which are on the draft Donations to Candidates (Anonymous Registration) Regulations 2014, the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Anonymous Registration) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2014, the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2014, and the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2014.

As noble Lords may recall, the introduction of anonymous registration to Northern Ireland was first discussed in March, when we brought forward the first piece of legislation in this series. The five instruments before the Committee today mainly complete this process. Two further instruments are required, one of which is subject to the negative resolution procedure and the other of which has no necessary parliamentary procedure. We intend to make all the remaining instruments at the same time after these five instruments have been approved by Parliament.

Anonymous registration allows a person who is at risk to register to vote without their name and address being included on the electoral register. Persons with an anonymous entry and their proxies will be permitted to vote only by post and not in person in Northern Ireland.

Collectively, these five instruments apply the provisions introduced earlier this year across all elections in Northern Ireland, and make additional amendments to ensure that the system of anonymous registration will work effectively. Let me now briefly describe in turn what each of these instruments achieves.

The draft Anonymous Registration (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Order 2014 makes minor and technical amendments to ensure that the process created by the first order is crystal clear in relation to postal proxy voters and tendered postal ballot papers. The amendments ensure that procedures for proxy postal voters and tendered postal ballot papers are consistent across all elections.

The draft Donations to Candidates (Anonymous Registration) Regulations 2014 relate to donations to candidates at parliamentary elections. They provide that, where a donor is making a donation to a candidate at a parliamentary election and that donor is anonymously registered, a certificate of anonymous registration issued within the UK will be treated as evidence that an individual has an anonymous entry in the electoral register.

The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Anonymous Registration) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2014 implement the system of anonymous registration in respect of European Parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland and mirror the provisions for parliamentary and local elections.

The draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2014 makes amendments to ensure that the newly amended provisions on anonymous registration will work for Northern Ireland Assembly elections.

Finally, the draft Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2014 implement anonymous registration for UK parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland. The amendments to electoral registration for parliamentary elections will apply also to local and Northern Ireland Assembly elections. These regulations specify how applications for anonymous registration should be made and determined, the relevant court orders and injunctions that can be used to support an application, and the individuals who can provide attestations in support of anonymous registration applications.

The system of anonymous registration will come into force in Northern Ireland on 15 September 2014. Over the summer, we will continue to work with the Chief Electoral Officer, the PSNI and the Electoral Commission to ensure that there is full understanding of the introduction of anonymous registration.

I hope that noble Lords will agree that it is important to complete the package of legislation necessary to introduce anonymous registration across all elections in Northern Ireland. Anonymous registration is an important safeguard that allows vulnerable people to exercise their right to vote without fear or threat to their safety. I commend the instruments to the Committee.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for stepping into the breach at very short notice, on this occasion to ensure that the regulations can go forward promptly and that everything is in place in good time for the elections in 2015. I welcome that.

However, many people looking on from outside may find it a little strange that, after 30 or 40 years in which peoples’ lives were very much at risk, including anyone coming into the public eye for any purpose, it is now, when one hopes that we are at the other side of the peace process, that we are introducing anonymous registration. To some extent, the reason is that it has been introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom and this order ensures that Northern Ireland is not out of kilter.

I hope that that turns out to be the only good reason for it. One worry of very recent times has been that, perhaps out of a fear of pressing the nuclear button of sectarianism between Protestants and Catholics and unionists and nationalists, some nefarious individuals have turned their attention to others who have come into the community from other parts of the European Union and elsewhere, and we have seen a rise in the kind of racism and xenophobia that we have not previously seen in Northern Ireland. Tragically, every few days, one sees intimidation of people from other parts of Europe and the world. I hope that some of the campaigns that we have been trying to develop in recent times, including the Unite Against Hate campaign and others, will have a positive effect that ensures that anonymous registration is merely a harmonisation measure and not one that is necessary for the situation in Northern Ireland.

However, in general terms, I welcome this and the other instruments, which will put the house in order in time for elections next year.

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for stepping in at such short notice. He is welcome to the Northern Ireland brief, even though it might be temporary—but we never know what fate awaits us.

Her Majesty’s Opposition, in the spirit of consensus and bipartisanship over Northern Ireland, also support the statutory instruments. Like the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, I have an “however”: however, this has been promised for quite a while. It has been a year since the miscellaneous provisions Bill was passed. The point was rightly made at the time on all sides that we wanted parity on anonymous donations, for instance, and anonymous registration. Has the Minister been briefed on what assessment has been made of what progress, if any, has been made towards removing anonymous registration and the provisions for anonymous donors?

As ever, we are at a delicate time in Northern Ireland, with a conference due on Wednesday which, we hope, will tackle the real outstanding issues in Northern Ireland which are blocking further progress. However, within the confines of security, which we fully understand, I am trying to get a feel for what assessment the Northern Ireland Office has made of the temperature in Northern Ireland, what is the nature of those assessments and what they entailed. I am also trying to get a feel for how active Northern Ireland Office Ministers have been in Northern Ireland itself. We all want them to be proactive—carefully proactive, but proactive. I would hate to get a sense that, for the past year, they have just sat on the situation and have not made any assessment of progress towards agreement on such statutory instruments.

I hope that I am not being unfair to the Minister—he is only just here—but can he undertake to give us in writing a summary of what Northern Ireland Office Ministers have been doing over the past year? We need a picture of the Secretary of State’s engagement, if any, with the Parades Commission, because that is a really sore point on both sides of the community divide. I am not looking for revelation of issues or contacts that would stir up the pot, if you like, but we need to ensure collectively here that Northern Ireland does not feel that Westminster is not bothering, not looking at it urgently and taking not an offhand approach—that would be unfair—but a light touch, when it needs to be a wee bit firmer.

We need to find out what the community approach would be. Several people have expressed concern to me about anonymous registration and anonymous donors. It seems that, a year later, we have stood still. Perhaps I am being unfair through lack of knowledge, but I should like to get some picture of what the Northern Ireland Office has been doing. If the noble Lord is unable to answer now, as I fully understand, I would appreciate a report in writing, because if we are proceeding to normalisation, why are we not moving a wee bit faster? Everybody—the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists, the DUP, the Government—says that they want it. What progress is being made? I should appreciate a response.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the weather in Northern Ireland is warm at this time of year—the noble Lord asked about the temperature. Part of the reason for introducing these measures in September rather than June was that the PSNI is, for reasons that he well knows, rather busier over the summer than it is in the autumn. That is a simple explanation of why they did not come in three months earlier.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that we are introducing anonymous registration in Northern Ireland partly to ensure consistency with the rest of Great Britain. We all understand the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland which call for anonymous registration, but anonymous registration in Great Britain—on the mainland—is to do with witness protection in a number of instances, wives who have been battered by their husbands or women who have been battered by their partners. Those are, dare I say, less abnormal reasons for anonymous registration. We hope that, over the years, the number of those who look for anonymous registration in Northern Ireland will fall towards the mainland level. We anticipate that around 2,000 people may apply for anonymous registration in Northern Ireland, which would be considerably higher, proportionately, than on the mainland; I think there are of the order of less than 2,000 across the mainland. However, this number will fall if and as the situation in Northern Ireland becomes less tense than it has been.

On the question of why we have not moved more rapidly, there have been two consultations on how to put in anonymous registrations. It is a delicate and complicated process. The first was during the previous Government, in 2008; the second was under this Government. Part of the complication of the introduction —the reason we have several different SIs today—is that it requires changes in every part of the electoral system and in other areas, such as obligations for jury service. The preparation of eight different statutory instruments by the NIO unavoidably took some time. Legislation which was essential for the conduct of elections in 2010 and the triple poll in 2011 unavoidably took priority over anonymous registration.

On the question of donations—which are rather different from registration—we intend as far as possible to bring greater transparency about the origins of donations in Northern Ireland. Legislation will shortly be brought forward that will allow for more details of Northern Ireland donations and loans to be published while still protecting donor identities. I hope that provides some assurance. I am happy to write further to the noble Lord if there are other issues at stake. Full public consultation on the draft order to increase transparency took place, I understand, in January, and we are working on the responses to that consultation, which will shortly be followed by legislation.

Motion agreed.

Donations to Candidates (Anonymous Registration) Regulations 2014

Monday 30th June 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:38

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Donations to Candidates (Anonymous Registration) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

European Parliamentary Elections (Anonymous Registration) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2014

Monday 30th June 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:38

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do consider the European Parliamentary Elections (Anonymous Registration) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2014

Monday 30th June 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:38

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2014

Monday 30th June 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:38

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2014.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

Motion agreed.

Health Care and Associated Professions (Indemnity Arrangements) Order 2014

Monday 30th June 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Consider

16:40

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Health Care and Associated Professions (Indemnity Arrangements) Order 2014.

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, in July 2010 the four UK health departments accepted the recommendations of the Finlay Scott review, which recommended that all regulated healthcare professionals should be required to hold appropriate insurance or indemnity cover as a condition of their registration when carrying out work as a regulated healthcare professional.

The Government are committed to requiring all practising regulated healthcare professionals to hold indemnity or insurance cover, and have been for some time. The Government are also required to implement Article 4(2)(d) of the EU directive on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare, which reinforces that direction of travel and further commits us to legislation. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that people have access to appropriate redress in the unlikely event that they are negligently harmed during the course of their care. All patients should have that by right. The overwhelming majority of regulated healthcare professionals will be unaffected by the proposals because they already have insurance or indemnity cover. For employees in the NHS or independent sector, cover is already in place because of an employer’s vicarious liability for the negligent acts or omissions of their employees. Personal cover is required in relation only to self-employed practice.

The order makes provision that all practising regulated healthcare professionals must hold an appropriate insurance or indemnity arrangement as a condition of their registration—and, in the case of medical practitioners, a licence to practise—with the relevant regulatory body. It will be for individual healthcare professionals to assure themselves that appropriate cover is in place for all the work that they undertake. Unless healthcare professionals, who are practising or intend to practise, can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the regulatory bodies that such arrangements are or will be in place, they will be unable to be registered as a healthcare professional and will be unable to practise. I commend this order to the Committee, and beg to move.

[Baroness Cumberlege (Con)]

I declare an interest as a fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, a vice-president of the Royal College of Midwives and a patron of the National Childbirth Trust and Independent Midwives UK. I have other interests that are in the Lords’ register. I thank my noble friend for introducing this statutory instrument so clearly and for meeting the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and myself, when we discussed the issue of independent midwives.

Draft statutory instruments are not usually a very gripping subject, but this one is because it affects the livelihood of so many people. It is therefore being introduced as an affirmative resolution. Not many statutory instruments, when enacted, will ensure that a professional is denied the right to practice—denied their livelihood. However, I start from the premise that every practitioner should have professional indemnity insurance. Some independent midwives are possibly the only group reluctantly acting without it but not only do they recognise the need for it, they want it and are prepared to go to great lengths to achieve it. This statutory instrument has concentrated minds and focused on the practicalities to achieve it, and from that point of view I welcome it.

It has been a struggle because insurance bodies draw no distinction between midwifery care and obstetric care, and of course the service given by each profession is very distinct. Obstetric treatment is very often a high risk activity, whereas midwife care is much less so. Successive Governments have adopted a policy that women should have choice—choice in healthcare but particularly choice in maternity services. This policy has been very widely welcomed by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives and the National Childbirth Trust, which have listened to women and have fought fairly long and hard to achieve this choice. All the evidence that they and others have gathered shows that women and their partners want choice. After all, there is nothing more important in life than giving life and bringing up the next generation.

Over the years, choice has been eroded thanks to the closure of maternity units, but in some places midwife-led units or birth centres have replaced them. They are often under threat as well. I welcome midwife-led units because they are another form of choice but I regret the diminution of home births because that is a choice denied. I ask my noble friend: how many home birth services in the NHS are on temporary hold and how many have closed? I know that they are very detailed questions and I would welcome a written reply if that suits my noble friend better than responding now. I am asking these questions because Independent Midwives UK provides for home births. That is a government policy and one that has been strongly endorsed by NICE. Independent Midwives UK provides continuity by a named midwife throughout antenatal care, birth and postnatal care—another government policy. Throughout the NHS this has proved to be pretty unachievable because community midwives are drawn into the acute services whenever there is a shortage, and because there is frequently a shortage it happens frequently.

The department’s new definition of continuity is co-ordination. A named midwife should co-ordinate the care, as my noble friend said previously. We should ask women what they think. Is co-ordination the same as continuity? Of course it is not, when in extremis women cannot even get their co-ordinator on the telephone 24/7 but they can with an independent midwife. Do they build a relationship with the co-ordinating midwife, assisting at that seminal moment of giving birth? No, because she is not there; she is too busy co-ordinating.

Independent midwives in all their forms—as social enterprises, employee-owned organisations, provident industrial societies with “bencom” status and so on—want to provide choice, continuity and care for women both in the independent sector and for the NHS. They are based in their communities and many provide services for vulnerable women, asylum seekers, those with mental health problems and so on, on a pro bono basis, but like the rest of us they cannot live on fresh air. They are seeking commissions with clinical commissioning groups. They are working towards direct referrals from GPs who welcome the continuity of knowing the midwife responsible for a mother who needs advice and support. Can my noble friend suggest ways in which the Government could support independent midwives, who are the professionals who not only support the Government’s policy but are the professionals who actually carry it out?

The NHS mandate, which sets the agenda for NHS England and which my noble friend and his ministerial colleagues shape, is an opportunity to ensure that alternative choices are there for women and their partners. Will he encourage the ministerial team to focus on this issue and enable independent providers of services to thrive, thereby enhancing government policies, giving women choice and providing the continuity that they seek?

In closing, I pay tribute to the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which has taken a very measured view of this statutory instrument, has listened and has tried to meet the needs of all concerned, amending its guidance as necessary. I look forward to my noble friend’s reply, in writing if necessary.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I completely endorse all the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and I am glad that there has been some give from the council to try to move this difficult issue forward.

I want to make a slightly different point. In these febrile days, when everything in the EU is damned, it is most welcome that this regulation comes from a new directive that is going to give patients across the EU the security of knowing that there will be indemnity and insurance available in every state. It may not be directly comparable but there will be something there. I am pretty sure that this will not hit the headlines but I see it as a major benefit to those of us who travel in Europe, as well as those coming to the UK. It is the sort of thing that is completely hidden from the headlines; it should not be.

On the difficult issue of indemnity insurance for midwives, I have been wondering, having come late to this debate, whether or not there is scope for NHS England, the regulatory councils and the insurance councils to try to work better together. The financial services industry talks frequently about the problems of insuring a very small service. This clearly is that, and it does not fit into an ordinary framework. Yet the midwives have been through exactly the same training as their counterparts elsewhere in the NHS and I am sure that clinical commissioning groups will demand that they have insurance cover. That is absolutely right. Therefore, the problem is in looking at this small cohort of midwives rather than seeing them as part of the greater group who have qualified under the same professional regulation.

I ask the Minister whether discussions will continue to ensure that no one could be denied service simply because they may not fall neatly into one of the categories. Again, I congratulate the Nursing and Midwifery Council on at least trying to find a solution to this difficult problem but it should not be said, as it is in paragraph 8.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, that there is a balance that has to be made here and, as it affects only a few people, we should perhaps be prepared to let it go. I do not believe that we should.

[Baroness Emerton (CB)]

My Lords, I have one or two points to make. It is not very often I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, but we really have to focus on the safety of mother and child.

I am talking about independent midwives only, not the whole directive, because I support the directive. I think there is a problem in that the midwifery profession generally is the most regulated of the nursing professions. They are required to be relicensed every year. They are under a supervisory midwife. They are, if anything, more supervised than the nursing profession. I chaired the professional conduct committee of the previous regulatory body and the midwifery cases that came forward were, in the main, where things went wrong with independent midwives. Mistakes are made—I am sure we all accept that—but the problem is that very often they lack support out in the community.

In a situation where things go badly wrong, there is the issue of who is going to pay the compensation to the mother or baby who has to be cared for for many months or even years. The other noble Baroness—I am afraid I cannot remember her name—said that we ought to be looking at something to help the independent midwives, but how do we help a very small group among a very large number of midwives and try to support them when very often the compensation is enormous?

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his introduction to the order, following, as he said, the Finlay Scott review. The Opposition have no argument with the principle of the order, but I want to raise with the Minister some of the practical consequences of its implementation. The Government’s consultation states that about 4,200 self-employed nurses and therapists may be required to obtain indemnity cover. For most concerned, the insurance premium is modest. The Department of Health’s consultation estimate was that for nurses the insurance premium would be £195 per annum, and for therapists between £255 and £256 per annum. There should not be a problem with those practitioners being able to pay that premium, but we run into great difficulty when it comes to independent midwives.

I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, that of course the safety of the mother and baby is paramount, and her point about the issue of professional support for independent midwives. I am sure that she would recognise that for some women, the support of an independent midwife is very important to them. Sometimes the reason why a woman will turn to an independent midwife is that they find that statutory services are either not prepared to help her to have a baby at home or are less than sympathetic. It would be a great pity if, as a result of the order, that very small group of professionals was unable to practise. The RIA accepts that affordable commercial cover is not available to independent midwives working as individuals. The consultation estimates that there would be an annual cost of indemnity cover of about £15,000 per individual independent midwife. There is no way that an independent midwife is likely to be able to pay that sum.

It is fair to ask the Minister whether he considers that independent midwives will be able to practise in future as a result of the order. I take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made, about the benefit of this EU regulation, but what an irony that the Conservative Party, in particular, with its histrionics about Europe and the extraordinary behaviour of our Prime Minister in the past few days, is now bringing in a European order that will put independent midwives out of business. I wonder whether the Government really recognise that. They may find that independent midwives are in fact no longer able to practise, and the Government may come in for considerable criticism as a result.

I was unimpressed by the response given by Dr Dan Poulter in another place. He has been very unsympathetic to the issue of independent midwives. That is a great pity. When this order was debated in the Commons a few days ago, I thought that the government response was weak, unsympathetic and gave very little comfort indeed. It is all very well talking about social enterprises in the Wirral as if that is an answer. Clearly, that will not be an answer for many independent midwives. The impact of agreeing to the order is that independent practitioners will not be able to practise any more. Either they will be forced to come into the NHS or they will simply not be available to women in future. I would like the Minister to give his assessment of what he thinks the impact of the order will be on those independent midwives.

Having read the Commons debate, I am not clear what happens to staff who provide care, sometimes complex care, independently but who are not a member of a regulated body. What about care assistants practising independently? The Minister said that where they are employed they are covered because of the vicarious liability of the employer, but I am not clear about those practitioners in the health and care field who provide services but who are not part of a regulated profession.

As a general principle, the Opposition support the order because it is eminently sensible, but the Government could have found a more sympathetic way to help independent midwives to be able to practise in the future. I for one am fearful that, as a result of the order, they will not be able to do so.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I shall endeavour to answer all questions that have been put to me as fully as I can. To the extent that I cannot, I shall of course write to noble Lords after this debate.

The centre of attention in noble Lords’ contributions has been independent midwives. Independent Midwives UK is the body which has expressed most concern about the regulations. I am the first to say to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege that continuity of care and service in the NHS is important, and that is part of the mandate to NHS England. We fully accept the value of independent midwives. NHS England will refresh the maternity commissioning guidance to CCGs over the summer to support the plurality of providers and to help social enterprises get NHS commissions.

However, as my noble friend is aware, we are dealing here with self-employed, independent midwives. It is therefore important to look at the factors which pertain to that group of people in particular. My noble friend suggested that the order effectively puts certain independent midwives, the self-employed practitioners, out of business. I do not see it in that way at all. We recognise that self-employed independent midwives may be required to change their governance and delivery practices to comply with an indemnity policy, and it is for the individual practitioner to determine a suitable operating model under which they are able to continue to practise. Social enterprises are the obvious route to that.

The suggestion that independent midwives have not received the fullest attention from officials in my department is seriously misplaced.

[Baroness Cumberlege]

I have never said that. The department has really helped independent midwives keep up to date with what has been going on. Nor am I opposed to the order. I said earlier that I start from the premise that every practitioner should have professional indemnity. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, did not hear that.

[Earl Howe]

I fully accept my noble friend’s statement on that score. It has been said that the Government have not been sufficiently supportive of the attempt by IMUK to overcome these obstacles, and I welcome my noble friend’s recognition of those efforts.

Independent Midwives UK made an application, as my noble friend knows, for government funding for its proposal. That was considered, but the conclusion reached after independent expert advice was that the proposed insurance model was not feasible and would not provide long-term protection to pregnant women.

Alongside that, we were mindful that the creation of any government scheme specifically for Independent Midwives UK would effectively position the Government as the underwriter of the independent sector. My noble friend is as aware as anyone of the sensitivity of that. That would have undermined any private sector solution, which in turn would reduce the onus on midwifery service providers to demonstrate financial responsibility in what is undoubtedly a high-risk area of clinical practice—that is, it would reduce the onus on them to be responsible for showing an underwriter the appropriate steps being taken to mitigate risks. So, for a number of reasons, we were not able to take those proposals forward.

However, we explored a number of routes. One was that a corporate body should be formed that would be eligible to join the clinical negligence scheme for trusts, although that would not cover non-NHS work. We made funds available via our Social Enterprise Investment Fund to support the development of social enterprise solutions where the market does not offer affordable indemnity to individuals. That was not seen as a viable route either, although a new social enterprise called Neighbourhood Midwives was set up through that route and is now offering maternity care in the private sector with appropriate indemnity cover in place. Its business model is a 100% employee-owned mutual providing management and support to small, community-based neighbourhood practices.

My noble friend Lady Brinton asked about the insurance sector. From the start of the discussion in 2010, dialogue has been in progress with the Association of British Insurers, individual insurers and insurance brokers, who have indicated that insurance would be available for corporate bodies employing midwives to deliver NHS or non-NHS services. It would be necessary for corporate bodies to demonstrate the robustness of their governance systems to provide adequate assurance to an indemnifier. Where providers can demonstrate safe outcomes as well as good risk management processes, this would affect the price that was quoted, making it more affordable. There are also other factors that can be varied, depending on the appetite for financial risk, and which can reduce the price, such as excess provisions. This concurs with the independent research commissioned by the NMC and the Royal College of Midwives that suggests that independent midwives would be able to obtain insurance as employees within a corporate structure. As I say, some independent midwifery providers have secured insurance by fulfilling the above principles.

I heard my noble friend Lady Cumberlege say that the order effectively deprives certain individuals of the right to work. I do not share that view. The right of an individual to practise their profession is not an absolute right; the state may impose certain conditions provided by law that an individual must satisfy in order to practise their profession. Those conditions should be both proportionate and justifiable.

The bottom line here is that we believe it is unacceptable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, emphasised, for individuals not to have recourse to compensation where they suffer harm through negligence on the part of a registered healthcare professional. The NHS constitution in England reinforces this by including,

“the right to compensation where you have been harmed by negligent treatment”.

In requiring all practising regulated healthcare professionals to hold an indemnity arrangement as a condition of registration, the order does not make the practice of independent midwifery illegal—far from it. Midwifery outside the NHS will still be accessible in the ways that I have already described. I note that Independent Midwives UK is advertising insurance as a benefit of its membership, so I wonder whether any self-employed midwives will in fact have to stop practising.

My noble friend Lady Brinton hit the nail on the head when she expressed her welcome for the EU directive and the principles that underlie it: that all patients across the EU should be treated by healthcare professionals who have insurance or indemnity cover.

The noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, touched on the issue of compensation. As she knows, compensation for negligence can be very high indeed. It is for this reason that the Royal College of Midwives no longer offers insurance. Its scheme was stopped after an issue involving an independent midwife.

If we distil the arguments to their most basic, the implication behind a number of criticisms of this order is that choice in natal care should trump other considerations. I am afraid that the Government take a different view. Our policy is that patients should have recourse to redress if they are harmed, and the most cost-effective and proportionate way of achieving that is by requiring all practising regulated health professionals to hold appropriate cover.

Having said that, we lay great emphasis on choice, as my noble friend is aware. The policy set out in Maternity Matters: Choice, Access and Continuity of Care in a Safe Service, published in 2007 but endorsed by the current Government, aimed to introduce by the end of 2009 four main areas of choice in maternity. The choices are: how to access maternity care, whether via a GP or directly through a local midwifery service; the type of antenatal care—depending on the circumstances, midwifery care or team care with midwives and obstetricians; the place of birth, depending on the circumstances, supported by a midwife at home or in a free-standing midwife-led unit in a hospital, or supported by a maternity team including obstetricians in a hospital; and where to access postnatal care, at home or in a community setting.

I hope my noble friend will concede that maternity has been a major focus for the current Government. We have invested heavily in training additional midwives. There is a record number in training at the moment. We have invested large sums in improving and refurbishing birthing units, as well as introducing specialist mental health midwife training so that every birthing unit will have a specially trained clinician available by 2017. This is a major part of our agenda.

I think I have said as much as I can in answer to questions. I will, however, respond in writing to the points that I have not adequately covered, including my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s question about how many home births might be on hold or suspended as a result of this order. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

United Nations International Widows’ Day

Monday 30th June 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

17:15

Asked by

[Lord Loomba]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure public awareness of United Nations International Widows’ Day.

[Lord Loomba (LD)]

My Lords, International Widows’ Day is a UN-ratified global day for effective action to help widows and their children around the world. It takes place every year on 23 June. Since the UN adopted 23 June as International Widows’ Day in 2010, the UN Secretary-General has issued messages to all member states to raise awareness of the plight of widows, who suffer from poverty, illiteracy, diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria, conflict and social injustice. In his latest message, which was issued on 23 June this year, he urges an end to harmful practices and abuse against widows.

So that noble Lords understand the severity of the plight of widows, I will read a report on the Secretary-General’s message this year, which sums it all up:

“No woman should lose her status, livelihood or property when her husband dies, yet millions of widows in our world face persistent abuse, discrimination, disinheritance and destitution, stressed United Nation Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today in his message for this year’s International Widows’ Day.

In his message, the Secretary-General expressed his concerns about the number of widows subjected to harmful practices, including ‘widow cleansing’, often involving rape, and the increase in the widow’s risk of HIV infection, as well as ‘widow burning’.

Mr Ban underscored that such violent acts could also negatively affect the lives of their children. He has stressed the need for ‘stronger action to empower women, promote gender equality and end all forms of violence against women’.

The UN General Assembly declared 23 June 2011 as the first-ever International Widows’ Day, and it has been marked annually ever since. The Day raises awareness and is an opportunity for action towards achieving full rights and recognition for widows worldwide and to bring the often invisible issues affecting them to a point of international concern.

In many cultures widows not only are considered inferior to their husbands, but they also become ‘useless’ at the moment of their husband’s death. Their social status appears to be inextricably linked to their husband’s, and when he dies, a woman is likely to lose her place in society, lose basic rights, and to become a victim of life-threatening abuses.

Millions of the world’s widows have to cope with poverty, ostracism, violence, homelessness, ill-health and different forms of discrimination, which could dramatically impact their physical and mental well-being.

‘It is our collective responsibility to safeguard the human rights and dignity of widows, in line with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child’, stressed the UN chief.

‘Together, we can eliminate the challenges faced by widows around the world and allow them to realize their potential as equal members of society, he concluded”.

I declare my interest as founder and chairman of the Loomba Foundation, which I established in 1997 in memory of my late mother, who became a widow at the early age of 37. I was only 10 years old at that time, so I grew up as a widow’s son and saw first-hand the discrimination and prejudices faced by my mother. After realising that widows’ problems were huge in India and across Africa, in 2005 I launched International Widows’ Day, which was adopted by the United Nations at the 65th UN General Assembly in 2010.

In south Asia, widows suffer because of stigma and religious beliefs, and in many countries they are considered to be evil and inauspicious people. They are uneducated, cannot find a job, and depend on their relatives and community, who abuse them physically, psychologically and sexually. They are deprived of their possessions, which means that they cannot pay to educate their children; many of them are driven to factory labour and prostitution to support their families.

In Africa, unjust “customary laws” persist in many communities, even when national laws and constitutions appear to proffer justice and equality. Apart from losing their wealth, widows can face degrading treatment and find it impossible to earn a living. The fate of widows magnifies the problems of poverty and disease.

Conflict has fuelled the crisis by directly creating huge numbers of widows in countries such as Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan, to name just a few. The widows who are left behind to care for their families have an essential role to play in the healing and reconstruction of their societies, but they are prevented from doing so by being destitute, disenfranchised and disempowered. We cannot rest at peace if we let this situation continue further into the 21st century. The UN has given a clear mandate to all member states that widows must be treated with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

Governments should take action to uphold their commitments to ensure the rights of widows as enshrined in international law, including the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, as I have said before. Even when national law exists to protect the rights of widows, weakness in the judicial system of many states compromises how widows’ rights are defended in practice. Programmes and policies aimed at ending violence against widows and their children, poverty alleviation, education and other support to widows of all ages need to be undertaken, including in the context of action plans for the framework of post-millennium development goals.

In post-conflict situations, widows should be brought in to participate fully in the peace-building and reconciliation process to ensure that they contribute sustainable peace and security. We should empower widows through access to adequate healthcare, education, decent work, full participation in decision-making and public life, and lives free of violence and abuse. It creates opportunities for widows to help and protect their children and to avoid the cycle of perpetual poverty and deprivation.

In conclusion, I ask my noble friend the Minister to raise awareness of International Widows’ Day through DfID, UN Women, the Foreign Office and any other NGOs, as it is an opportunity for action towards achieving full rights and recognition of widows, who have remained invisible, uncounted and ignored for a long time.

17:24

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for securing this short debate because it gives us an opportunity to shine a spotlight on the problems faced by so many widows across the world. More than 100 million live in poverty alongside some 500 million children, and I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, in doing so much to draw attention to their plight and for demonstrating such clear leadership on this issue through the Loomba Foundation.

I first became aware of the work of the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, a few years ago when I attended a fundraising event for the foundation, and I have been deeply impressed by the commitment of that foundation to alleviating the suffering of widows who face serious violation of their human rights.

As the noble Lord reminded us, 23 June this year was the 10th International Widows’ Day and it is a clear testament to his campaigning ability that the UN adopted it formally in 2010, on the resolution of Gabon, as an international observance day for widows to raise awareness of the need for change.

The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, has identified many of the problems. Several stand out. First, in addition to 100 million widows living in poverty, around 1.5 million children of poor widows will die before they reach the age of five. Secondly, on losing their husbands, many widows lose their home because they cannot inherit property. They may be unable to remarry or they may have to marry their husband’s brother. They may be prevented from working and so have no means of supporting themselves or their children. They may be seen as unlucky within a family. They may face violence. They may face a lifetime of social exclusion.

In addition to the Loomba Foundation, I pay tribute to organisations such as Womankind, Women for Human Rights and Widows’ Rights International, which empower widows to live an independent life. They help them to overcome problems such as a lack of legal status, which can make the difference to their ability to inherit property, as well as getting access for them to other rights provided by the state, such as a widow’s allowance.

Evidence shows that educating the children of widows is an important means of empowering them to escape poverty. In addition, making widows self-sufficient economically through training and small amounts of business start-up capital or equipment has proved very successful, building their self-reliance and confidence.

What can the UK Government do? The Government’s aim should be to secure for widows the full protection of the law in their country, full rights to property ownership, equal rights generally and equal status within their families and communities. That aim should be integrated with the drive to achieve the millennium development goals.

Intergovernmental agencies and individual Governments have been very supportive and work has been done by them to try to reduce poverty and reduce discrimination, but, crucially, this is not just an issue concerning the rights of women, because widows may not be treated as having the same status as women. This is a fundamental issue which International Widows’ Day is now addressing.

This debate asks Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure public awareness of United Nations International Widows’ Day. From my perspective, this is a human rights issue, so my question is: what might the Government do to bridge the gap between aspiration for change and achieving real improvements for widows in poverty? We have a substantial overseas aid budget, so how might we use our influence to effect change in attitudes which can discriminate so cruelly against widows?

We have a clear duty to provide leadership. I hope that the Minister may be able to indicate what practical measures could now be taken in support of widows across the world whose human rights are not being respected.

17:30

[Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (LD)]

I warmly thank my noble Friend, Lord Loomba for giving us the opportunity to discuss this incredibly important topic. I pay tribute particularly to my noble friend Lord Shipley for his speech, and I endorse the points that he made more fluently than perhaps I would be able to do myself.

I work a lot with widows. I have always seen economic freedom as the key to widows gaining a new foothold in life. Of course, the law is crucial—they must be allowed to work in order to be able to find a way of working—but custom and practice are also crucial in implementing the law. If custom and practice are dramatically against you, it is extremely difficult to work and earn a living. When one looks at work, one has to think what sort of work they can do, how and when they will do it and what their alternative employment might be, and whether the source of work that a widow is allowed to do will in fact bring such a stigma on her family that carrying out that work may be something that she cannot even bear to do.

I chair the AMAR International Charitable Foundation, and the women whom I work with are trapped in continuing complex emergencies. For them, very often the only possible work that is immediately open to them is to become prostitutes, and once you become a prostitute it is extremely difficult to shake off that stigma again. I therefore work with those who are doing all that they can to create different kinds of employment for widows that would give them not just an immediate leg-up but a future.

It will come as no surprise to noble Lords on all sides of the House that I intend to comment briefly on Iraq, where until last month there were 1 million widows and now, alas, there are considerably more, and there will be more next week and the week after. Human misery is rising as the result of the toll of 50 years or more of war, with the first tranche of widows coming as a result of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, when 1 million people were killed and perhaps 250,000 were left widowed. I will also comment on the needs of the widows’ children. The figures in Iraq show that there are 4 million orphans. “Orphan” sometimes means the loss of both parents but in this context nearly always means the loss of the father, so I am going to comment on how that problem may be tackled as well.

The work that I believe is best for widows comes within a much wider programme. I would counsel against us picking out widows; we need to be helping the entire community so that our help for widows does not seem to stigmatise them by accident. Indeed, I think that work for widows should come from within the community itself because it must be permanent help; it cannot be a short-term thing. There will be more widows tomorrow, the day after and the day after that. There has to be not just a safety net but a continuing programme of personal growth and development that enables women who are widowed not only to have a life for themselves but to have a proper one and something for their children, their elderly and anyone else they may be looking after.

The AMAR foundation works throughout Iraq. It works in Syrian refugee camps in the north and has a vast programme in Iraq for the prevention of gender-based violence, which, incidentally, is critical for working with widows. It runs a large programme on gender violence awareness through the radio and the internet, which is crucial. It runs a very big programme with women health volunteers, as well as an educated child initiative. It has mobile health centres, health posts, health clinics and road safety training. It works on the empowerment of widows throughout the country. Indeed, it is working in 16 of Iraq’s 18 governorates and currently employs more than 2,000 local professionals on projects across the country. A very large proportion of this work is for women, and a large proportion is therefore for widows and their children. We work through the 23 primary health centres that we have created, the six mobile health centres and some health posts, with about 500,000 patients connected with the primary health centres and the mobile health centres. Last year there were between 250,000 and 300,000 health consultations.

Of course, if you look at that, women’s health is primarily the focus, as it is in all contexts everywhere. We take up about 80% of all health inputs and outputs in every society: pregnant women, pre- and post-pregnancy and so on, elderly women and, of course, the women at home. At the moment I think we visit 34,000 women at home every month; one-third of them are single parents, mainly widows. The mothers and children instructed during those visits number about 140,000 every month.

Turning to the widows and vulnerable women who receive skills training, in the past 12 months we have given 12,000 sessions of skills training, and 2,500 children have been enrolled in accelerated learning programmes through kindergartens and primary and secondary schools. We are teaching in 171 schools, seven kindergartens, three universities, 12 of our own training centres and, most importantly, five prisons, where you will find more women and more widows, because they are so vulnerable. The programme being run at the moment aims to integrate 1,000 widows and female heads of households into Iraq’s social and economic fabric by empowering them with skills, qualifications, social support and employment opportunities, and by increasing their rights—and their knowledge of their rights—as Iraqi citizens.

One of those important points is to help those women to find what is available to them from the Government; for example, there is a widow’s stipend. Only a small proportion of widows in Iraq get that stipend, because most widows there cannot read and write, so they do not know that it is available to them. A key thing is to teach widows literacy and numeracy. We have a very important programme that teaches adult literacy and numeracy to about 7,000 adults a week, of which a proportion are widows. I strongly highlight literacy and numeracy, which are absolutely crucial. That is one of the first steps to take when you think about widows.

On access to employment opportunities, my noble friends Lord Shipley and, I believe, Lord Loomba mentioned the Government and the international community. In order to get those widows known about, we create access to employment opportunities by involving businesses, government, parliamentary committees and academic institutions in the project itself. That means that bit by bit those ladies become known, and their opportunities emerge because of that.

We teach practical skills, assisting them to set up their own businesses. The practical skills, apart from literacy and numeracy, are sewing and design, food preparation, hairdressing, IT, English language for business, and human rights—the latter so that they know what is theirs by right. We teach English language because with that you have the globe, and IT because you can get into the internet. However, the practical skills are ones that they have confidence in themselves. They know that they can do hairdressing—they are taught how to do it so that it can become a business. They know that they can cook and do nursing.

Therefore, the programme does the full range of training courses, all integrated with the Ministry of Education’s own education opportunities, and it is seen as a highly successful programme. I also suggest that no programme can succeed for widows or for any other section of the community unless it is sustainable. As part of the programme, we have heavy-duty monitoring work, but on top of that we have a sustainability programme. So far, we have been steadily raising funds locally—not necessarily here, although we have done some here—to enable this project to continue in perpetuity.

That is a very small example of programmes globally that I know many other wonderful organisations are carrying out. However, I have put it in front of your Lordships in the hope that it may provide an example of a simple but highly effective way of working.

17:39

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for initiating this debate and for his strong commitment to the empowerment of widows. It is only because of his commitment that we have International Widows’ Day. As we have heard, over the past 16 years the Loomba Foundation has lobbied the UN and Governments, and has succeeded in being heard. In 2005 the foundation launched 23 June as International Widows’ Day and the UN adopted it in 2010. It gives us an opportunity to raise awareness and focus on action to bring the often invisible issues affecting widows to international attention.

In every society, women have endured exclusion from their communities and families, and have suffered the loss of their homes, livelihoods and identities, all brought on by an event completely out of their control: the death of a husband—their life partner. Fifty years ago, my own mother was left a widow with four dependent children. Like the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, I was 10. We lived in a house tied to my father’s job. In a very short period, she had to cope not only with the grief of losing her husband but the loss of our home, family income and status. Her determination to keep us together meant facing a court hearing to be rehoused following our eviction and quickly finding a job to maintain a household.

Since then, we have seen progress in this country, with legislation for equal pay and against sex discrimination. Those changes in the law enabled my mother to become an economically active individual rather than dependent on the state—an issue so ably highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. Today, widows in the West still face social isolation and commonly live with severe insecurity and poverty due to lack of employment. Persecution of and abuse against widows and their children is not a crisis limited to the developing world: large groups of widows can be found in those circumstances in Europe, including Russia, and central Asia.

Global research commissioned by the Loomba Foundation in 2009 revealed that 245 million widows and more than 500 million children suffer in silence worldwide. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, highlighted, more than 100 million widows live in poverty, struggling to survive. Many of these women and their children are malnourished, exposed to disease and, in some cases, subject to slavery. Widowed women experience targeted murder, rape, prostitution, forced marriage, property theft, eviction and social isolation.

As we have heard, today there are many more widows than ever before due to armed conflict, the AIDS pandemic and the age difference between partners, with many young women being married off to much older men. As we have heard in previous debates, among the survivors of the 1994 Rwandan genocide were thousands of women widowed during the conflict. In some parts of eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, around 50% of women are widows. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, said, there are estimated to be millions in Iraq who have been placed in that situation, and 70,000 in Kabul, in Afghanistan.

In post-conflict situations, high numbers of children depend on widowed mothers—often young women, sometimes children themselves—as their sole support. The response of agencies such as UN Women has been to work in countries such as Rwanda, Pakistan and Afghanistan to advance widow’s rights—we have heard the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, talk about Iraq—through targeted programmes as part of their work to support women’s economic empowerment, political leadership and participation and, more importantly, a role in peace and security.

As the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, highlighted, Ban Ki-moon said last week when marking the 2014 International Widows’ Day that we need,

“stronger action to empower women, promote gender equality and end all forms of violence against women”.

Violence against women is one of the most widespread violations of human rights, affecting women of all backgrounds, ages, cultures and countries. Widows are no exception and may in fact be at particularly high risk of violence. In many countries, but particularly across Africa and Asia, widows find themselves the victims of physical and mental violence, including sexual abuse, related to inheritance, land and property disputes.

Last year, in a speech to the House of Lords, Lakshmi Puri said that the lack of reliable hard data remains one of the major obstacles to developing the policies and programmes to address the poverty, violence and discrimination suffered by widows. There is a need for more research and statistics disaggregated by marital status, sex and age, to help to reveal the incidence of widow abuse and illustrate the situation of widows.

Empowering widows through access to adequate healthcare, education—highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson—decent work, full participation in decision-making and public life and lives free from violence and abuse would give them a chance to build a secure life after treatment. Importantly, creating opportunities for widows can also help to protect their children and avoid the cycle of intergenerational poverty and deprivation.

At this point, I again pay tribute to the Government and, in particular, the Foreign Secretary, for leading the international community through hosting the recent Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. I welcome the Government’s support for initiatives that support widows through broader programmes working on women’s empowerment, asset ownership and inheritance and, through that, the targeting of cash transfer programmes. I should like to hear from the Minister how she believes such programmes are progressing and whether she can highlight those that we know are working more effectively and update us on their extension.

In a recent debate, I raised the conclusion of this year’s session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which I believe can make a significant contribution to this debate. The denial of the rights of women and girls remains the most widespread driver of inequality in today’s world. Gender-based violence, taking many forms, is a major element of that massive and continuing failure of human rights. What specific actions have the Government formulated to carry through the declaration and decisions of the New York meeting and to face up to the challenges identified by the commission both domestically and internationally?

Today’s debate is about our joint efforts to erase the stigma of widowhood, the barriers widows face to resources and economic opportunities to survive and the high risk to widows of sexual abuse and exploitation. I know from personal experience that widows are more than victims: they are mothers, caregivers and heads of households. They are the drivers of change, with their own aspirations and their own voices that need to be heard. Women’s empowerment and the protection of women’s rights are our greatest weapons to prevent discrimination and violence against women and girls—widows in particular.

17:50

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very moving debate. We have heard the direct experiences of both my noble friend Lord Loomba and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and their situations with their own mothers in widowhood and their families. I thank my noble friend Lord Loomba for securing this debate, and noble Lords for their participation and the contribution that they have made in this area. My noble friend’s foundation has very much led in this area, and I pay tribute to him for that.

My noble friend rightly emphasises the message of the Secretary-General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, that around 23 June International Widows’ Day should be a time for raising awareness of the plight of widows, and noble Lords have contributed very effectively to that. For millions of women and children, the death of a husband and father can all too quickly trigger a descent into poverty, social exclusion and rape or other forms of violence. The effect on children has been powerfully described by my noble friend Lord Shipley. When a husband dies, many countries do not recognise that the widow has any rights to inherit what he has left behind. A widow and her children may find themselves not only homeless and without an income overnight but perceived as an economic burden to their community and stigmatised due to their association with death. Widows suffer from double discrimination both for being female and for being widows. As I said, my noble friend Lord Loomba has very close personal experience of the dreadful disadvantage that widows face. We also heard about that from the noble Lord, Lord Collins.

Harmful traditional practices see widows forcibly married, raped, traded or exiled. Underlying this abhorrent situation are discriminatory social norms against girls and women. These deeply held prejudices keep girls and women locked out of education, jobs and the community, and condone horrific forms of physical and psychological violence. That is why my noble friend Lord Shipley is right to locate the treatment of widows within basic human rights.

My noble friend Lady Nicholson is right with her emphasis on the importance of economic freedom of widows, and I pay tribute to her for her work. We know well that the economic position of women is often key to their status and independence, and underpinning that, as she indicated, is support for health and education, including skills training. She is right that the focus may need to be on the relief of poverty so that we do not further stigmatise widows. I hope that she will be reassured that DfID’s A New Strategic Vision for Girls and Women identifies economic empowerment as one of the four key pillars for action.

As many noble Lords know, preparations for a post-2015 development framework are under way, and my noble friend Lord Loomba rightly emphasised its significance. We want to ensure that the new framework is focused on the poorest and most vulnerable in society, and we recognise that within that group no one should be left behind—that is key to this. I should flag up that we are well aware that conflict and fragile states are likely to affect women and girls disproportionately, and of course DfID is a major contributor to humanitarian relief. Thus in the latest conflict in Iraq we are providing £5 million to reach 140,000 displaced people with lifesaving assistance. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, and my noble friend Lord Loomba referred to other conflicts in Rwanda, Afghanistan and many other areas. We are acutely aware that women and girls are often disproportionately the victims in these conflicts.

The post-2015 development framework seeks to address those who have been left behind and have not yet been brought into the kind of situation in which many of us in our society find ourselves. We are working hard to ensure that the new framework includes a standalone goal on gender equality, as noble Lords will know, with a holistic set of targets that address the root causes of the inequality and discrimination that affect widows. These include eliminating violence against women and girls; promoting women’s economic empowerment; fostering girls’ and women’s leadership and participation; ensuring universal sexual and reproductive health and rights; and improving girls’ education.

Achieving the targets will mean that a widow will not lose everything when she loses her husband. She will be able to own her own home, start a business, access finance and challenge the prejudices that discriminate against her. This in turn will improve the life opportunities for her children. My noble friend Lord Shipley was right to emphasise the importance of educating the children of widows as they seek to pull themselves and their families out of poverty, as we have seen successfully being done.

The UK Government are leading the way in raising public awareness to end the discriminatory social norms that are at the heart of the plight of widows. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his tribute to the leadership of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in the Global Summit to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. As he knows, this was co-hosted by my right honourable friend and Angelina Jolie. The organisation Widows for Peace through Democracy organised a series of events, including a play entitled “Hidden”, depicting the lives of women and child victims of wartime sexual abuse. There was also a discussion around justice for widow victims of conflict. I hope that my noble friend Lord Loomba was able to hear reports of what they discussed.

Next month, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Home Secretary will host with UNICEF the Girl Summit to rally world leaders, organisations and the public to seek to bring an end within a generation to child marriage, early marriage, forced marriage and female genital mutilation, an area in which my honourable friend Lynne Featherstone has led as the Government’s champion for combating violence against women. Ending discrimination against girls and women, which underpins the many forms of violence against them, is critical not only as a human right but in unlocking their full potential. This is important across all stages of life, including for those who are widowed.

I can assure noble Lords that DfID works to support widows in the poorest countries. For example, in Rwanda, which was cited by my noble friend Lord Loomba and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, DfID is supporting 2,500 widows who are also HIV positive to ensure that they receive psychological support as well as support to improve their incomes. DfID’s support to the Government of India’s national AIDS control programme has resulted in a reduction in the age eligibility for widows’ pensions in some states from 60 years to 35 years to make them accessible to younger widows.

In conclusion, I want to stress the importance of a continued partnership between government, civil society, the private sector, foundations and of course the public. I welcome the extraordinary efforts of my noble friend Lord Loomba to establish International Widows’ Day. The collaboration between the Loomba Foundation and UN Women is a great opportunity to expand outreach and awareness about widows. As one of the largest core funders to UN Women, the UK through DfID supports the partnership between UN Women and the Loomba Foundation. UN Women plays a critical role in taking forward what is decided at CSW. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, was right to flag the importance not only of taking forward what is agreed at those meetings but of stopping things moving backwards. In many areas around the world, we see a real challenge in that area. The United Kingdom is well aware of that challenge and we welcome the fact that there is tremendous cross-party support for countering it. That is extremely important.

I assure my noble friend Lord Loomba and other noble Lords that we recognise the dire situation of many widows. It is surely only through a combined effort that we can achieve real gender equality and empowerment for all girls and women, including widows. This has been a moving debate that has brought home the reality of the position that women so often find themselves in if they are widows. I therefore thank all participants for all that they are doing to help such widows, and the Government support them in that.

Committee adjourned at 6 pm.

House of Lords

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Monday, 30 June 2014.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Oxford.

Health: Multiple Sclerosis

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce new treatment for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, it is important that people are able to access the innovative and effective new treatments they need. Many thousands of people in England with multiple sclerosis have benefited from the medicines recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence or covered by the MS risk-sharing scheme.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. People with multiple sclerosis consider that specialist MS nurses are the key health professionals for providing responsive, person-centred, co-ordinated and integrated care. The latest MS Trust report assesses the provision of MS nurses across the UK and considers that there is a shortage of around 200, and that more specialist nurses are required to ensure that everyone has access to a specialist nurse. The new draft NICE guidelines offer only limited support for this specialist role. Given the scarcity of neurologists in the UK, is it not important that this chain of nurses is in place to ensure that emergencies do not develop, which of course costs the National Health Service very much more? Can my noble friend assure me that he will take action to ensure the continuance of MS nurses?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am pleased to say that the number of specialist nurses for multiple sclerosis in the UK has risen from 80 in 2002 to 245 currently. I hope that my noble friend will agree with our view that local healthcare organisations, given their knowledge of the healthcare needs of their local populations, are the people best placed to determine the workforce needed to deliver safe and effective patient care within the available resources. However, it is of interest that NHS England’s service specification for specialised neurology does specify that nurse specialists should be involved in the care of people with multiple sclerosis.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, 11 drugs are now available for remitting and relapsing multiple sclerosis, three or four of which have been approved only in the past two or three months, which is great news. Is there any chance that these new drugs will be included in the risk-sharing initiative with industry?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I think that the answer is almost certainly no because the risk-sharing scheme initiated under the previous Government is quite complex to administer and we would need to be persuaded that the administrative burdens associated with it were worth while. Now that we have the NICE process, it is probably best that NICE should look at these drugs in the context of its new clinical guideline, which is what the stakeholder groups thought was preferable.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I declare a personal, though not a financial, interest in this Question. My noble friend may be aware that there is a drug called benztropine which has been approved for the past 10 years for use in Parkinson’s patients. We know that it is not carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic or any other genic—it is safe. US researchers have just discovered that it seems to completely restore the myelin sheath on the spinal cord, at least in laboratory animals. This is of enormous interest to MS patients. Will my noble friend add benztropine to the list of medicines for urgent consideration by his early access to medicines scheme?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we are keen to see candidates being proposed for the early access to medicines scheme. If a body of evidence suggests that benztropine could qualify for designation as a promising innovative medicine—a PIM—the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency stands ready to consider such evidence. However, it is for the manufacturer of the drug, not the Government, to decide whether it wishes to propose the drug as a candidate for the scheme.

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, three drugs are currently awaiting approval by NICE, some of which have been turned down by the European Medicines Agency because of their side effects. To what extent does NICE take that factor into account in its own decision-making process?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend will know that NICE looks at the clinical effectiveness of a drug alongside its cost effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness equation will naturally include consideration of unpleasant side-effects. The advice that it issues will reflect the evidence that it has from clinicians on that matter. It will then be for clinicians to decide whether the risk-benefit ratio is appropriate for particular patients.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

My Lords, when considering the Care Act we were very concerned to ensure that care and support plans for social care users included contingency planning for people who have fluctuating conditions such as MS and rheumatoid arthritis, where support needs can vary from week to week and day to day. What mechanisms are being put in place to ensure the provision of the flexible and comprehensive care plans that are needed?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness is right that care plans have to be tailored to each individual patient. For those with serious neurological conditions, that is as important as for anyone. I do not have up-to-date information about what work NHS England is doing at the moment on this, but I am happy to write to her on the subject.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, how widely shared are these new medications? For instance, I know that some cancer medications are available to patients in England but not to patients in Wales. How widely is this information shared so that everyone can benefit, even if we are under the devolved Administrations?

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend will know that I cannot speak for the devolved Administrations, who have complete autonomy in their healthcare policies. I can say that a number of drugs have been recommended for use on the NHS for MS patients, including Tysabri, Gilenya, Aubagio and Lemtrada. However, it is ultimately for the devolved Administrations to decide whether they wish to have the same set of rules in place as we do in England.

Busking

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:44

Asked by

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the link between busking and crime and disorder; and what plans they have to issue revised guidance on the use of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in respect of busking.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, no assessment has been made, but the Government are clear that appropriate busking can enrich a community’s quality of life and generate a positive atmosphere that can be enjoyed by many people. The police and local councils have powers available to them where there is a risk of crime or disorder or complaints of anti-social behaviour are made.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response, which I very much appreciate. The arrest of the King’s Parade, the winners of the mayor’s busking prize, under an archaic law by eight policemen in Leicester Square only too clearly illustrates the need for a proper, comprehensive policy on busking for London. Will my noble friend refute the alleged link between busking and crime and will she work with her colleagues and with the mayor’s busking task force to develop a coherent approach to busking across London?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, unfortunately I have not been invited on to the mayor’s busking task force and I cannot comment on individual cases. The particular case that my noble friend refers to is a matter for the Metropolitan Police, but I can say that in areas around Leicester Square, where large groups of people gather, there may be opportunities for pickpockets. However, this must be balanced against the enjoyment that busking inevitably brings.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, given the itinerant and spontaneous nature of buskers and busking, does the Minister accept that the same guidelines need to be issued nationwide? She might look at Liverpool, which, following constructive talks with the Keep Streets Live campaign, is soon to issue guidelines which will not include a requirement for licences or other draconian measures. That might be a model of interest for the whole country.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Earl for those comments. I do not know about the individual cases, although I do not live far from Liverpool. I understand that licences for buskers are required in only two London authorities, Camden and Hillingdon.

[Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure my noble friend is well aware that, in London, busking is very widely supported by a large number of people. The Mayor of London has gone so far as to say that busking is what gives London its joie de vivre—not least, I might add, for those who use the Underground, where a lot of busking takes place. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones referred to the mayor’s appointment of a busking task force, of which he is a member, which includes representatives of the Metropolitan Police. Can she confirm that one of the jobs of the task force is to suggest ways of dealing with irresponsible busking?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The task force obviously does a very valuable job; I am now intrigued by it and very much look forward to the letter in the post inviting me on to it. There is no difference between the mayor’s view of busking and the Government’s view: where it is appropriate it is widely supported.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

Are there any special provisions applicable to, say, aggressive busking on the London Underground?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Any behaviour of an aggressive sort would be dealt with appropriately, whether it involved busking or not.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I will not ask my noble friend to comment on the mayor’s talents in this area, but does she think that it is appropriate to criminalise people who are making music? Some of them are young people endeavouring to further their career in music. It is an extraordinarily precarious career, and one where it is difficult to get started.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Buskers are not criminalised. People who behave in a disruptive or harmful way are criminalised, but busking in and of itself is not.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, will the Government confirm that carol singing will not be reclassified as busking?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it depends on the carol singers. If they were being disruptive they might well be.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, we have a number of candidates today for the busking task force, if perhaps not too many wanting to be buskers themselves. I think the noble Baroness missed one part of the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which was about the revised guidance that is awaited. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and the 1839 Act are also relied on. When will the new guidance be issued?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we have no plans to issue guidance in relation to how the two existing Acts are applied to buskers. However, we have undertaken, as the noble Baroness says, to include reference to busking in the guidance for the new anti-social behaviour powers for use by the police and others. This will be published shortly, in advance of the new powers commencing later in the year.

[Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree with me that although we should recognise that buskers are perhaps building their careers, they are also adding to the gaiety of nations? It would be most unpopular were we to consider any banning of busking.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally agree with my noble friend.

[Lord Colwyn (Con)]

Does my noble friend know what regulations apply to busking outside the Peers’ entrance of the House of Lords?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

No particular licence is required for busking in Westminster. I imagine they are the same as for anywhere else.

Education: Citizenship Studies

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

14:50

Asked by

[Lord Cormack]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the emphasis on citizenship studies in the school curriculum.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to say that this Government have retained citizenship education as part of the new national curriculum. From September this year it includes an improved programme of study for citizenship education at key stages 3 and 4. This new programme of study will equip young people with the skills and knowledge to explore a range of issues and help them to take their place in society as responsible citizens.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. Can my noble friend assure me that citizenship will have a central place in the curriculum, particularly in the last two or three years before children leave school? Will he ensure that, whether it is busking or otherwise, they have the opportunity for community service during that period? Will he give further thought to the idea that I have put to him on many occasions that there should be a citizenship ceremony when pupils leave school so that they can acknowledge publicly their responsibilities as well as their rights?

[Lord Nash]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that citizenship is important and I know that he is a passionate supporter of it. Many schools have ceremonies for awards and the new citizenship programme of study requires active participation. I would certainly encourage schools to consider adopting the noble Lord’s idea if they do not already reward good citizenship. Certainly it will help them demonstrate that they are promoting British values. However, it is not this Government’s style to mandate such a thing. In addition, the Government’s National Citizen Service for 16 and 17 year-olds gives young people a chance to develop skills such as volunteering and social action projects. I was delighted to see that the IPPR report published at the weekend was so supportive of the National Citizen Service and that we seem to have achieved cross-party support for it.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a good way of consolidating citizenship education would be to extend to young people at the age of 16 the right to vote so that they can apply at the ballot box what they have learnt and, it is to be hoped, get into the habit of voting?

[Lord Nash]

I do not agree with the noble Baroness on that.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, do citizenship classes include the proper teaching and understanding of not only how Westminster works but how local government, the United Nations and the EU work? In my time at school that was a part of it.

[Lord Nash]

They are supposed to include democracy, the electoral system, government, human rights and international law.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)]

My Lords, citizenship generally suggests teaching conforming behaviour, which is important. However, does the Minister agree that the teaching of conforming behaviour is not quite the same and needs to include the teaching of ethical values of right, wrong and responsibility, which can sometimes— and sometimes should—challenge conforming behaviour?

[Lord Nash]

I agree entirely with the noble Lord. I would hope that in a school with a proper syllabus on this these were not contradictory. Certainly Ofsted should look at this in inspecting spiritual, moral, social and cultural development.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, too many of our young people do not vote, which is understandable when they are not taught about our political system and our system of governance. The Minister mentioned citizenship lessons but the fact of the matter is that they are not compulsory. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, they should be a compulsory element in all schools including academies and free schools. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that there is a fully qualified citizenship teacher in every school?

[Lord Nash]

I am a little confused about the Labour Party’s attitude on compulsory subjects in the national curriculum. I thought that its study group had proposed that all schools should be free not to teach the national curriculum, but I will not attempt to keep up with this flip-flopping. We do not agree that it should be mandatory. A lot of people want to have subjects made mandatory in the curriculum but there is not room. Schools must teach citizenship at key stages 3 and 4. They must also teach about spiritual, moral, cultural and social responsibility and British values. The curriculum includes all the institutions to which the noble Baroness referred.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the founder and president of the Citizenship Foundation. I say to my noble friend that while he paints a very rosy picture of citizenship, at the moment less than 2% of pupils take citizenship education at GCSE. The free schools and academies do not have to teach it at all and Ofsted does not extend to citizenship in schools, while the Government have withdrawn bursaries for young teacher trainers to teach citizenship education. In the light of the statistics and the general sense of gloom in the citizenship community at the moment, will my noble friend please go back to his Minister and seek to do something about what has happened to citizenship education over the past two or three years?

[Lord Nash]

Ofsted reported last year that it found that in primary schools citizenship was “thriving” and that in secondary schools the quality of citizenship education was stronger than in its 2010 survey. It also found that head teachers recognised the rich contribution the subject makes to pupils’ learning, their personal development and the ethos of the school. We have substantially improved the citizenship curriculum from the previous, rather issues-based, syllabus and we are now enhancing the requirement to teach about British institutions and values.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

Will my noble friend take into account the enormous change that has come over our society since the middle of the last century, at which stage the lifeblood of the country flowed through the churches, cathedrals, mosques, meeting houses, temples and synagogues? The actual morality that was the underpinning fabric of good citizenship could not escape people because it was put before their eyes every week. Now that that has gone, will my noble friend talk to his colleagues in other departments to ensure that there is a link between citizenship and practical experience of the teaching of all-faith religious knowledge? That way, people will understand what it is we want them to do.

[Lord Nash]

My noble friend makes a very good point. I believe that all schools should teach about all religions and about respect for all religions. However, I will take his point back.

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that one area that could be encouraged is parenting? I do not just mean good relationships with your own parents but what your future children are going to need, by way of skills, to be good parents themselves.

[Lord Nash]

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness. Parenting skills in this country are, in many cases, sadly lacking but it is not easy to dictate to parents, even young parents, how to do that. However, all good schools certainly seek to engage with their parents not just about their children’s education but, bluntly, to improve the education of the parents themselves.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, in making rather sweeping asides about the Labour Party’s policy, will the Minister please accept that there is a world of difference between laying down what children ought to learn as part of the curriculum and getting into the dangerous area of politicians deciding which books to teach the curriculum from?

[Lord Nash]

I would agree entirely with the noble Baroness except that I think it is a sad reflection on a country with as rich a literary history as we have that more than 90% of essays written for GSCE English literature are on three books.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, is not one of the most important forms of citizenship being able to save your fellow citizens’ lives? Why, then, do only 21% of schools provide training in first aid—it is even fewer in CPR techniques—given that there are 60,000 events of cardiac arrest around the country as a whole? Why not include that in the national curriculum both to encourage the better health of individuals and to give the young people concerned greater reliance and greater confidence?

[Lord Nash]

Of course first aid is very important, and schools are free to teach that. Again, we have another bid for what is mandated in the national curriculum. We have to have some priorities, but of course health and safety is very important.

Disabled Students’ Allowance

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked by

[Lord Addington]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the assessment of complex needs for dyslexics will be achieved under the new Disabled Students’ Allowance arrangements.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw the House’s attention to my declared interests.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, discussions are under way with stakeholders to inform the Disabled Students’ Allowance guidance for the autumn. Our current intention is that students with dyslexia, alongside other disabled students, will continue to undertake an assessment with a study needs assessor. The term “complex” in the Question does not relate to the nature of the student’s disability; rather, it relates to the range of support needed to address the barriers to their learning.

[Lord Addington]

I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he not accept that that seems to be a change from the announcement that complex needs would be the criterion? If this is going to change as we move into a reformed situation, when can we expect to get a reliable and useful criterion for this assessment for entrants in 2015?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

As my noble friend may well know, we routinely engage with stakeholders on the provision of support for all disabled students, and that dialogue will continue. We are also currently working on the equality impact assessment, which will be taken into consideration. Indeed, the findings of this consultation will be looked at in that light and before we lay down regulations on this matter.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

Will the Minister say whether the Government will commit to publishing an assessment of the impact of the changes, given the detrimental effect that they could have on disabled students with all conditions, including dyslexia and autism spectrum disorder?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I have already alluded to the equality impact assessment, which will form part and parcel of the regulations that we will lay before Parliament in the autumn and which will be open to debate. The discussion, I am sure, will take place at that time, and I look forward to the noble Baroness’s contributions.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in order to make use of some of the assistive technology programs, one needs quite a high-functioning computer? Is any financial assistance going to be available to students who do not qualify for a computer to enable them to buy the standard of computer that they need in order to run the programs?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend may well be aware that the focus on DSA expenditure will be on the most complex and acute needs. DSA expenditure generally has increased—from £87.8 million in 2009-10 to £125.1 million—so a review of DSA expenditure, as technology advances have been made, is long overdue; it has been 25 years since we last looked at it. Of course, we will look at each case, including specialist requirements and complex cases, and where it is established that a case is complex, students will be supported.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that research at Edinburgh University has found that disabled students who claim DSA at present have lower drop-out rates than disabled students who do not claim the allowance and non-disabled students? Is it true that the changes that are proposed will in effect mean that the money that is currently paid to individual students through personal budgets is to be transferred, with no additional funding, to the universities themselves? Does that not run against current government policy in these matters?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I have already stated the Government’s position on the need for sustainability of the DSA. The noble Lord is quite right to point out that the expenditure to higher education institutions is being rebalanced, and this is to ensure that within the realms of the Equality Act 2010 they, too, step up to the mark. Indeed, many institutions have. This is all about ensuring that in the existing conditions the money is spent in a focused way on the students who most need it, and that we balance what we spend on the DSA with what the universities and higher education institutions should spend themselves.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that my younger son has just graduated successfully and has benefited from the computer and software for someone with dyslexia. People with dyslexia often flourish later in the educational process as they gain their coping mechanisms. Does this not mean that it is even more important to make sure that this support is fully in place, not least at university?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

The right reverend Prelate makes an important point, and I congratulate him on his son’s successful graduation. The point he makes is perfectly valid. I have already mentioned that we will be looking at a full equality impact assessment before laying the regulations. I am sure that part and parcel of that process, and the discussion around those regulations, will be to cover the points that the right reverend Prelate has made.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, in answer to the supplementary of my noble friend Lord Addington, the Minister referred to the consultations that are going on in order to produce and agree criteria. Given that the Prison Service is where the highest concentration of dyslexia in the United Kingdom exists, what input is there into those consultations from the Prison Service and from contributing voluntary sector workers such as the Prisoners’ Education Trust?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend has asked quite a specific question. I am fully aware, as someone who covers in part the justice brief, of the emphasis the Government are placing on the rehabilitation of prisoners. In terms of his specific question, however, I will write to him.

Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies and Credit Unions Act 2010 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2014

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:06

Moved by

[Lord Newby]

That the draft regulations laid before the House on 14 May be approved.

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 24 June

Motion agreed.

Legislative Reform (Clinical Commissioning Groups) Order 2014

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:07

Moved by

[Earl Howe]

That the draft order laid before the House on 13 March be approved.

Relevant document: 26th Report, Session 2013-14, from the Regulatory Reform Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 24 June.

Motion agreed.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

15:08

Moved by

[Lord Faulks]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, this is a significant and far-reaching Bill that has at its heart a vision for a stronger and fairer justice system. It introduces steps to toughen our approach to the most serious and repeat offenders, ensuring that penalties reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed and providing greater certainty for victims. It seeks to modernise our court processes and rebalance the judicial review system to reduce the delays caused by inappropriate or unmeritorious claims.

Our system of justice is regarded with enormous respect throughout the world. The quality of our judiciary and our respect for the rule of law are significant factors in attracting foreign investment to our shores. The Government are not, however, complacent. We must constantly examine our criminal and civil justice systems, not simply to respond to the latest headline but to ensure that they are adapting to the modern world.

In the field of criminal justice there is a need to identify the most serious offences and to make sure that our judges have adequate powers to deal with offenders. Equally we are absolutely determined to make a real impact on reoffending by our reforms, which will transform rehabilitation. Your Lordships’ House has enabled, for the first time, offenders who have received short sentences to be properly prepared for release and properly supported when they are released. This way, they will be better able to cope with life on the outside and will be much less likely to offend.

Another major issue is in the provision of education for young offenders. The need to provide this lies at the very heart of our plans in the Bill to introduce secure colleges to give young offenders real educational opportunities, often for the first time in their lives.

Improvements in our civil law system are making a difference. In Part 2 of the LASPO Act 2012, we implemented recommendations suggested by Sir Rupert Jackson to rebalance the system and deal with the consequences of the introduction of conditional fee agreements, which benefitted no one but lawyers and the organisations that fed on the system. It will be a little time before we can assess the full effect of our reforms, but the signs are hopeful.

One of the least attractive aspects of our system was the growth of claims management companies. A claims management regulation unit, which I have visited, has been in place since 2007, providing really effective protection to consumers and closely reining in unacceptable practices. The unit has the power to suspend, vary or cancel licences. Furthermore, I announced last Friday that the unit will be able to impose substantial fines on companies that break the rules. I am glad to tell your Lordships that the number of these companies is reducing, and reducing quickly.

These are just some of the changes that we are making. This Bill is part of the narrative. Criminal justice provisions in Part 1 of the Bill will help to keep our communities safe and secure, and ensure that offenders face the consequences of their crimes. Provisions in this part of the Bill place restrictions on the use of simple cautions on a statutory footing to ensure that serious and repeat offenders are treated consistently and are punished appropriately.

Unless there are exceptional circumstances, offenders will no longer receive a caution for the most serious offences, such as rape and robbery. For other offences, we are limiting the repeated use of cautions for the same, or similar, offences committed within a two-year period. We are ensuring that for all dangerous offenders and those who commit offences of particular concern, the Parole Board will consider their risk before early release can be authorised. This will improve public protection and encourage offenders to take responsibility for their own rehabilitation.

We have also made provision to ensure that the courts have sufficient tools to deal with offences that can have an enormous impact on victims and our communities. That is why we have increased the penalty for causing death while driving while disqualified, and introduced a new offence of causing serious injury while driving while disqualified. It is why we are adding further terrorism offences to the enhanced dangerous offender sentencing scheme, as well as increasing maximum penalties to life for offences where that is not already the case.

It is right that we have the necessary tools to monitor offenders on licence and to deal with breaches of licence conditions. The Bill introduces an additional “recall and release” test for determinate sentence prisoners, requiring consideration of whether, if released, an offender would be highly likely to commit further breaches of their licence, including further offending. This seeks to end the continuous cycle of fixed-term recalls and automatic release for offenders who persistently and wilfully breach their licence conditions.

We are also taking powers to impose mandatory location monitoring of offenders released on licence. The use of innovative new technology will help to deter reoffending, allow better monitoring of whereabouts and compliance with other licence conditions, as well as assist with crime detection.

It is sometimes the case that issues of national concern highlight the need for our laws to evolve to tackle different types of behaviour. The horrifying events at Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, and the review into the safety of patients in England that followed, exposed a gap in legislation as regards ill treatment or wilful neglect of users of health and care services. It was rightly recommended that this should be rectified. The Bill closes that gap by creating new criminal offences to deal with these completely unacceptable behaviours.

High-profile failings in police conduct have dominated headlines in recent years, most notably following the revelations about the handling of the Stephen Lawrence investigation. The existing common-law offence of misconduct in public office dates back several hundred years and is not specific either to cases of corruption or to police officers. It is not always well suited to dealing with or deterring the pattern of corruption in today’s information age, so we are introducing the new police corruption offence, which will ensure that the small number of officers who are corrupt are properly punished and face the appropriate penalty for their crimes. However, we also recognise the special role that police and prison officers play in routinely coming into contact with dangerous offenders in difficult situations. That is why we are raising the starting point for sentencing a murderer of a police or prison officer in the course of their duty to a whole-life order.

Part 2 of the Bill deals with the critical matter of youth justice. Under this Government, crime and offending by young people is down, with fewer entering the criminal justice system and ending up in custody. At present we pay around £100,000 a year for a place in youth custody, yet almost 70% go on to reoffend within 12 months. No current youth custodial establishment—young offender institutions, secure training centres and secure children’s homes—is providing good enough outcomes. For young offenders where custody is necessary, we want to make the best use of the opportunity to help to turn their lives around. We need to be better at rehabilitating young offenders.

Secure colleges will have education at their heart, with all other services designed in support of raising educational attainment and tackling offending behaviour. Figures suggest that 86% of young men in young offender institutions have been excluded from school at some point, and more than half of 15 to 17 year-olds in YOIs have the literacy and numeracy level expected of a seven to 11 year-old.

Secure colleges will provide the support and skills that young offenders need to stop reoffending and to contribute positively to society in adult life. The Bill establishes the statutory framework for secure colleges, with further detail to be set out in the secure college rules. Operators of secure colleges will be invited to deliver a broad, intensive and engaging curriculum to support and motivate the full range of ages and abilities of young people accommodated in these establishments.

The Government recognise that there are likely to be some detained young people who will continue to require separate specialist accommodation, either on the grounds of their age, acute needs or vulnerability. We are therefore committed to continuing to provide separate specialist accommodation, such as secure children’s homes, for this group of young offenders.

On 9 June my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice informed both Houses that the Ministry of Justice had selected a preferred provider—Wates—to design and build the pathfinder secure college in the east Midlands. Subject to parliamentary approval, if this pathfinder proves effective it will be a model for a future network of secure colleges across England and Wales. I can assure your Lordships that construction will begin only if this Bill receives Royal Assent.

Before this Bill reaches Report, we will launch a public consultation on our plans for secure college rules, which will set out the core requirements to ensure that the establishments operate safely and securely. I will inform the House of the details of this consultation in due course. We also intend to hold a meeting prior to Committee, to which all Peers will be invited, to show in more detail what the plans are, in physical terms, for the pathfinder college.

I hope that all noble Lords will at the very least keep an open mind and not resort to describing these establishments as “fortresses” or “Titan” prisons. Such rhetoric hardly helps in our quest to help some of our most vulnerable young people and is surely not the approach that should be adopted in your Lordships’ House.

This part also makes sure that all 17 year-olds have access to an appropriate adult when they receive a caution, and we are changing the law regarding referral orders to provide greater flexibility and powers for the court when punishing a breach or dealing with further offending.

Part 3 is very much about increasing the efficiency and flexibility of the courts to keep pace with the modern world. At present, much court time is wasted in hearing cases in open court when the defendant fails to attend; the only people present are magistrates and prosecutors. We could make better use of this valuable time elsewhere. This Bill allows one magistrate to deal with low-level regulatory cases away from traditional magistrates’ courtrooms. The types of cases that we are concerned about are the likes of failing to register the new keeper of a vehicle or depositing litter. We are ensuring that the defendant’s right to request a hearing is preserved, as the procedure will apply only when a defendant has either expressly or impliedly waived that right. We are also enabling more cases to bypass the Court of Appeal and go straight to the Supreme Court, again saving valuable court time. I reassure noble and learned Lords from the Supreme Court that that will be only with the consent of the Supreme Court.

The use of the internet has had a profound impact on how we carry out our daily lives, so we are also modernising the law on juror misconduct to bring it into the 21st century. Some of your Lordships might have seen that the Attorney-General has today announced that the Government intend to table an amendment to omit the provisions to update the law of contempt of court as it relates to publications. The measures were intended to provide clarity, to allow the media time to take down material, and to provide a defence until that point. The media, however, raised strong objections. Since the existing law gives protection for the integrity of court proceedings, we have decided not to pursue these measures.

This part also introduces a charge, payable by adult offenders on conviction, to contribute towards to the costs of the criminal courts. We already recognise that those who bring cases in the family and civil courts should bear some of the court costs in those jurisdictions. These provisions make that a reality in the criminal sphere, so that those who give rise to the costs of the criminal courts share the burden of those costs, rather than it solely being the burden of the taxpayer. Repayments can be set at an affordable rate, and we are encouraging rehabilitation by allowing the charge to be remitted after a certain period without reoffending provided that the offender has also taken reasonable steps to pay off the charge. To ensure that we have maximum flexibility, we are also extending the powers of fines officers to vary repayment of financial impositions after default, as well as prior to default.

Finally, I turn to Part 4, on the matter of judicial review, which is one of the most important means by which government and other public bodies can be held legally accountable for their decisions and actions. However, judicial review has grown significantly over recent years, and while there are many important and valuable judicial review cases brought every year there are also too many that are not. We have taken a detailed look at judicial review and concluded that there is a case for some proportionate and common-sense reform.

Part 4 will provide a better balance, ensuring that judicial review continues as a check on the Executive while limiting the potential to abuse it for collateral purposes, such as delay. The clauses in Part 4 deliver two things. The first is a much needed rebalancing of the financial risk of bringing or driving a weak judicial review. We think it right that those who bring or choose to become involved in a judicial review should face their fair share of the financial risk that entails, rather than expecting a subsidy from the body they are challenging. This is the position in other civil litigation.

We will therefore ensure that the courts have the information they need to use their existing powers to reach through, say, a shell company when awarding costs against an unsuccessful party. That does not mean that everyone who donates to a campaign will be at risk, but it is right that there should be a proportionate liability for those who in reality control, guide and stand to benefit from a judicial review.

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

Is it not evident that judicial review will be enormously affected by this and that it will be beyond the scope of people to pay? In other words, it will become the province of the rich and not of the poor.

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, we do not think so. The argument over legal aid is a debate that we have already had in your Lordships’ House. It is the Government’s view that the changes in the legal aid provisions were an entirely proportionate and sensible approach to legal aid, given the scarce resources that are available. As to the availability generally of judicial review, the Government are concerned to ensure that it remains a realistic remedy, but nevertheless that appropriate modifications are made. We will scrutinise those modifications during the course of the debate.

We are affirming in statute the court’s ability to make orders protecting an unsuccessful claimant from a successful defendant’s costs. But it must be right that such protection, almost invariably at a cost to hard-pressed taxpayers, should be reserved for cases with merit and which concern matters of high public interest.

Those who intervene in a case to make arguments or adduce evidence can certainly add value to the proceedings, but we think it right that they should face the financial consequences of their decision to intervene. However, having listened to arguments in the other place we are persuaded that there may be a case for some modification of the provisions and we look forward to considering possible amendments.

Secondly, Part 4 limits the scope to use minor technicalities as a foundation for a judicial review designed to bring about delay by building on an existing approach taken by the courts. This will bite on claims based on a minor flaw in a process, where the outcome of that process for the applicant was highly unlikely to have been changed by the flaw. Our change will mean that, in those situations, the court should not grant permission to continue, or a remedy.

By taking that approach, other more meritorious judicial reviews, in which it is likely or probable that there would have been a difference, can proceed more quickly, given the freeing up of scarce judicial resources. Where there is any significant doubt in the court’s view over whether a procedural failing would have made a difference to the end result—perhaps the grant of a licence or the positioning of a pedestrian crossing—the clause would of course have no effect. Consequently, this clause will be very far from a “get out of jail free” card for poor administrators. I trust that, through the consideration of the Bill, I will be able to demonstrate these points to the House’s satisfaction. However, I cannot stress too strongly that we are not abolishing judicial review.

The shadow Lord Chancellor in the other place invoked the impending anniversary of Magna Carta and said that the Government were,

“depriving citizens and communities of their rights to challenge power”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/6/14; col. 1073.]

I am confident that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has a rather more secure grasp of legal history—judicial review, as we know, started in the 1970s—and that he and others of your Lordships will accept that acknowledging the value of judicial review does not preclude Parliament carefully scrutinising the extent to which it should be used to frustrate the legitimate exercise of power by a democratically elected body. The Government consider that ours is a balanced package of measures which will ensure that judicial review will continue to operate effectively and appropriately.

The Bill contains a wide range of important proposals to ensure that we deliver a justice system that people can be proud of. It ensures that offenders and claimants take responsibility for their actions and that our laws reflect the 21st century. I feel confident that the great expertise that can be found in your Lordships’ House will be brought to bear on the Bill. I look forward to debating it and benefiting from that expertise. I hope that noble Lords will support the outcomes it seeks to achieve. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.

15:31

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, another parliamentary day, another Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. The House will be grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive guided tour of the Bill’s proposals but the reality is that we are presented once again with a veritable pot pourri of legislative proposals, the customary mix of the worthy and the welcome, the half-baked and the harmful. This time, some 16 measures were added to the mix two days before Report and Third Reading in the Commons, with little or no time for debate. Therefore, they arrive here today effectively sight unseen.

Today, a pot pourri merits this dictionary definition:

“A mix of dried petals and spices in a bowl designed to perfume a room”,

but the original French stands for a stew made from different kinds of meat—literally a rotten pot—and too much of this Bill fits the latter description.

There are certainly parts to welcome—for example, the provisions about police corruption, extreme pornography, malicious communications and care worker offences of ill treatment or wilful neglect. However, there are others, notably those dealing with secure colleges and judicial review, which demonstrate the propensity of this Government in general, and this Lord Chancellor in particular, to indulge in grandstanding on issues of crime and justice on the basis of the most tenuous evidence, and with a disturbing determination to curtail judicial discretion.

I will deal later with those matters but, at this stage, will cite two examples of the Government’s cavalier approach. The first is the headline-grabbing proposal, referred to by the Minister this afternoon, to increase the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified to 10 years’ imprisonment. It is a serious offence, but one of which only 13 defendants were convicted last year. The second is the claim that the number of cases of judicial review has soared from 4,500 a year to 12,400, which was repeated by the Minister in last Thursday’s Times, whereas almost the entire increase was due to asylum and immigration cases, which are now dealt with under the tribunal system, not by judicial review, thereby reducing the workload and, presumably, therefore, the cost, of the Administrative Court by nearly two-thirds.

A more insidious approach is the trend in criminal law of imposing mandatory sentences, and in judicial review of making it more difficult and potentially much more expensive to challenge the lawfulness of decision-making by the state or its agencies. On these matters, the Joint Committee on Human Rights has been forthright in its criticisms, but the Government, as ever, merely shrug them off.

Part 1 of the Bill, whose objectives of protecting the public we entirely endorse, contains provisions which exemplify the failings that I have mentioned. Thus, Clause 4 will require an under-resourced and overstretched Parole Board to be involved in determining whether prisoners serving extended sentences should be released, as automatic release rules are changed. What proposal do the Government have to provide the Parole Board with the additional resources that it needs to cope with its present workload, let alone that which would flow from the provisions of this Bill?

Clause 6 makes electronic tagging mandatory for offenders released on licence, under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of State, despite the lamentable experience of the current tagging system, which is used essentially to check whether curfew or exclusion requirements are complied with. What will be the benefits and the costs of this quantum leap in the application of tagging? Do the Government accept that the code of practice to govern the use of tagging will be subject to parliamentary approval? Will a draft be available for the Committee stage of this Bill, or at least on Report? Clause 7 imposes extra work on the Parole Board in respect of prisoners recalled from release, when what is surely needed is effective supervision of such prisoners. Clause 8 gives the Secretary of State the power to change the test for release after recall by regulation, when this should surely be done by primary legislation.

Part 2 of the Bill deals with young offenders. I will come later to the question of secure colleges, but I welcome Clause 32, which requires the presence of an appropriate adult when a youth caution or youth conditional caution is given to someone under the age of 17. I join the Magistrates’ Association, however, in requesting guidance on the definition of an appropriate adult. Part 3 will allow minor offences to be dealt with it on the papers by a single magistrate—in effect, in chambers—where a defendant has not requested a hearing. My noble friend Lord Ponsonby will speak to this issue, but having only last Friday met magistrates of the Northumbria Bench, I incline to the view of those who say the defendant should have to agree to such a course, where appropriate, after proper advice. After all, not everybody who receives a court communication will be able to understand it. I am also sympathetic to those who say two magistrates should sit on such cases, although perhaps there should be an experiment to see whether there is a satisfactory outcome with a single magistrate. In any event, disposal should be in public, not necessarily in the traditional court room, so that justice can be seen and reported to be done.

A more troubling proposition is contained in Clause 42 in relation to criminal court charges—to which the Minister referred—under which offenders should be made to pay towards the cost of running the courts. This clause is a classic example of the Government’s casual approach to legislation. The requirement is mandatory, when it should, if imposed at all, be discretionary and decided by the judges. There is no impact assessment, either on the offender or the cost of enforcing the system. It ignores the risk that people may plead guilty, at least to the less serious charges, on financial grounds; and ignores both the reality of life for offenders and the system’s present inability to deal with unpaid fines and confiscation orders.

The Prison Reform Trust points out that offenders are twice as likely to have employment problems as the average, four times as likely to have housing problems, 13 times as likely to be homeless, and three and a half times as likely to be in debt. Meanwhile Justice points out that Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is owed £2 billion— including £1.3 billion in unenforced confiscation orders—and in 2010 the debt for criminal penalties was £608 million, two-thirds of which had been outstanding for more than 12 months. One might have thought that the Government would give priority to collecting these debts, rather than creating this new provision.

Finally in Part 3, I mention the belated inclusion in Clause 45, no doubt once again at the behest of the Conservative Party’s friends and supporters in the insurance industry, of yet another mandatory requirement, namely that if the court in a civil case is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that a claimant has been “fundamentally dishonest”—whatever that means—in relation to his claim, it must dismiss the claim unless this would cause substantial injustice. Again, this is presumably a moveable feast. Of course, a court can already penalise a claimant in costs if it is satisfied that a claim has been exaggerated but, more to the point, this is an entirely one-sided sanction. A defendant behaving in similar fashion would suffer no penalty, even though such conduct in a personal injury claim could itself add to the claimant’s suffering.

I now turn to the two most controversial elements of the Bill: secure colleges and judicial review. In relation to the former, the Government’s transforming rehabilitation programme appears to have failed. The Secretary of State has reoffended. There is an uncanny similarity between what happened over the probation service in the Offender Rehabilitation Act and this proposal. Once again, the Government are pressing ahead with their policy in advance of parliamentary approval, although at least it has not been left to Members of this House—as it was last year with probation—to ensure that the matter is debated. Yet the Government are appointing a contractor, before the Bill is enacted, to build a 330-place college. Admittedly, it will not be built before the Bill is enacted but, even so, one might have thought that this was somewhat premature. The important point, however, is that such a college would account for as many as a quarter of young offenders in detention. The objective of providing education is of course welcome, but it is self-evident that many youngsters would be a long way from home, and there are serious questions about the desirability of housing girls alongside boys and the youngest offenders alongside those in their later teenage years, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights has pointed out. There is also the question of cost. The Prison Reform Trust legitimately asks where the £85-million cost is coming from.

More important is the apparent determination of the Government to rely once again on some private sector provider to run the establishment and, significantly, to confer on it and its employees the right to use force to maintain good order and discipline,

“if authorised … by college rules”,

as set out in Schedule 6. Who will make these rules? Will they be subject to parliamentary approval, and if so by which method? Why have the Government rejected the advice of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the use of force on children and young people for the purpose of good order and discipline is incompatible with Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights? Why will they not adopt the committee’s obviously correct formulation that secure college rules should,

“only authorise the use of reasonable force on children as a last resort; only for the purposes of preventing harm to the child or others, and that only the minimum force necessary should be used”?

We have heard too many disturbing accounts of excessive force being used by private contractors on inmates of Yarl’s Wood and on deportees to countenance the possibility of similar actions in secure colleges. This policy—the objects of which we of course agree with—needs rethinking The Government should pilot a much smaller scheme with a narrower age range, close to where the children come from. It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that, as with the larger adult prisons the Government are bent on building, they are more concerned with reducing per capita costs than providing the necessary services at an appropriate and local level. Wholesaling and warehousing large numbers of damaged and vulnerable youngsters is not the way forward.

Finally, and perhaps most disturbingly, we come to Part 4 and the Government’s latest efforts to undermine judicial review. The Government are very deliberately making it much more difficult to challenge the lawfulness of decision-making, at least for those with limited financial resources. I have already disposed of the bogus claim that the current case load is excessive. Let me now deal with the barriers that are being deliberately being put in place to obstruct access to justice in this area, so vital to our democracy and system of government. Let us not forget the fences already in place in the form of restrictions to legal aid and on the payment of fees for preparatory work, which so often leads to matters being satisfactorily resolved without proceeding to trial. Once again substituting their judgment for that of the judiciary, the Government, in Clause 64, impose a mandatory requirement to refuse relief at the permission stage,

“if it appears … highly likely that the outcome … would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred”.

How can the court do that without a full consideration of the case? In that event, where is the saving? How, given that legal aid is not available for that stage, can a claimant make his case? Moreover, if procedural or legal errors are made, there must be some mechanism by which those failures can be challenged, even if the ultimate outcome is the same. That is what the rule of law requires.

Clauses 65 and 66, to which the Minister referred, deal with the finances and membership of applicants and organisations and require the court to take that information into account when determining costs—another mandatory imposition, clearly designed to discourage organisations and supporters, including, as Liberty points out, charities, solicitors acting pro bono or even family members, from supporting a claim where no legal aid is available. That principle is extended by Clause 67 to interveners: those who, after applying for the leave of the court to intervene to take part in the case—a necessary step—can then be required to pay not only their own costs but any costs incurred by other parties as a result. Only exceptional circumstances, typically not defined, but originally to be defined by secondary legislation, would avoid this. However, the court already has discretion in these matters. Why include this provision at all, except as a deterrent? We are talking, essentially, about public interest intervention, not individuals pursuing their own interests. In the Bill as it stands, there is a clear threat to organisations such as Liberty, Justice and the Howard League, which have played such an important part in defending the rule of law. I very much welcome the promise the Minister has made today. I hope there will be a judicious review of an injudicious proposal and that we will have an opportunity to see the results of that in Committee.

The Secretary of State has claimed that pressure groups use individuals as “human shields” to challenge the Government—a claim rejected by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Public Bill Committee. Moreover, as Liberty points out, the court has discretion as to whether to allow an intervention. We look forward to hearing the outcome of the Minister’s latest deliberations.

Two further matters that relate to costs are contained in Clauses 68 and 69. Cost-capping orders for claimants are welcome, but crucially can be made only on application after the permission stage. Much work will have been done up to that point and there will be no protection from liability for costs for an applicant if unsuccessful. That is no great problem for a developer seeking judicial review against a local authority, but it is quite otherwise for an applicant of modest means or a charity. The provision that secondary legislation may specify the ingredients of a public interest claim is absolutely unacceptable, especially as the Government are likely to be the defendant in many judicial review cases. Clause 69 once again imposes a mandatory duty to limit the costs that can be recovered by an applicant with a controlled costs order, thereby creating reciprocal costs protection to the defendant entirely irrespective of means. Equally, that is an entirely unreasonable fettering of the existing judicial discretion.

As I have said before, despite the assurances of the Minister, judicial review, like legal aid, is being deliberately dismantled. Characteristically, the Minister has given a lucid exposition of a deeply flawed Bill. The Opposition will work with others across the House to improve it where we can and oppose those provisions that we cannot. There are thoughtful Members on the government Benches who must share some of the misgivings that will be voiced around the House today. I hope we can work together in the interests of justice to improve this legislation.

15:48

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, we come to the Bill at a time when crime is falling. In 2013, according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, there was a 15% fall in crime overall to its lowest level in more than 30 years. The fall in violent crime has been particularly marked. It has fallen for each of the past five years, which is profoundly welcome. What is more, with the rehabilitation revolution and the measures we took last year in the Offender Rehabilitation Act, I believe we have started to tackle the scourge of persistent reoffending that has blighted the lives of so many of our young people. On these Benches we are particularly proud of the contribution in this area made by my noble friend Lord McNally, who I am delighted to see in his place today. I know the whole House welcomes his inspired appointment as chairman of the Youth Justice Board. In the criminal justice field, the Bill should be judged by its contribution to cutting crime in general further, and in particular to helping young offenders avoid reoffending.

The Bill creates new offences, which we welcome. The most significant proposals are those to make ill treatment or wilful neglect by care workers a specific offence and to create another offence for care providers of gross neglect of their duty of care. Those in their charge have a right to expect to be looked after professionally, carefully and compassionately. We have all been appalled by the many recent accounts of lack of care in care homes and hospitals. Mid Staffordshire, which was mentioned by my noble friend, Winterbourne View in Gloucestershire, and the care homes in Essex and Croydon recently exposed by “Panorama” are but other examples of what has too often become regular cruelty by carers, often attributable to systemic failures in the organisations that employ them. My right honourable friend Paul Burstow in the other place has worked hard in advocating such provisions as are now proposed. His expertise on the subject and his commitment to better care are well known. These new offences will help to prevent such ill treatment and neglect, and to deal effectively with these terrible cases where they occur.

A further specific offence of police corruption may add only a little to the existing law, but it will serve to make it clear to police and public alike that police officers are entrusted with special powers, that they hold a position and role in society that makes it incumbent upon them to observe the highest standards and that, if they should fall short of those standards and act corruptly, they can expect to be dealt with severely.

We also welcome the proposal that images of rape are to be classified as pornographic. That is obviously right, and the proposed defence that acts portrayed were in fact consensual strikes a reasonable balance. We will, however, seek to add a new clause outlawing so-called “revenge porn”—that is, putting intimate pictures of former lovers on the internet without their consent. This nasty practice, if not curbed by law, threatens to become more widespread with the advent of high-definition video cameras on phones and cameras built into glasses. Such mean acts of revenge can have profound and devastating effects on their victims’ lives, causing deep distress, often psychological illness and havoc within personal, family and work relationships. In the other place, my honourable friend Julian Huppert suggested making this practice an offence, and my right honourable friend Maria Miller organised an Adjournment debate on the subject.

On the issue of rehabilitation, we will be looking carefully at the proposals for secure colleges. My party has been at the forefront of advocating a greater emphasis on education in custody for adults and young offenders alike. I welcome my noble friend’s commitment to education for people in custody. However, I wonder whether the establishment of secure colleges may not risk large numbers of young offenders being sent to a small number of large institutions, often far away from their homes, instead of to smaller ones with more personalised care and more links with their homes and families. I invite my noble friend to consider, with other Ministers in the department, how we can ensure that sentences served in secure colleges will not jeopardise the greater opportunity for through-the-gate support, which we have been at such pains to provide and encourage for offenders close to their communities before, as well as after, release.

For my part, I am also unclear how meaningful courses are to be organised in secure colleges. Offenders are, after all, sentenced all year round, not just at the beginning of college terms. Their sentences also vary in length. I am concerned that college-style courses may simply not work for many offenders. We look forward to the consultation promised by my noble friend on the secure college rules. My noble friend Lady Linklater will deal further with this topic in due course.

If we have a general criticism of the Bill, it is that too many proposals in it would remove or limit judicial discretion. It seems to be infused with a lack of trust in our judges. I regard some of the proposals as presenting a real danger of injustice in cases which should be dealt with on an individual basis, not by the application of a blanket rule regardless of the particular circumstances.

The proposal in the Bill that I fear most risks injustice is that for a mandatory sentence of six months’ imprisonment for adult offenders, and four months for 16 and 17 year-olds, for a second offence of possessing a knife in a public place. This was proposed as an amendment in the House of Commons from the Conservative Benches by my honourable friend Nick de Bois. Regrettably, Labour MPs lined up alongside the Conservative Back-Bench Members to support it. Liberal Democrats in the Lower House opposed the amendment and we will do so again in your Lordships’ House.

Of course knife crime is extremely serious and we must come down very hard on it. In many cases where an offender repeats an offence of possessing a knife in a public place, he or she will richly deserve a custodial sentence, but that should be for judges to decide on a case-by-case basis. Compulsory custodial sentences are the wrong way to deal with the issue. They stop judges deciding who deserves prison and whether prison will do any good in a particular case. They threaten to affect young black people disproportionately because more of them are subject to stop and search. There is no proof that compulsory prison works. As my honourable friend Julian Huppert said in the Commons:

“The question … is whether we should do the thing that sounds the toughest or the things that actually work”. [Official Report, Commons, 17/6/14; col. 1034.]

We have put all our emphasis in this Parliament on keeping young offenders out of prison where we can and rehabilitating them to lead useful lives in the community. Compulsory sentences are costly and overcrowd our prisons. This is a retrograde step for rehabilitation.

It is true that the Bill would permit a court to refrain from passing the mandatory sentence if,

“the court is of the opinion that there are particular circumstances which … relate to the offence or to the offender, and … would make it unjust to do so in all the circumstances”.

But that only serves to make my point: if a particular circumstances exception is to be widely applied, it makes a nonsense of the provision for mandatory sentences; if only rarely applied, serious injustice is caused in a number of cases. We are not persuaded that there is any justification for this approach beyond, I regret to say, a desire to appeal to a populist press with an eye-catching message that we are tough on knife crime.

We are also concerned about the compulsory imposition of a criminal courts charge upon conviction, even for offenders who cannot afford it and for whom employment prospects may be affected by the existence of an outstanding charge because they cannot get credit and they are concerned by the effect on their earnings. I am concerned about the proposal that a court must dismiss the whole of a personal injury claim if it is tainted by fundamental dishonesty. As someone who has conducted many personal injury cases over the years for both claimants and defendants, my experience is that dishonesty in the presentation of personal injury claims is, regrettably, not uncommon. Defendants can often produce convincing evidence, with the aid of video surveillance or otherwise, to demonstrate that the degree of injury allegedly sustained by claimants, and the consequences of such injury, have been wildly exaggerated.

For my part, I have always believed that in appropriate circumstances, judges should have the power to throw out an entire case for extreme dishonesty or to reduce awards of damages to reflect the court’s view of such dishonesty. However, there are many cases which are affected by what might reasonably be described as fundamental dishonesty where the needs of the claimant for the rest of his or her life must come first and in fairness must be met, and where completely depriving the claimant of damages would be very wrong. But instead of giving a judge a discretionary power to reject an entire claim or reduce damages to an appropriate extent, this clause would provide that the court must dismiss the claim unless satisfied that the claimant would otherwise suffer substantial injustice. Once again, I sense a lack of trust in judges to act sensibly in the exercise of their discretion in accordance with the justice and requirements of the particular case that they are hearing.

I turn finally to the proposals for judicial review. Judicial review is the precious right of the citizen to challenge the Executive in the courts when a Government act unlawfully or exceed their powers. The law has been developed, as my noble friend said, over recent decades into what I suggest this House knows is an effective and elegant body of law. One understands that Governments do not relish being challenged in the courts: it is inconvenient. But it is the constitutional duty of this House to protect the right of challenge and to trust our judges to deal with challenges fairly and in accordance with the law.

The measures proposed in the Bill for judicial review risk deterring people with means from supporting legal challenges by making them disclose all their assets and threatening them with widespread orders to pay the Government’s costs personally. The proposals would prevent campaigning organisations and others joining in on cases as interveners to put the public’s case by making interveners pay all parties’ costs of their intervention and by preventing them getting their costs even when they win—and ex hypothesi therefore, even when they have shown that the Government were in the wrong. Campaigning organisations would find it harder to raise money to challenge the Government in the public interest. I welcome the indication from my noble friend today that the Government are open to persuasion on these provisions, but that persuasion needs to go a long way to produce a lot of movement.

Further provisions would allow the courts to protect litigants from costs orders—the so-called costs-capping orders—against them only in cases of general public importance. But what of the innocent member of the public who has been wronged in a particular but unusual case of government irrationality—nothing of general public importance but a serious case of injustice? Why should that citizen not have costs protection if the judge thinks it right that he should? In all these cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, pointed out, judges have at the moment appropriate powers in relation to costs and judges decide how they should best be exercised.

We will also wish to consider how far the proposed permissive power to make regulations to exempt environmental judicial review cases from the restriction on cost capping complies with our duty under the Aarhus convention to provide access to justice in environmental cases that is

“fair, equitable … and not prohibitively expensive”.

That will be difficult when the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee has found that under our existing rules, the United Kingdom already fails that test.

There is no evidence that our judges let frivolous challenges or challenges that are of academic interest only because they make no difference, consume public resources unnecessarily. There is no established need for the cost deterrents in Part 4, and a justified fear that they will stifle legitimate cases. We will scrutinise Part 4 very carefully and resist unwarranted intrusions by legislation into areas that are best left to judicial discretion, particularly where what is at stake is the citizen’s right to hold the Executive to account in our courts.

16:04

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick (CB)]

My Lords, we have just listened to two very powerful speeches, which have covered the whole scope of the Bill. For my part, I shall concentrate only on Part 1, in which there is much to criticise in detail when we come to Committee. Taken as a whole, I find Part 1 profoundly depressing. We have 28 new clauses full of new offences and increased penalties at a time when, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, demonstrated, and as we all agree, crime is actually falling and the prisons are full.

When I became a judge, not so very long ago, there was a prison population of 35,000. It is now 85,350. How can such an increase be explained, let alone justified? Mr Grayling says that there is no crisis because he has 1,000 spare prison places. However, the story from individual prisons is very different: Wandsworth is currently operating at 169% of capacity while Durham, which was built for just under 600 prisoners, currently accommodates 940. Mr Grayling says that there has been an unexpected increase in the demand for places and has suggested that one reason might be the number of recent convictions for historic sex offences. I would like to suggest a much more likely reason. Home Secretaries, as we have seen, have an itch for taking a hand in sentencing—and now, to Home Secretaries of the past, we have to add the Lord Chancellor.

I will give an example of what I know from my own experience. In the old days, the tariff in murder cases was fixed, or I should say recommended, by the trial judge, and the Lord Chief Justice would add his comments. Sometimes, the Home Secretary would accept the judicial recommendation, but in most cases he did not, for no very good reason that I could see. Then came the case of Anderson in the House of Lords, in which it was held that sentencing was the province of judges and not the Home Secretary, who must therefore play no part in fixing the tariff.

Mr Blunkett, who was then Home Secretary, had a riposte: Schedule 21 to the 2003 Act. Under that schedule, an elaborate framework has been created within which judges are now required to operate. There are four different starting points, and lists of aggravating and mitigating factors which sometimes, as we have seen recently, conflict. I have never understood the reason for Schedule 21. But I have no doubt at all as to its effect. It has increased the tariff in murder cases from 13 years, as it was, to 17.5 years, as it is now. We now have more persons serving life sentences than in the rest of Europe put together—about which I hope we will be hearing later from my noble friend Lady Stern.

However, none of this seems to worry Mr Grayling—like Gallio, he cares for none of these things. As he said recently, he makes no apology for the fact that, under this Government, there are more people going to prison than ever before, and for longer sentences. How very different he is in that respect from his predecessor, Kenneth Clarke. It was one of Kenneth Clarke’s objectives as Lord Chancellor to reduce the prison population. One of the ways he set about doing that was to repeal Section 225 of the 2003 Act. That was the section that enabled—and in many cases required—judges to pass indeterminate sentences for the protection of the public instead of determinate sentences. That was another new idea of Mr Blunkett and I would like to say a little more about it.

The original idea was that it would apply to a small group of serious offenders—perhaps a few hundred a year at most—for whom an ordinary determinate sentence would not provide sufficient safety for the public. That was how it was described by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, when she introduced the Bill into this House. However, the result was very different. Far more prisoners were given indeterminate sentences than was ever anticipated, many with tariffs of as little as two years or less—some as little as six months.

The Government were completely unprepared. Very few such prisoners were being released as they could not get before the Parole Board and, in the test case of James and others, the European Court of Human Rights held that in these circumstances their detention was arbitrary and therefore unlawful. In 2007, Section 225 was amended so as to stem the flow of new inmates, but it was too little and too late. By 2012 there was no alternative but to repeal Section 225 altogether. Kenneth Clarke described it as having been a stain on the system, and so it was.

However, in the mean time, a huge backlog had built up. Currently there are 5,500 prisoners serving IPP sentences of a kind that could not now be lawfully imposed. Of these, 3,500 have already passed their tariff with little hope of early release. The present rate of release is running at about 400 a year. At that rate it will be nine years before the backlog is cleared. That is the position in general, but I am particularly concerned about a group of 773 prisoners who were given tariffs of two years or less in 2007 before Section 225 was amended. If they had been sentenced in 2008 instead of 2007, they could not have been given IPP sentences, so they would by now be out of prison: indeed, they would have been out of prison long ago. Yet they are still in prison.

Some 275 of them are five years or more over tariff; some as long as eight years over tariff, including 37 where the tariff was less than six months. Can nothing be done for these people to speed up their release? The answer the Minister should give is, “Yes, something can be done”. When Parliament repealed Section 225 in 2012, it was well aware of the backlog that had been created and of the need to so something about it. So Kenneth Clarke introduced a new clause giving the Lord Chancellor the power to alter the release test in the case of IPP prisoners. It need no longer be the same for other lifers, as it had been and as indeed it still is; nor need it even depend on an assessment of risk.

This new power is contained in Section 128 of the 2012 Act. It is obvious that it was included in the Act for one purpose only: to speed up the release. I have no reason to doubt that if Kenneth Clarke were still Lord Chancellor, he would have exercised the power contained in that provision. He had already described the existing state of affairs as unfair and unjust, for the very reasons that I have mentioned.

Some time—very soon—after Mr Grayling became Lord Chancellor, I asked him whether he intended to exercise the powers that he had been given by Parliament to deal with the backlog. He said that he had no such intention. The only reason he has ever given is that it would not be right or appropriate to interfere with the sentences lawfully imposed by the judges. However, in the case of the 773 prisoners given sentences of two years or less, that reason will not hold. In their case, the judges had no discretion one way or the other; they were bound to assume dangerousness until Section 225 was amended in 2007.

Mr Grayling must surely find some better reason for not exercising the power he has been given in relation to those prisoners. Nobody is suggesting that he should release prisoners who are “dangerous” in the ordinary sense of the word, but he should find some way of dealing with those with tariffs of two years or less under the powers which he has been given for that very purpose. With tariffs as short as that, they cannot have been among the most serious offenders.

In the case of 37 prisoners with tariffs of six months or less, we now know that 24 of them have a low risk of reoffending—yet they are still in prison. The matter cannot be put better than it was in a leader in the Times on 25 March. It made this point:

“The scandal Mr Grayling should address is that a process set in law”,

should be “followed in life”. I hope that Mr Grayling will do just that—not just, as the Times said, to save some £40,000 a year for every prisoner released or to reduce overcrowding but to restore to these prisoners some sense that they are being fairly and justly treated, not only with regard to their victims but as between themselves. It would thus remove what Kenneth Clarke rightly described as a stain in the system that still remains.

16:18

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, I am not among those who decry the frequency with which criminal justice Bills come along. The world is changing fast and the shapes assumed by criminality change no less quickly. It is important to respond to change and to take care that the unchanging core of justice—a British value if ever there was one, as well as a Biblical value—is honoured both in the detail and in the overall direction of policy on the criminal law and its enforcement.

This fourth Bill of the present Government contains much that is welcome. For example, it makes prisons slightly safer places through allowing non-controlled drugs to be tested for at a time when some prescription drugs have become a destructive form of currency. It will also make some vulnerable people safer from the tiny minority of care workers who may ill treat or wilfully neglect them. It will increase protection from extreme pornography and appropriately raise maximum sentences for malicious communications. All that is welcome. It will ensure that cautions will be issued to 17 year-olds only in the presence of an appropriate adult. That will complete the changes made to police procedures so that all children under 18 are treated as children, which they are.

Children and young people are a particularly high priority for me as much of my time is spent supporting the causes of education and services to children and young people. For that reason, I am especially interested in the proposals for secure colleges. I hesitate to raise questions about secure colleges, since opposition to them has been authoritatively described in the other place as “bonkers”. One cannot deny the attraction of a vision of a college for children convicted of an offence serious enough to warrant detention which is just like a school surrounded by an unobtrusive fence and with a first-rate education programme. It sounds good. However, the Bill presents this vision in soft focus and with very little clarity of detail. That is where I get anxious.

The number of children in secure custody has reduced greatly in recent years, which is an achievement in itself. The children are looked after in relatively small institutions, which are small enough to focus on the individual. Even the larger young offender institutions in existence now are considerably smaller than the proposed secure colleges. Children from 12 years of age and upwards, currently held in secure children’s homes, would be in the secure college. Girls—again there are only a small number of them—would also be held there. What seems certain is that, on average, children would be held much further away from their home area than at present. We are told that specialist subunits on the college site would care for these minorities. No one quite seems to know how that would work.

One telling detail in the Bill is that it gives to secure college staff the power to use reasonable force to maintain good order and discipline. I must protest that it is legitimate to use physical constraint on a child only in order to prevent harm to the child or others. A Bill which insists on the presumption of a custodial sentence for anyone, including a child, carrying a knife might by the same token be expected to keep to a minimum the use of physical force on children by the state’s own officers.

The other important theme to which I draw attention is access to justice and the ability to hold the Executive to account for their actions. The impact of the proposed changes to judicial review has to be seen in the context of a cumulative series of changes relating to legal aid and judicial review from the time of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 onwards. Judicial review is a vital element in our system of democracy and in ensuring that elected authorities act in accordance with the law. The executive power at every level must be subject to law. In the pages of scripture, in Deuteronomy, the King of Israel is told that he must not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites or turn from the law to the right or to the left. The same applies to all public authorities at all times.

The 2012 Act reduced the eligibility threshold for legal aid and cut legal aid across many areas without affecting the funding of judicial review. Eight days after the 2012 regime came into force, the Ministry of Justice published proposals for further changes in legal aid funding for judicial review, including the introduction of a residence test. In addition, new rules on time limits may well further limit access to justice. It is disturbing when the Bar Council says that when combined with other recent government measures for changing the law of judicial review, these changes, if enacted in their current form, will immunise government and other public authorities from effective legal challenge.

Where there has been a case for the overuse of judicial review, in planning or immigration matters, for example, changes have already been made. It is no longer possible to sustain the claim that there has been massive expansion in judicial review cases requiring urgent action. Nor is there evidence that the permission stage in judicial review has become too lax, letting through groundless claims.

It is important that the system strikes a balance between the interest of claimants and defendants so that justice is done. The proposals in the Bill risk tilting that balance too far in the direction of the defendant. The charge that judicial review has become a campaigning tool for pressure groups does not seem to be recognised by those who know the field well. The Bill’s proposals would raise the threshold for bringing a case, and in various ways would increase the financial risk for those bringing a case and for charities and other bodies wishing to intervene in a case. It seems inevitable that it will be the individuals and groups with a sufficient financial base that will be able to risk losses and enter into the judicial review process.

Many other aspects of the Bill will merit close examination. For example, we may need to consider the extra burdens to be placed on the already hard-pressed Parole Board, as has already been mentioned. The fixed-term recall for some others is another issue. At this stage, however, it is the proper care of troubled children and the ability of people with fewer material resources to challenge decisions of those with executive authority that I wish to emphasise as legitimate concerns for the House.

16:26

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)]

My Lords, I find myself in unfamiliar territory today as criminal justice is not my usual stomping ground, but I feel an urgency to raise again my deep concern about the cumulative impact of the Government’s reforms—let us call it death by a thousand cuts—on the lives of disabled people. I am aware that many fine legal minds might also be taking the Minister to task, so I will be in good company.

Less than two months ago I spoke in support of a Motion laid by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to regret the Government’s changes to legal aid for judicial review. Having looked very closely at Part 4 of the Bill, I realise how critical the connection is between these two debates.

The Government have presented their changes to judicial review as no more than tinkering with dusty and irrelevant procedures. Nothing could be further from the truth. Judicial review and access to justice have never been more important, particularly for people with disabilities, who, let us face it, are financially challenged. Disabled people have far more contact with public agencies, whose decisions may have a devastating impact on how we live. It is not surprising, therefore, that the means of ensuring that those decisions are taken lawfully, fairly and as Parliament intended is so highly prized. The Government tamper with it at their peril.

Much has been made of a few high-profile cases to make the case for this change. The bread and butter of judicial review is not about Richard III; it is about ordinary people and their relationship with administrative and organisational power. As I said in the Motion of Regret,

“judicial review … is about people standing up to public bodies when”—

and they do—

“they get it just plain wrong”.—[Official Report, 7 May 2014; col. 1549.]

Take the Tracey family, who established at the Court of Appeal that an NHS trust had acted unlawfully by placing a DNR—“Do Not Resuscitate”—order on their mother’s records without consulting her. In a landmark judgment, the appeal court stressed that the duty to consult is an integral part of respecting patients’ dignity. That case could have been mine. I know only too well how frightening it is to have a DNR order placed on my hospital notes. Ten years ago, I faced it myself when admitted to hospital with pneumonia. Luckily, the DNR order was spotted early, and on that occasion the situation was resolved—I am here—but I was always afraid that this could happen to other disabled people. The Tracey family judgment has gone a long way towards allaying our fears and making us feel safer—judicial review.

As noble Lords will know, I served for many years as a commissioner on the Disability Rights Commission and then the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I oversaw the cases they supported or intervened in. I know how important those cases were: for example, the decision that a local authority’s blanket ban on manual lifting and handling, which deprived two seriously disabled sisters of any control over their lives, was unlawful. That ruling has had a life-changing impact on the practice and procedures of all local authorities.

Although we are not here to discuss legal aid today, the proposals in Part 4 of the Bill must be considered in that context. The legal aid changes will make it harder for people to secure advice and representation. Increased fees already make it more difficult for those without means to access judicial review. Part 4 will introduce further barriers, and may restrict judges’ discretion to act fairly in cases that should be heard in the public interest.

I have questions to put to the Minister in two areas of these proposals. The first relates to the “no difference” test. Clause 64 will require judges to refuse judicial review where, even if a local authority acted unlawfully, the outcome would be “highly likely” to have been no different. Consider a failure by a local authority to consult the community in its decision to withdraw a service. Are the Government really asking a judge to “guesstimate” what the outcome of that consultation might have been and what disabled people might have said in response? Will he then guess how the local authority might have responded? Is second-guessing part of the judge’s role?

The second area for the Minister relates to the disclosure of financial information. Under Clauses 65 and 66, judicial review claimants will have to provide information on their financial resources before their claim can proceed. The Government say that they want to stop claimants being used as “human shields” by unscrupulous persons trying to avoid court costs. That really does not ring true to me.

Of concern is the worrying effect of these measures on poorer claimants and those who are willing to support them if they cannot get legal aid. If my cousin gives me £5,000 to help me challenge a decision about my support, will that open up the spectre of an order for court costs, putting her home at risk? What about lawyers volunteering their services pro bono? Would their gifts in kind put them at similar risk? If not, where is the reassurance in the Bill? I hope that the Minister will clarify this.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has published a powerful critique of these proposals. I had the privilege of serving on that committee and I know how hard it works to reach a cross-party consensus on politically contentious cases. I wholeheartedly endorse its conclusion that the case for change is not made and that Part 4, if not heavily amended in Committee, should be rejected. But I am heartened today by the Minister’s comments that having listened to concerns raised on this in the other place, he may consider amendments in Committee. I look forward to holding the Minister to this when he returns in Committee, and I will be back too.

Disabled people, more than any other group, have experienced the cumulative burden of myriad government reforms in recent years. Please let us not make access to justice the final injustice.

16:35

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, first I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular as a practising solicitor and partner for the last 46 years in an international commercial law firm, DAC Beachcroft. I am also very proud to be vice-chairman of Justice. I am relieved and pleased to see in her place the chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. I know that she will deal with some of the points, in particular those just raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, because Justice is concerned that the Bill raises significant issues in its proposals for the change to criminal and civil law regarding access to justice. I think we all want time to reflect on what the noble Baroness said about Clauses 64, 65 and 66, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.

I wish to concentrate on two areas, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, from the opposition Benches. I would first like ask him why he looked at me so critically when he said “cavalier”. I am not quite sure why he did this. I could respond by saying that it takes a Roundhead to spot a Cavalier, but I would not dream of doing so.

[Lord Beecham]

The noble Lord makes precisely the remark I was about to make. I was not conscious of looking at the noble Lord. A cat, of course, may look at a king. I hope I may look at the noble Lord occasionally.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

I am relieved, mainly because I always pride myself on being a master of the single entendre, so I am happy I did not go down that route.

I formally welcome the Bill as an opportunity continually to revise the law. In many respects this House points out, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, did once again, that we must be very careful about passing new laws and new provisions, but we must always reflect on how we can improve the existing law while always avoiding the law of unintended consequences. I suppose I could slightly misquote Socrates by saying that good people do not need laws; bad people will always find a way around them. Therefore, we must proceed with caution, particularly when we create new offences.

If I could I will also add my own experience of speaking from the opposition Bench on the Compensation Act 2006, when the regulation of claims management was first brought in. Kevin Rousell has done a magnificent job with limited resources in running that unit. It was always agreed from this Bench by the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, that the claims management unit within the Ministry of Justice would act as a sort of temporary regulator and eventually the Legal Services Board would take on the responsibility for proper regulation. I know that some of my noble friends have elsewhere urged that it should be the FCA that takes on responsibility, but I think we have to deal with proper and effective regulation of claims management companies.

The claims farmers allege that I have a vendetta against them—and I plead guilty, because I think that some of them are responsible for the most outrageous practices. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to the element of fundamental dishonesty, to which I shall return in a moment. When we get these phone calls and text messages when we have not had an accident, let alone a whiplash injury, urging us to bring a claim and being assured that we can get money and that it will not cost us a penny, I really think that we have to take further measures to regulate the sector.

The Bill is significant and far-reaching, and I want to concentrate first on Clauses 17 and 18. Once again we had a gap in the law. As one of my colleagues pointed out, in effect this is legislation to fill an odd gap, whereby a carer could wilfully neglect or ill treat an incapable patient and be criminally prosecuted for it but commit the same act in relation to a capable patient and have no obvious route to criminal sanction. That was the gap. We are now moving in another direction, where we must be careful about the law of unintended consequences. This new offence—in particular, the addition of a provider level, which is in effect a corporate offence—is a significant addition, augmenting the Care Quality Commission’s regulatory breach channels of sanction and duplicating the Health and Safety Executive’s regulatory sanctions against corporate bodies and directors. So we have to think through how we make sure that we avoid doing exactly the opposite of what is intended.

I urge on my noble friend the Minister the need for clear advice to the sector and the police. In particular, how is it decided that the differences between these three offences, or perhaps even four offences in some cases, should be clearly laid down? How is it to be decided which cases go into which investigative process? A provider could face three or four investigative threats arising from a single event. How well formed is that necessary clarity? I agree with my noble friend that we have to do something; we cannot allow the situation to develop whereby people who are guilty of very serious acts are able to escape unpunished. Equally, we must heed those in the professional organisations who point out that there has to be a need for the Crown Prosecution Service to develop clear guidelines as to the circumstances in which prosecution will follow, to quote the BMA,

“to provide care workers with the assurances they need to encourage incident reporting”.

It is an area on which I hope we will focus when we go into Committee.

I move on to the other part of the Bill that appeared for the first time at the last moment in the other place. Clause 45 is called, “Personal injury claims: cases of fundamental dishonesty”. It is very difficult to disagree that when someone has been fundamentally dishonest they should not be punished in some way. As with claims farmers, we have seen far too much of this dishonesty, so to stop someone who has a valid claim from exaggerating any part of it, which is the deterrent effect of what is proposed, is an admirable intention. But what does it mean to be fundamentally dishonest? What is the difference between dishonesty and fundamental dishonesty? Is it a civil standard of proof? To impose a criminal standard of proof would make it extremely difficult to bring any defence on this basis.

We also have the situation, which I have known in my career as a practising solicitor, where quite often an overzealous claimant lawyer will include all sorts of areas of claim for which the claimant probably never had it in mind to sue and perhaps will link subsequent injuries to the original accident, when they were clearly due to something that happened afterwards and independently. How are we going to deal with a genuine injury that has nothing at all to do with the incident that has given rise to the claim?

I do not say for a moment that we are opening up Pandora’s box, because I strongly support the view that we have to eradicate dishonesty from civil claims. However, we have to proceed carefully and with caution, and there may be a need for clarification and further amendment.

I say this as someone who practises in this area: we do often see genuine claims. However, as many noble Lords pointed out in previous debates, we are seeing far too many exaggerated claims and claims that have no real fundamental basis for litigation. Therefore I particularly want for all those concerned in this area a clear message that dishonesty is not to be tolerated. If that message can be strong enough, we will have achieved something.

Finally, as far as the National Health Service is concerned, we are seeing very substantial claims for future care, some of which dwarf the rest of the claim and which are far bigger and more extensive than I ever experienced when dealing with matters like this, where I often found that the person who was injured was far better off in a hospital that dealt with similar cases—whether it was a broken neck from jumping into a swimming pool or something of that nature—and being alongside people with a similar injury, rather than being allowed to develop a whole hospital around their home.

We have to be mindful of the Chief Medical Officer’s report, Making Amends. It was a long time ago, but at the time we all welcomed it when he said that it was necessary to review again Section 2 of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948. I think that time is now upon us. I also urge my noble friend the Minister to consider, as he looks at personal injury claims of this nature generally, introducing some form of capping, so that much needed money, particularly in the National Health Service, is not diverted into dealing with very substantial claims for future care but is far better directed to the necessary rehabilitation that so many of us have supported for so long.

16:47

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am concerned about the general thrust of this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and the noble and learned Lord have already said, that general concern is what appears to be a withdrawal of power and discretion from judges and handing it to Ministers.

There are particular provisions I want to speak about. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, criticised the Government for headline-grabbing measures. I hope that the Labour Opposition are not going to support headline-grabbing measures that suit their advantage and will actually oppose some of those measures that I think are headline grabbing, the first of which is Clause 23 on the corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges. Members of the House may wonder why I am speaking about this. Having been a police officer for 30 years, I thought that it might be obvious. I do not think that I can be accused of being an apologist for the police service. Anyone who thinks that should see last week’s “Panorama” programme. Indeed, I was one of the parties who took the police to judicial review over the phone hacking issue, and I will come back to that in a moment.

A number of cases concerning police misconduct have recently come into the public consciousness—one was mentioned by the Minister in his opening speech. However, the one recent case that resulted in a prosecution was that of a police officer for misconduct in a public office. Although the police officer was off duty, the case was successful and he was jailed. Therefore, I have two questions for the Minister. Like my noble friend Lord Marks, I accept that the police have special powers, but is the measure necessary at all in that there is an overlap with misconduct in a public office, which appears to be entirely adequate to cover the matters in the new provision? I am a liberal and I believe that we should have new laws only if they are absolutely necessary.

Secondly, if a new offence of misconduct in a public office is necessary, why have police officers alone been singled out for this offence? Other people who hold public office have similar powers—for example, immigration officers and officers from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. If we are talking about access to confidential information that might be given inappropriately to the media, we should note that people working in the intelligence services and the Ministry of Defence also have access to such information. Indeed, what about the conduct of politicians? We have powers and privileges and some of us have been found to have allegedly offered to ask Parliamentary Questions for money or claimed expenses to which we are not entitled. However, these new provisions do not cover any of that. Will the Minister therefore please reassure the House that the police are not being unreasonably singled out by this proposal? In his opening remarks, he said that the existing offence of misconduct in public office was not always best suited to dealing with corruption. I would be grateful if he would elaborate on what that means.

Clause 25, which was introduced by way of an amendment in the other place, concerns the possession of an offensive weapon or bladed article in public or on school premises and the imposition of a mandatory custodial sentence. Consistent with my general concerns about the Bill and the removal of judicial discretion, not only does this clause compel judges to impose an “appropriate custodial sentence”, it goes on to define what that sentence is. The whole point of having judges, social workers, the probation service and, in some cases, medical experts providing reports on the backgrounds of those convicted of offences is to ensure that custodial and non-custodial sentences imposed by judges are appropriate. I also suggest that the imposition of a fixed custodial sentence in criminal proceedings without taking into account the antecedents of the accused should never be considered an appropriate custodial sentence. One has to ask what is the purpose of imposing such a draconian and inflexible punishment? In my considerable experience as a police officer, criminals rarely, if ever, think about what the likely penalty will be before they commit a crime because they do not anticipate getting caught.

In support of this amendment, some have quoted the current Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, who says that he met offenders in a young offender institution and they told him that they no longer carried guns because of the mandatory five-year sentence for possession. Rather than a single anecdote, a colleague of mine conducted academically rigorous research with young offenders at the same institution, albeit some time ago. Most of them did not understand how they found themselves incarcerated—let alone that this was a possibility at the forefront of their mind when they committed street robbery. Surely the purpose of any legislation relating to the carrying of knives and other offensive weapons must be to reduce the rate of offending and reoffending. Even with longer sentences, any beneficial effect of a custodial sentence is often thwarted by the overcrowding in prisons—a problem that will only be made worse by measures such as this. What is likely to have the most beneficial effect on knife crime is to create the realistic belief in the mind of offenders that they will be caught.

In order to improve the chances that this will happen, the police need to work closely with people in communities prone to this type of crime, who know who the knife-carriers are, and who need to be encouraged to pass on such information to the police. If these members of the public believe that their son, partner or friend will definitely be sent to prison if found in possession of a knife, they are even less likely to provide that information to the police than they are now. In the absence of such specific intelligence, the police have to resort to the type of stop-and-search operations that create division and resentment between the police and their communities. Making detection more, not less, likely and allowing judges to tailor sentences in a way that they consider offers the best chance of rehabilitating the offender before them, rather than an inappropriate short-term sentence that is unlikely to prevent reoffending, must be a much better way forward.

Finally, on a very different issue, I want to express my concern about the proposed changes to the provision of information about financial resources in relation to judicial review, contained in Clause 65. The new provision requires that the applicant for judicial review declares not only how the application will be financed but,

“information about the source, nature and extent of financial resources available, or likely to be available, to the applicant to meet liabilities arising in connection with the application”.

Again, I want to speak about my personal experience. As we have learnt over recent years and were reminded last week, evidence came into possession of the police that many people had potentially been the victims of phone hacking by News International, including me. Yet the police not only failed to properly investigate those offences first time round, apparently for reason of “lack of resources”, they also failed to tell the potential victims that they had identified them as potential targets of illegal phone hacking. In a police decision log relating to the case, a decision is recorded that these victims should be informed. There is no subsequent decision recorded that the police should not inform victims, and there is no explanation to date about why that original decision was not implemented.

I and other victims, including the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, decided to ask for a judicial review of, among other things, the police decision not even to inform the victims of potential phone hacking, as we felt that there was a fundamental principle here about the right to a private and family life, and the police’s responsibility to help such victims to protect their privacy. The noble Lord, Lord Prescott, put it more eloquently: “They should have told us to watch our phones”. Thankfully, our lawyers were equally incensed and agreed to work under a conditional fee agreement, but insurance against the costs payable to the other side if the case failed is very difficult to secure in such cases, and in this case it proved to be impossible.

Again thankfully, a rich benefactor agreed to underwrite the other side’s costs in the event of our losing the case, but on the strict agreement that his identity would not be revealed unless and until it was necessary to do so. We won the judicial review on the point that the police had acted illegally by not informing the victims of phone hacking in these circumstances, but it is doubtful that the case would have been brought at all if it were not for that benefactor. When I discussed the Bill with my lawyers, they questioned whether the proposed legislation would apply where costs are simply underwritten rather than when payment is made before the case proceeds. I should be grateful if the Minister can clarify whether a case such as mine would be affected by these new proposals.

It appears to me that important cases—my case is but one—are not going to be heard in the courts and important points of law are not going to be established if the Bill is passed as it stands. I wish my noble friend the very best of luck in reassuring me and this House on the issues I have raised.

17:00

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, Part 4 of the Bill contains proposals that have the purpose, and will have the effect, of impeding judicial review in performing its essential role of ensuring that public authorities, including Ministers, act lawfully. In opening this debate, the Minister suggested that judicial review began in the 1970s. That uses as much poetic licence as Philip Larkin’s suggestion—the noble Lord recalls the quote—that,

“Sexual intercourse began

In nineteen sixty-three …

Between the end of the ‘Chatterley’ ban

And the Beatles’ first LP”.

Judges have, of course, been examining the legality of government action since the 17th century.

I have been in practice at the Bar since 1980, representing claimants and government departments in hundreds of judicial review applications. During that time, each and every Government have shown signs, perhaps understandably, of being irritated from time to time by the power of the judiciary to identify and remedy unlawful conduct. When they calmed down, however, Ministers recognised the value of what is central to the rule of law. They also had in mind a more pragmatic consideration—that they would not be in power indefinitely and they would wish their successors to be subject to the same proper constraints of the rule of law.

The current Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Grayling, is different. He has brought forward legislative proposals to control judicial review, and helpfully explained why he was doing so in an article, which I commend to all noble Lords, in the Daily Mail on 6 September 2013. This is what he said:

“The professional campaigners of Britain … hire teams of lawyers who have turned”,

judicial review “into a lucrative industry”. Judicial review, he said, is a promotional tool for countless left-wing campaigners and therefore needs to be reformed. It is a tribute to the sense of humour of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that in opening this debate he emphasised the need to avoid legislating by reference to newspaper headlines.

The Lord Chancellor repeated the thrust of his complaints when he spoke to your Lordships’ Constitution Committee in March. I am aware of no evidence whatever to support his basis for legislating, and, more importantly, nor is the judiciary which hears these cases five days a week. The response of the senior judiciary to the Ministry of Justice’s consultation last November was that the judges had seen no,

“evidence of inappropriate use of judicial review as a campaigning tool, and it is not the experience of the senior judiciary that this is a common problem”.

That is not to dispute that judicial review procedures can be improved. The Fordham inquiry for the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law made some very sensible suggestions earlier this year. What is objectionable is the wish of the Lord Chancellor to restrict the means by which the exercise of powers by himself and other Ministers are subject to review for their legality by independent judges.

Clause 64 is the first objectionable provision. It provides that courts and tribunals must refuse to allow the judicial review application to proceed to a full hearing if the defendant shows that it is,

“highly likely that the outcome for the applicant would not have been substantially different”.

If the case does proceed to a full hearing, the court must refuse to give any remedy to the applicant if that same test is satisfied. That is objectionable on constitutional grounds. The clause instructs judges to ignore unlawful conduct, and to do so in a context where the Government themselves are the main defendant. It is also objectionable because it fails to understand that judicial review is concerned not just with the narrow interests of the individual claimant had the results been different. Judicial review serves a public interest by exposing systematic breaches by public authorities of legal requirements. One of the most powerful remedies available to the court is the declaration, about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, wrote the leading textbook. It tells the Government and the world that what has been done is unlawful. Ministers and civil servants know that they must change their conduct for the future, and they do. This is not a question of preventing judicial reviews on “minor technicalities”, as the Minister suggested in his opening remarks. Clause 64 is also very unwise for practical reasons, because it will require the court, at the preliminary stage, to conduct a detailed review of what would have happened. That would be time-consuming and expensive, and it would promote satellite litigation.

My second concern is Clause 67, which addresses the costs of interveners in judicial review proceedings. The Minister helpfully indicated that the Government may look favourably on amendments to the clause. Let me explain why that would be very wise. Very often in judicial review cases the court allows a person or body to intervene because it has knowledge or experience that may assist the court in deciding the case. However, Clause 67 says that interveners may not receive their costs for doing so, other than in “exceptional circumstances”. More troublingly, it says that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the intervener must pay any costs incurred by a party as a result of the intervention. That is wholly unnecessary. The current position is clear and fair: the court has a complete discretion over whether to allow an intervener to appear, whether to order a party to pay the intervener’s costs, or whether to order the intervener to pay the costs. I am unaware of any evidence produced by the Secretary of State, or, indeed, anyone else, to suggest that there is a problem here. In any event, the provisions in the Bill are manifestly unfair. They will deter public interest bodies, whether it is Liberty, the GMC or the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, from intervening. They will not intervene if they are at risk of paying the costs other than in exceptional circumstances. The courts derive considerable assistance from these public interest bodies, and it will be greatly to the detriment of our law if this clause is enacted.

The third matter that causes me concern is Clauses 68 to 70 on protective costs orders—PCOs. In a case that raises issues of public interest and importance, the court has a power, before the case is heard, to set the maximum figure for the costs that a claimant will be required to pay should their claim not succeed. The object of a PCO is to ensure that a claimant who raises issues of public importance should not be deterred from bringing the claim by the risk of having to pay unquantified costs. At the moment, PCOs are a matter for the discretion of the court. The clauses will allow the grant of a PCO only when permission to bring a judicial review has already been granted, but the risks of having to pay the costs of a contested hearing for permission will deter these claims from being brought. That, I am afraid, is precisely the aim of the Secretary of State.

I suggest that it is also objectionable that Clause 69 would give the Secretary of State the power to decide what are “public interest” cases for these purposes and to define the factors which a court should take into account. These are simply not matters for a Minister by subordinate legislation—a Minister who is one of the potential defendants in the cases that he wants to regulate. Again, I have seen no evidence to suggest that the current exercise of these powers has caused any problems whatever, other than, of course, the general problem that government departments would rather not be the subject of a judicial review application at all.

Finally, I am puzzled by Clauses 65 and 66. Clause 65 requires the provision of information about financial resources in judicial review cases, and Clause 66 will regulate the use of information about financial resources on the assessment of costs in judicial reviews. But why single out judicial review for such provisions unlike any other form of civil litigation, and where is the evidence of any current difficulty?

All these clauses are designed to impede the effective exercise of judicial review, and, if enacted, that is precisely the effect that they will have. They all arise from a failure to understand, and indeed a complete lack of appreciation for, the very concept of judicial review as a means of holding government departments and other public bodies to account as to their legality in public before an independent judge. The judiciary has made it very clear in consultation that there is no practical need for these clauses and the Government have produced no evidence to justify them. The clauses have been criticised powerfully by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Government, as the main defendant in judicial review cases, are seeking to legislate in their own interests contrary to the public interest and contrary to the rule of law.

I will be putting down amendments to these clauses in Committee. I know that the concerns that I have expressed are shared around this House and outside it. I hope that the Minister and the Secretary of State are prepared for the detailed scrutiny which Part 4 requires and which it will undoubtedly receive.

17:14

[Baroness Barker (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to associate myself very strongly with the opening remarks of my noble friend Lord Marks in relation to this Bill. It is what I would call a “bits and pieces” Bill, or what in Lancashire would be called a “bits and bats” Bill, and as a consequence it will attract bouquets and brickbats. I shall start with a brickbat and then move on to a couple of bouquets, which I think it deserves.

The brickbat, as one might expect, relates to the clauses on judicial review. There are those in this House who can talk with far greater knowledge and eloquence on this subject than I ever could, but I want simply to bring to the attention of Members of this House the widespread fear that has been generated among charities such as Mind, whose role is in part to stick up for people who are often at the rough end of public law decision-making. They are very concerned about all the proposals on judicial review, and in particular about Clause 67. Charities with specialist expertise but not a lot of funding see it as a deliberate attempt to deter them from standing up for people who need support in cases that raise a wider public interest. We should bear that in mind as we scrutinise these clauses, as set out in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—which was, I would say, a wonderful speech to listen to.

I want to go on to give the Government some deserved bouquets. One is for the inclusion of Clauses 17 to 22, which set out the new offence of ill-treatment or wilful neglect by social care providers. In doing so, I pay tribute to my colleagues in another place, in particular Paul Burstow and Norman Lamb. In the wake of the revelations of appalling abuses at Winterbourne View and Stafford Hospital, Paul Burstow mounted a diligent and detailed campaign to ensure that those who were to be held responsible and duly penalised should be not just the front-line staff, but those who own, govern and manage social care providers. Paul Burstow and the leading professionals involved in the review of Winterbourne View put together a detailed case analysing the law as it stood in January 2013.

There are many pieces of legislation under which an individual can be prosecuted if they are suspected of hurting or harming a vulnerable adult. These include the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 covering common assault and battery, and the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. A great deal of existing legislation can be used when an individual is suspected of maltreating another individual. The trouble is that often it is not, because there is a wide degree of misunderstanding among professionals and the police as to which laws should apply.

Last year, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and I were part of a Select Committee of this House which was tasked with reviewing the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Section 44 of the Act states that it is an offence for any person to ill-treat or wilfully neglect someone who is covered by the Act; that is, someone who lacks mental capacity. There is a problem with that part of the legislation in that it is entirely possible for a perpetrator of abuse to mount the defence that they did not know that the person lacked capacity. Our committee saw that as a fundamental flaw in the legislation—a flaw that does not exist in the equivalent legislation in Scotland, where there is no need to determine that the person knew that the victim lacked capacity.

In their response to the committee, I am afraid that the Government said that they do not think there is any need to review that part of the legislation. I am disappointed with that. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, left our committee because of his elevation to his current role. Would he consider that again and also write to me and make available to other professionals in the field of social care the clarification of how Section 44 of the Mental Capacity Act will sit alongside the new offence of ill-treatment or wilful neglect in this legislation?

The work that my honourable friend Paul Burstow has done shows that there are pieces of legislation that could be applied to corporate bodies. Section 91 of the Health and Social Care Act applies to corporate bodies that are found guilty of ill-treatment. The trouble is that the actions that can be taken against a body can be applied only to one person—the registered officer of that organisation. Using the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act as the basis for his new proposals, Paul Burstow has established that even if there is no directing mind within an organisation, an offence has been committed by those managers who should have been responsible for the oversight of front-line staff. It is a good way of plugging a gap that has enabled managers and directors of care providers to walk away from their crimes completely unpunished while front-line staff have had to go to jail.

I move on quickly to the two remaining issues. One is malicious communications—the new,

“offence of sending letters etc with intent to cause distress or anxiety”.

As I sat and prepared this weekend, I read Clause 27. I thought that its wording was such that it could have been clattered out on a typewriter by Agatha Christie herself. Can the Minister clarify “et cetera” in this context? Some of us on these Benches remember when our former colleague Earl Russell asked the same question of a Minister. In this day and age, does et cetera mean tweets, e-mails, postings on websites? What does it mean? Those of us who are on Twitter know that a troll does not take pen to paper. A troll resorts to electronic communication. I would like the Minister to tell us the scope of these provisions. We are always running behind the internet in terms of our legislation and I would like to think that for once we could get it right. Out there are people, most of whom are women, suffering the most appalling abuse at the hands of individuals who at the moment think that they are faceless.

On revenge pornography, my friends in another place, Julian Huppert and Martin Horwood, have quite rightly said that it is time to make it clear that this is a criminal offence. Taking pictures in the context of a loving personal relationship and then putting them on public display is a particularly vicious violation of a person’s dignity. Again, a number of pieces of legislation could be used, but most predate the internet and are an obscure way of getting to the problem. We know that this is increasingly happening. Sites are putting up pictures and women are being extorted to pay large amounts of money to have the pictures removed. Blackmail and abuse such as this should not be part of the business model of any internet service provider or social media company. The Obscene Publications Act 1959 or the Protection of Children Act could help—but not enough and not swiftly enough. It is time to make this a criminal act and require search engines and social media companies to withdraw such material on request. We must make sure, above all, that the police are trained and equipped to see this for what it is—a horrible, horrible criminal act.

17:25

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I rather imagine that not many of your Lordships know that, as a young man, I wanted to be an actor. I must therefore start by acknowledging my gratitude to the Whips’ Office for putting my name in lights on the annunciator for many hours. I also apologise to those of your Lordships who have come to listen to the Statement on Europe, because I have one or two things to say. The first is that I agree with many provisions of the Bill, but the main parts of my speech will deal with two clauses that I do not think should be in it and one matter that I believe should be.

However, I must begin with an apology to the House. On 12 March this year, I asked an Oral Question of the Minister about the ban on jury research contained in Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. The Minister and I agreed to discuss the issue and, indeed, have done so. I apologise because there is no ban on jury research for academics—there never has been and it was never intended for there to be. There is just a ban on asking individual jurors what happened in the jury room. Anonymised research on the type of case, type of court, ethnicity, gender and much more is not banned. The trouble—and my excuse for misleading the House, as it were—is that although there may not, de jure, be a ban, de facto, almost everyone thinks there is; including not only me but many Members of this House including, perhaps rather quietly, even some noble and learned Lords with whom I have spoken, before and since my Question.

I have since spoken at length with Professor Cheryl Thomas of University College London, who has conducted research in this area and on how juries work, and had it published by the MoJ. The Minister even mentioned her in his reply to my Question. However, the problem is that she seems to be almost the only person in the country who does this sort of research because most people, including most academics, appear to think it is impossible. I apologise for asking a Question that was inaccurate but I do not apologise for raising an important subject. When he replies, can the Minister agree to require the MoJ to issue, as soon as possible, new comprehensive and clear guidance on what is and is not possible in jury research and to put it on the MoJ website? This is important because, as we have seen in the past week, juries in criminal trials, and how they work, are a central and vital part of how most people view and judge the whole judicial system in the UK.

Turning now to what should not be in the Bill, I raise for the consideration of the House Clauses 23 and 24, which deal, respectively, with the corrupt or other improper exercise of police powers and privileges, and the term of imprisonment for the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of their duties. This House complains occasionally about unnecessary legislation. These clauses seem to be not only unnecessary but entirely populist and should be struck out.

I begin with the murder of a police officer or prison officer. The Government propose that such a murder, rather than being in the category of cases where the starting point on conviction is a minimum sentence of 30 years, should instead be considered in the rare category where a whole-life sentence should be the starting point. Particularly having had the experience of someone trying to kill me with a machete, I yield to no one in my view that the murder of a police officer on duty is an outrage. However, the MoJ has forgotten its history, in two ways. There is simply no evidence—no evidence at all—of the judiciary failing to accord a conviction for the murder of a police officer or prison officer on duty the utmost seriousness. In the 1980s, I served in Shepherd’s Bush police station, in whose front hall is a plaque commemorating the murder, which I am sure a number of noble Lords will recall, of three Metropolitan Police officers—Geoffrey Fox, Christopher Head and David Wombwell—in August 1966 in Shepherd’s Bush, by Harry Roberts and his associates. Harry Roberts is still in prison, 48 years after the murder. His associates are dead. What need is there, in the face of this, for a change in the law?

Secondly, the MoJ seems to have forgotten that, following the abolition of capital punishment for murder in 1965, there were continuous attempts in the years that followed to reinstate capital punishment for the murder of a prison officer or a police officer on duty. These attempts were always resisted not only by the precursor of Liberty, the National Council for Civil Liberties, but also by the police service. It was believed that a prisoner on the run after such a killing would reason that if he was to hang, he would have no compunction in killing other people, including other police officers, to escape. I disagree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that some prisoners do not know what the sentence is; you know what the sentence is if it is hanging. The whole-life term is the contemporary version of hanging. This clause is not only unnecessary but capable of risking lives. It is wrong.

I turn now to Clause 23 about police corruption. This legislation is not only loosely drawn but entirely unnecessary. I am sorry to hear that the Opposition will support it. I have led investigations that have led to the conviction of police officers for corruption. Police corruption is an evil; it is a permanent and corroding threat. However, neither I nor the CPS, in my experience, has ever had any difficulty in framing charges under what was then the Prevention of Corruption Act, which would now be the Bribery Act 2010, or the common-law offence of misconduct in public office. The difficulty was not the charge but finding the evidence in a crime where all the participants do not want to tell anyone about it.

That this is unnecessary legislation is shown in subsection (11), which the Minister mentioned, which states:

“Nothing in this section affects what constitutes the offence of misconduct in public office”.

Where is the evidence that existing legislation is inadequate?

When the Milly Dowler case broke in 2011, a leader in the Times—a News International newspaper—declared that what had been revealed was “police corruption on an industrial scale”. I do not think so. Since that time, the phone hacking investigation has led to the conviction of an editor, two subeditors and three journalists or specialist hackers on a News International newspaper, and 101 journalists, some very senior, have been arrested, as opposed to 26 police employees, all very junior. Twelve more trials beckon.

The oddity of the clause is: what if you substituted some other professions for this legislation about police officers? What if we put journalists or parliamentarians instead of police officers in the clause, or even NHS dentists, because they can be convicted of corruption? Would the House support that? The police are far from being without fault and police corruption is an evil thing, but this legislation has no rationale at all and has the feel of a populist reaction to the wrong target.

Lastly, I turn to a different matter. Is the Minister aware that there are roughly 200,000 children in the United Kingdom with one parent currently in prison? That is three times the number of looked-after children, who, in old money, are children in care. During their lifetime, boys who have had a parent imprisoned—I wonder whether the Minister knows this—are three times more likely to be convicted of a crime than their peer group, as well as having many more poor life outcomes. Are the Minister and the House aware that no state agency has a duty to inform those responsible for education or social work that a child’s parent has been imprisoned? There is therefore no reason for a head teacher or any other teacher to know that a child’s parent has been imprisoned and, because the other parent will probably be ashamed to explain it, that position will not change officially. However, the likelihood is that the child’s playmates will find out that the child’s father or mother is in prison, and the effect on that child and the bullying that will follow will be awful.

Is the Minister aware of the campaign entitled “Families Left Behind”, which is backed by Barnardo’s, the Prison Reform Trust and the NSPCC, among many others? The campaign is to introduce a statutory duty on courts to ask whether an individual facing a custodial sentence or being remanded in custody—after, I should emphasise, not before that decision is taken so as not to influence the decision—has a dependant, to ensure that the child’s welfare is considered by statutory agencies. Whether or not he is aware, I would ask for a conversation with the Minister about whether the Bill would be a suitable vehicle for such a statutory duty to be included in Committee. I do not believe that such a proposal has significant resource implications downstream—and downstream it may massively reduce reoffending. I hope he will agree.

EU Council June 2014

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

17:14

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on last week’s European Council.

Before turning to the appointment of the next Commission President, let me briefly report back on two other points. First, the Council actually began in Ypres with a moving ceremony at the Menin Gate to mark the 100th anniversary of the gunshots in Sarajevo which led to the First World War. It is right that we should take special steps to commemorate the centenary of this conflict and remember the extraordinary sacrifice of a generation who gave their lives for our freedom. The Government are determined to ensure that Britain has fitting national commemorations, including the reopening of the newly refurbished Imperial War Museum next month.

Secondly, the Council signed association agreements with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. These reflect our commitment to supporting these countries as they undertake difficult reforms that will strengthen their economies, bolster their democracies and improve the stability of the whole continent. President Poroshenko joined the Council to discuss the immediate situation in Ukraine. The Council welcomed his peace plan and the extension of the ceasefire until this evening. The onus is now on Russia to respond positively by pressing the separatists to respect a genuine ceasefire, to release hostages and return occupied border posts to the Ukrainian authorities. The Council agreed that if we do not see concrete progress very soon, we remain willing to impose further sanctions on Russia, which would not necessarily require a further meeting of the Council. But the Council will return to this issue at its next meeting, which has now been arranged for 16 July.

Turning to the appointment of the next Commission President, I firmly believe that it should be for the European Council—the elected heads of national Governments—to propose the President of the European Commission. It should not be for the European Parliament to try and dictate that choice to the Council. That is a point of principle on which I was not prepared to budge. In taking this position I welcome the support of the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the Deputy Prime Minister, in opposing the imposition of Jean-Claude Juncker on the Council. I believe that the Council could have found a candidate who commanded the support of every member state. That has been the practice on every previous occasion and I think it was a mistake to abandon this approach this time.

There is of course a reason why no veto is available when it comes to this decision. It is because the last Government signed the Nice treaty, which gave up our veto over the nomination of the Commission President, as well as the Lisbon treaty, which gave the Parliament stronger rights to elect the Commission President. So once it was clear that the European Council was determined to proceed, I insisted that the Council took a formal vote—something that does not usually happen. Facing the prospect of being outvoted, some might have swallowed their misgivings and gone with the flow, but I believe it was important to push the principle and our deep misgivings about this issue right to the end. If the European Council was going to let the European Parliament choose the next President of the Commission in this way, I at least wanted to put Britain’s opposition to this decision firmly on the record.

I believe this was a bad day for Europe because the decision of the Council risks undermining the position of national Governments and undermining the power of national Parliaments by handing further power to the European Parliament. So while the nomination has been decided and must be accepted, it is important that the Council at least agreed to review and reconsider how to handle the appointment of the next Commission President, the next time this happens, and that that is set out in the Council conclusions.

Turning to the future, we must work with the new Commission President, as we always do, to secure our national interest. I spoke to him last night and he repeated his commitment in his manifesto to address British concerns about the EU. This whole process only underlines my conviction that Europe needs to change. Some modest progress was made in arguing for reform at this Council. The Council conclusions make absolutely clear that the focus of the Commission’s mandate for the next five years must be on building stronger economies and creating jobs, exactly as agreed with the leaders of Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands at the Harpsund summit earlier this month. The Council underlined the need to address concerns about immigration arising from misuse of, or fraudulent claims on, the right of freedom of movement. We agreed that national Parliaments must have a stronger role and that the EU should act only where it makes a real difference. We broke new ground with the Council conclusions stating explicitly that “ever closer union” must allow,

“for different paths of integration for different countries”,

and, crucially, respect the wishes of those such as Britain that do not want further integration. For the first time, all my fellow 27 Heads of Government have agreed explicitly, in the Council conclusions, that they need to address Britain’s concerns about the European Union. That has not been said before. So while Europe has taken a big step backwards in respect of the nomination of the Commission President, we did secure some small steps forward for Britain in its relationship with the EU.

Last week’s outcome will make renegotiation of Britain’s relationship with the European Union harder and it certainly makes the stakes higher. There will always be huge challenges in this long campaign to reform the European Union but, with determination, I believe we can deliver. We cut the EU budget. We got Britain out of the bailout schemes. We have achieved a fundamental reform of the disastrous common fisheries policy and made a start on cutting EU red tape. We are making real progress on the single market and on the free trade deals that are vital for new growth and jobs in Britain. My colleagues on the European Council know that Britain wants and needs reform—and that Britain sticks to its position.

In the European elections, people cried out for change across the continent. They are intensely frustrated and deserve a voice. Britain will be the voice of those people. We will always stand up for our principles, we will always defend our national interest and we will always fight with all we have to reform the EU over the next few years. And at the end of 2017, it will not be me or this Parliament, or Brussels, that decides Britain’s future in the European Union. It will be the British people. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

17:44

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. First, I associate these Benches with what the Statement says about the importance of commemorating the centenary of the First World War and the sacrifice of a generation who gave their lives for our freedom. I also welcome the references to the association agreements signed with Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

I must congratulate the Government on their chutzpah. It is an extraordinary feat to claim that a 26-2 defeat and isolation is both a triumph and a strength. The results might have pleased those in the Conservative Party who favour a Brexit but they were greeted with dismay by business, trade unionists and all those who understand that the future success of our country and our place in the world depend on being part of a reformed European Union. The Prime Minister suggested that by pushing the Council to vote on Friday, he was defending a deeply held principle. I suggest that he was merely trying to defend the reputation of his party and maintain its unity.

The Prime Minister ended up with the candidate who he said would be a disaster for Britain but it could have been so different. A few weeks ago, we had a European Council divided about the presidency of the Commission; last week, we ended up with a European Council united against the Prime Minister. Personality politics might work well in the popular press or among the populists who are peddling fear in our country but they patently do not work among European leaders. They were the ones who might have been won round by discussion and diplomacy, rather than shouting and foot stamping. I understand that at the start of the process Chancellor Merkel said that the agenda of the next European Commission “can be handled by” Juncker,

“but also by many others … At the end, there will be a fairly broad tableau of names on the table”.

I would be grateful if the Leader could explain how the Government think that we reached a situation in which 26 European leaders coalesced around one name.

Personal attacks and threats followed by splendid isolation are a testament to weakness and a lack of tactics rather than strength, while insults such as the one from the Health Secretary, who called the other European leaders cowards, are simply rude. As Chancellor Merkel said in Sweden:

“Threats are not part and parcel of”,

the European spirit and,

“this is not part of the way in which we usually proceed”.

It was not too late to rethink tactics and tone at that stage, but no efforts to change were made. Does the noble Lord agree that leaving the EPP Group nine years ago and the very recent decision by the European conservatives to invite the German AfD, a right-wing opponent of Chancellor Merkel’s CDU, to join their group in the European Parliament were tactics for short-term political gain rather than being in the interests of either his party or our country?

This morning, I had wide-ranging discussions with members of the governing party in Italy and over the weekend I spoke to other European colleagues. It is clear that reform of the European Union is needed and desired by our partners. The Prime Minister suggests that it is only his conviction that Europe needs to change. I assure noble Lords that that conviction is widely shared and has been reinforced throughout the European Union as a consequence of the results of the EU elections. My party also wants reform but the difference between us and the Prime Minister is that we want it for the sake of our nation, while his major preoccupation is to heal the divisions within his party.

I fear that the Prime Minister is trying to appease those in his party who want to leave the EU. They cheered his lack of support because they do not want reform; they just want exit and real isolation. Mr Cameron’s erstwhile friend, the Polish Foreign Minister, was undoubtedly speaking for many when he said in relation to the Prime Minister and his Back-Benchers:

“He is not interested. He does not get it … his whole strategy of feeding them scraps in order to satisfy them is … turning against him …. he ceded the field to those that are now embarrassing him”.

The threat of exit is clearly real but I wonder whether the Leader believes that this somehow increases our influence in Europe. Do guns to the head represent a real strategy that will deliver the reforms which we all desire?

Our membership of the EU is important for jobs and business, as well as strategic action on everything from climate change to terrorism. Yes, we need to ensure reform of the budget, of transitional controls for immigration and of benefits. I am sure that working together with our partners we can secure reforms. Is the Government’s real problem not the fact that there is a gap between what the Conservative’s Brexit faction—or perhaps I should say the Conservative majority—is demanding and what sensible European reform amounts to?

Reform is possible through constructive discussion, but those discussions need to take place in the Council and at all levels in the European Commission, not just within the college. I would be grateful if the Leader could tell the House what plans there are to ensure that we have more Brits working at senior level in the Commission at this crucial time and also at more junior levels, who will feed through to higher levels in due course.

Reforms require successful negotiation, and I fear that the Prime Minister’s negotiating skills have been proved to be sorely lacking and that his strategy is in tatters. The gulf between the demands of those in the noble Lord’s party who want to leave the European Union and what the Prime Minister can negotiate grows ever wider. As the gulf widens, so the drift towards exit will loom larger. That would be disastrous for the future prosperity of our country.

17:50

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I am grateful for and agree with what the noble Baroness said about the commemoration of the Great War and the extremely serious and growing problems in Ukraine. Notwithstanding everything she said subsequently about European policy more generally, I think we are as one in wanting to find a way forward and to handle that situation as sensibly as possible.

On her main point about the European Council and the outcome for the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister has not pretended, and I have not pretended for one moment, that the appointment of Mr Juncker was what the Prime Minister sought. However, I do not accept the way in which the noble Baroness characterised the Prime Minister’s policy towards the European Union, its future and the coming negotiations. First, I do not accept her characterisation of the situation when she said that the Prime Minister’s negotiations over the past four years in Europe had been unsuccessful. It was Mr Cameron who managed, for the first time, to secure a reduction in the EU budget—something that everyone, not least some members of the party opposite, predicted was not possible to pull off. That kind of negotiation cannot be successfully achieved unless one has alliances and influence and is able to negotiate successfully within the European Union.

I agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of wanting to make sure that our influence going forward is secure and on some of the points she was making about appointments and having British officials working there. It remains the case that the Prime Minister’s wish is to negotiate hard for what he hopes will be a renegotiated agreement with the European Union. He would then be in a position to recommend to the British people that they accept it in a referendum in 2017.

It is clearly the case that the outcome of the discussions over the new president make that task more difficult, but the Prime Minister was faced with a position in which, given the way that the apparent positions of some of our colleagues in Europe changed over time, he could either go quietly and accept the imposition of Mr Juncker and the European Parliament’s land grab or to try to argue the principle. He took the view that rather than going quietly to spare his own blushes, he should seek to make the principled case that it was an appointment that should have been made by the European Council, not the European Parliament. The fact that in the conclusions after the meeting there was acceptance that that decision would be reviewed for the future underlines that the concern about that process is more widely spread than might be suggested by the noble Baroness.

There is also the point that, as it is the case that there needs to be reform, which the party opposite accepts, having as President of the Commission someone who in the past has not been associated very strongly with a reform agenda is not going to make the task easier for Britain. It was clearly the case that the party opposite and my noble friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches shared those principled objections to Mr Juncker’s appointment. The Prime Minister was therefore right to stick to his guns.

There will clearly have to be a lot of hard work to continue to make progress with the reform process. I think some of the wording in the conclusions already signifies the recognition by many of our colleagues that they need to be sympathetic to and make movement on Britain’s concerns. I think the Prime Minister was right to make that case and to stick to principle. He will work hard over the next three years to negotiate the best possible deal for Britain and will then be in a position, he hopes, to recommend it to the British people in a referendum.

17:55

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, on the appointment of the new President of the Commission, Mr Juncker, there has clearly been a transfer of power or competence, as the Prime Minister has pointed out, to an EU institution from national Governments. What is the position under the European Union Act 2011, in particular under Section 4(1)—paragraphs (g), (h) and (i)—which I had the privilege of guiding through this House at the time?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I will have a go, although I suspect I may need to write further to be more accurate. My noble friend took the Bill through and enacted it, and I am sure he knows it far better than I do.

My understanding is that the Act applies to changes in the rules that transfer power from Westminster to Brussels. Under the EU treaties, the European Council, acting by qualified majority, shall propose to the European Parliament a candidate for president of the European Commission. In this instance, we believe that the existing rules were pushed to shift power from the European Council to the European Parliament rather than any fresh transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels. That is the distinction. It did not represent a further transfer of power from Westminster. If I have got that wrong, I will make that clear to my noble friend in a letter that I will circulate to the House and place in the Library.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

The Leader of the House has spoken of policy and by the use of that word has inferred a strategy in the mind and conduct of the Prime Minister. Was it policy that produced the withdrawal of the Conservatives from the EPP in 2005—thus relinquishing, as they were warned, any degree of influence over the largest group in the European Parliament? Was it policy that made the Prime Minister proclaim his opposition to an individual candidate very early on in this procedure, thus removing any room for Chancellor Merkel or others to negotiate about the final resolution of the position? When the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament to varying degrees all favour reform, does the Leader of the House think that that mission is propelled forward by allowing one of his Cabinet colleagues to describe a heroine—a genuine heroine since her earliest years—Angela Merkel as a coward? If these are all policies, what hope is there for the Prime Minister to be the man to negotiate the change that is necessary and welcome in the European Union?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

The point I was trying to make was that on policy grounds it was the view of the Prime Minister and others within the European Council that the decision about the next President of the Commission should be taken by the Council rather than by the European Parliament. That was the principled point that he was seeking to pursue. More broadly, in answer to the noble Lord’s question about the policy, if one looks back, the Prime Minister as a matter of policy has sought to influence and move the agenda of the European Union towards growth, jobs and trade deals with the United States, Canada and other countries. One can see, in progress on deregulation and all the rest of it, a shift over a number of years which reflects the policy that he has been seeking to pursue.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I first endorse the sentiment expressed by the Prime Minister about the centenary of the conflict which led to the First World War. The question I want to ask is very brief. We keep hearing about the reform agenda. When are the Government going to spell out what this reform agenda is all about? Surely it is inappropriate not to know that particular matter until after the general election. Are we likely to hear what the Prime Minister and the Government have in mind in terms of this agenda?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

First, as part of that agenda, the Government are pursuing the general objectives of progress on trade talks and on liberalising markets. This is something the Government have set up, and we have made some decent and solid progress. Other aspects will become clearer over time as the negotiation continues, but the Prime Minister set out the main strands and objectives we are pursuing in a number of areas in his Bloomberg speech. That is the approach to which he has been sticking.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, would the Minister accept a mild change to the Prime Minister’s Statement that it was a “bad day for Europe”? It was a bad day for Britain in Europe.

I will not go too far down the road of asking the noble Lord how on earth the Prime Minister managed to find himself in Brussels last Friday with only one supporter, but perhaps he could tell us how he found himself in Brussels on Friday with only one supporter and no alternative President of the Commission. It was a little odd to have asked the European Council to reject someone without having the slightest idea about whom they might appoint.

To use a slightly more emollient tone, I do think it was a mistake—and I believe the noble Lord has already begun to comment—not to put all the emphasis on what is called the strategic agenda, which has come out pretty well. The text of the strategic agenda, to which the noble Lord referred, and to which the Prime Minister referred, has some really good points along the lines of a positive reform agenda. If the Prime Minister had put all the weight on that, and not gone for an over-the-top personalised campaign against Mr Juncker, we might have got a bit further. I wish the noble Lord would comment on that.

Finally, I was quite startled to hear that the Government are going to be the voice of all those who voted in protest at the European elections. Are we to be the voice of Golden Dawn? Are we to be the voice of the Front National? Are we to be the voice of UKIP? I hope not. Not in my name, please.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

As far as the voice of UKIP is concerned, we have the voice of UKIP here, which I am sure we will hear later. I agree with the noble Lord on his remarks about the strategic objectives and his welcome of the language. There has been some solid progress, which I will not overstate. It is significant that the noble Lord spotted that and, being a fair-minded person, relayed that to the House. There is some good language in there which reflects the kind of reform agenda that not just Britain but other countries are keen to see taken forward.

As for the Prime Minister speaking for the whole of Europe, his point was that the scale of apparent disaffection with the European Union reflected in the recent elections needs to be addressed—and by those who are supporters and champions of the European Union more than anyone else. That was the point he was seeking to make: disaffection from the European Union is clearly evident and growing, and the best way to address it is to have a reform programme that responds to it rather than to ignore the popular discontent that seems to have been expressed.

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that it is now incumbent upon the Prime Minister to come forward with much clearer detail as to what reforms he wants to see. One of the difficulties that allies and potential allies on the Continent have is knowing what it is exactly that he wants. He talks about reform, but he has not been very specific. Does he also agree that it is very important that the Prime Minister should convince our allies and potential allies on the continent that he wants to bring back a programme that he can recommend to the British electorate and that he is not primarily concerned with trying to reconcile the irreconcilables in our own party? The noble Lord may tell me that the Prime Minister is indeed concerned to bring back a programme he can recommend, but impressions are very important. The impression has gained ground that his principal objective is to reconcile the irreconcilables in our party rather than to conduct a successful negotiation. It is very important that he should push that impression into the background.

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I know that the Prime Minister will want to carry out and, he will hope, complete successfully a renegotiation that he can recommend to the people of Britain that he believes is in the interests of Britain. That is not about a party political agenda or management task. In putting that package, whenever it is concluded, to the British people it would clearly need to command the support of the whole of Britain and all of those from any party who want to see Britain remain in a reformed European Union.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Bates (Con)]

I think it is Labour’s turn.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, does the Leader of the House recall that when a Labour Prime Minister wanted to achieve something at a summit, we arranged for the ambassadors in all the countries of Europe and our Foreign Office Ministers to do some preparatory work to move us in that direction? We also worked through the Party of European Socialists to get all our socialist colleagues into line to support us. Could the Leader of the House explain what the Prime Minister did along those lines?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I will take it very happily from the noble Lord that that was how the previous Government operated. Unfortunately, they also gave up our veto through the Nice and Lisbon treaties. That made the pursuit of our national interest much more difficult in these circumstances.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, will the Leader of the House comment on paragraph 27 of the conclusions, which seems to give great comfort to the PM about the Commission process as the selection of the President is going to be reviewed? Has he noticed the wording that says it will be reviewed respecting the European Treaties? How is that any different to what was in the Lisbon treaty which referred to taking account of the treaties?. Given that the House of Lords European Affairs Committee warned of this situation in 2008—six years ago—does he not think he needs to tell us a little bit more about the reform agenda, because we will need to prepare the ground for some years before 2017?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My noble friend is right to point us towards that paragraph which contains a number of important points. Her point about the European Council considering the process for the appointment of the President of the European Commission is set out in the way that she says. As it happens, that paragraph also says,

“the European Council noted that the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of integration for different countries, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish of those who do not want to deepen any further”.

That is quite a significant addition to the kind of wording one typically sees in these conclusions. That, in itself, is part of the answer to the point about the influence that Britain is still able to have. On some of my noble friend’s more specific points, if there is anything further I can say about the Select Committee, perhaps I will talk to her about that subsequently.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is hard to find a normal person who knows why Mr Juncker’s job is so important? Might it create public support for the Government’s EU reforms if they were to reveal the unelected Commission’s role, with its monopoly to propose and execute all EU law and to issue regulations which are binding in all EU countries? Or could it be that the Government share the BBC’s fear that, if the British people understood just how irrelevant this their Parliament has become, and how rotten and anti-democratic the EU really is, their clamour to leave it might become irresistible? If our leaving the EU leads to its collapse, so what? What is the point of it now? One can see the point of NATO, the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation, but what is the point of the EU? Can the noble Lord tell us that?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

Not in the time that we have available, when I know a lot of other noble Lords want to get in. It clearly is an important job, and that is why we were determined to try to make sure that the process for appointing the person followed the approaches that we thought were set out in the treaties. However, the Government’s position is not the same as that of UKIP. The Prime Minister intends to work extremely hard over the next three years to try to negotiate a package of measures that he will feel confident in putting to the British people in a referendum, which we aim to hold before the end of 2017.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, in relation to the Prime Minister’s intentions and aims in this matter, does the noble Lord the Leader of the House recollect that last year in Kazakhstan the Prime Minister made a speech in which he said that he would wish to see the boundaries of the European Union extended eastwards to the Urals? He was not speaking of associate status. Is that still his intention? Is that the policy of Her Majesty’s Government?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

My Lords, there are generally a number of countries in discussion with the European Union about becoming members. We have had the signing of the association agreements with Georgia, Moldova and, obviously, Ukraine. There was a discussion at the European Council about Albania being able to apply for status. There is appetite for membership to continue to grow.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I express the hope that the Prime Minister will spend some time this summer in bilateral conversations with our friends, colleagues and neighbours in the European Union. Could we bear in mind throughout that isolation is rarely splendid, and is even more rarely successful or sensible?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I say to my noble friend that I know how much time the Prime Minister spends on bilateral relationships with a range of European partners in a range of different fora. I know from my time in Downing Street 20-odd years ago, when the European Union was smaller, how much time the Prime Minister of the day has to spend on those relationships. This Prime Minister will certainly do that, as have all previous Prime Ministers.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, whether we are in the European Union or not, we shall need the good will of our continental partners. Indeed, we shall need their good will even more if we leave, because we shall then have no more rights or entitlements under the treaty and every arrangement we have with its members will have to be laboriously negotiated. Does the noble Lord agree that in life, and particularly in negotiation, it is always a mistake to personalise an issue if you want your substantive points to be taken seriously? Does he also agree that in life, and particularly in negotiation, it is always a mistake to use public threats and blackmail, because no self-respecting human being feels inclined to make concessions under that kind of pressure? Is quiet, collaborative diplomacy not the best way?

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

I certainly agree that in normal circumstances, most of the time, quiet collaborative diplomacy is the right way to go. However, there are times at which, if that route does not work, you are faced with a choice of seeking to avoid embarrassment by going quietly, or of saying, “Actually, this is a point of principle about which I feel strongly, and I will therefore put up with that risk of embarrassment by arguing for it”.

On working with colleagues, I agree with the noble Lord’s point. That is how Europe works and how Britain pursues its relationships with other countries. I am sure that we will continue to do that. The noble Lord will already have seen the remarks made by a whole range of European leaders since Friday which demonstrate that they are keen that Britain should remain part of the EU. They understand our concerns and are keen to work with us to see what progress we can make in resolving them.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

Second Reading (Continued)

18:16

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Although I find it difficult to find a single theme within this Bill, there is much to commend some of the provisions and measures contained within it.

As a supporter of the No More Page 3 campaign, I note that the Bill terms certain images as “extreme” pornography, and may by amendment refer to “revenge” pornography, to differentiate it from other pornography that, unfortunately, has become so easily available in our society. I support this limit on such pornography, as the cultural effects of such images cannot be underestimated. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights report states, the demand for academic work in this area has often been oversimplistic in requiring strict cause and effect. However, I hold the basic view that if images did not have a substantial effect on individuals’ behaviour and on our culture, the advertising industry would not exist on the scale that it does.

In light of the current media focus on the activity of British citizens in Syria, the increase in sentences in the Bill for various terrorist offences, to enable them to come under the dangerous offenders sentencing regime, is a welcome message to the general public. It seems that the threat of criminal activity of this nature currently exceeds the actual convictions, but it is better to be prepared than to find the judiciary without the necessary powers.

The wisdom that I have seen over three years in your Lordships’ House from many octogenarians means that an increase from 70 to 75 for the maximum age to serve on a jury is long overdue.

From visiting category C prisons, I feel that the need to bring prescription drugs under the drug-testing regime is a loophole that should be closed. Currently, the searches of prisoners for prescription medication in their possession—without the corresponding prescription—are thorough, but I never fail to be surprised at the ingenuity of prisoners in hiding things. Drug testing is of course incontrovertible evidence of possession of these drugs.

The United Kingdom is blessed with some of the best medical care in the world, particularly in our accident and emergency departments. It is often only this care that saves the life of someone hit by a disqualified driver, but they may still end up maimed for life. The culpability of the driving behaviour is the same, and so an offence of causing serious injury by driving while disqualified is also very welcome.

I part company with my noble friend Lord Paddick on mandatory sentencing for the offence of possession of knives. I do not think it is any coincidence that the amendment was put forward in the other place by Nick de Bois and supported by David Burrowes, who are MPs for the Borough of Enfield, which, if one glances over the media, is a borough that has been disproportionately affected by knife crime. The possession of knives is now an even greater menace, particularly to young people, than the possession of guns. The strengthening of the sentencing powers within the Bill is welcome.

Therefore, while this speech further illustrates that the Bill is something of a pick and mix, I wonder whether there has been consideration by Her Majesty’s Government of further issues that could perhaps have been in the Bill. During the tragic murder of Drummer Lee Rigby there seemed to have been a risk that, due to the public nature of the incident, photographs of the armed police involved might have been taken by the public and found their way through Twitter into the public domain. Of course, the police were undoubtedly the heroes in this situation. However, what if the neighbour on the balcony who filmed the aftermath of the shooting of Mark Duggan had a slightly better mobile phone and the armed police could have been identified? Could my noble friend outline whether the police are indeed concerned about such a situation? Perhaps it is covered by other legislation, but I have been unable to find relevant provisions.

I would also be grateful if the Minister could outline whether the Government are satisfied with the current rules around the disclosure of the identity of young people charged with murder. Your Lordships may be aware that, in the recent case of the tragic murder of Ann Maguire in a Leeds school, there appeared to be a loophole in the law that allowed the identity of the offender to be released into the public domain after he was arrested but before he was charged. I would be grateful to note whether the Government wish to enact provisions that would close that loophole.

Finally, I wish to support the principle behind the introduction of secure colleges, whose aim is to remedy the often very poor educational attainment of young offenders, which has been outlined for your Lordships’ House. Enhancing their skills, of course, is one way to reduce reoffending, and having institutions for which this is their primary focus can only be an improvement. However, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why these institutions would cover the age ranges 12 to 17 and why the reasons for the other institutions within the secure estate being divided between those aged under 16 and those aged over 16 do not apply to this type of institution.

I accept that some of the young people in secure colleges will have the physical strength of an adult, so I fully support the use of the reasonable force as a last resort and for the purposes of preventing harm to that child or to other children. Of course, where such force is used, it should be the minimum necessary. The suggestion that secure college rules can provide for force to be used on children to ensure good order and discipline leads me to worry about the capability of the providers of such colleges if they need such rules. While I appreciate that this education is within the secure estate, Serco or Wates employees able to use force, for instance to make a child stand in an orderly queue for a meal, reminds me of the teaching methods at Lowood Institution for orphans attended by Jane Eyre. I expect that this matter will be the subject of further discussion in your Lordships’ House, and although I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I do not believe that I need to pray in aid any of our international obligations so much as the common law. I am proud to say that in all our education institutions, corporal punishment of this nature is a thing of the past and should remain so.

18:23

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to go through the Bill and address various points. First, Part 1 is concerned with dangerous offenders, in Clauses 1 to 5 and Schedule 1. The effect of these new offences and new release conditions will be to increase the prison population—an increase of about 1,000 prisoners over the coming period, as the Government said in their impact assessment. When I attended the All-Party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Group around Christmas time, we heard from the Parole Board about the pressure that it is currently under. Given the existing backlog of cases for parole hearings and the Osborn judgment, I think it behoves this House to look very carefully at the Bill in Committee to examine how realistic it is that the Parole Board will be able to meet the increased expectations following the Osborn judgment and the provisions within this part of the Bill.

I move on to Clause 15 and the matter of cautions. I welcome the proposal to restrict cautions to summary and either way offences and to limit the use of repeat cautions. It is of extreme importance that cautions have public confidence. There has been legislation for scrutiny panels—which I have mentioned in previous Bills—to look at whether they are being appropriately administered. Scrutiny panels are being piloted in different parts of the country and I know there are schemes in place to look at the consistency of the various roles of scrutiny panels. It is clear from the legislation that it is for the police to lead the set-up of the scrutiny panels, but it is unclear to whom those scrutiny panels report and what is to be done with their findings. To give the House some idea of the scale of the issue, in the Metropolitan Police area in 2012-13 there were some 70,000 out-of-court disposals, and the current proposal within London is that there will be two meetings of a scrutiny panel each year in each judicial business group area. Therefore, I do not want to be too sceptical, but I am doubtful whether that level of scrutiny is going to be sufficient to assuage doubts about the proper use of cautions.

I move on to Part 2 of the Bill and young offenders, which are dealt with in Clauses 29 and 30 and Schedule 6. As we have heard throughout the afternoon, and Ministers will be very aware, there is near universal opposition to the secure colleges idea. The various pressure groups that contact noble Lords are universally against these proposals. I understand the Government’s objective to reduce the cost of detention training orders and to enhance the educational provision available to young offenders. I understand both those objectives. The objections to the secure colleges will be well known to Ministers: the families of children will inevitably have to travel further to the colleges, and there may well be a mixing of different age groups and ability ranges so the colleges will have to be very carefully managed so that the different elements of the college are appropriately separated. I know the Minister in the other place, Jeremy Wright, has promised to publish secure college rules. I would be grateful if the noble Lord the Minister could say when we might expect to see those and whether we could expect to see them before Committee stage.

I have two specific questions which, so far as I am aware, were not asked in the other place. First, will it be open for secure colleges to take 18 to 21 year-olds? Clearly, they would be managed separately from those under 18, but would it be open for secure colleges to take 18 to 21 year-olds if there was space available? The second question is whether it would be open for local authorities to refer young people to a secure college if they have no criminal conviction. My understanding is that this is the case—rarely but it is the case—in secure children’s homes, but would it be available for the secure colleges?

I spent some of yesterday afternoon looking at the Youth Justice Board’s website. There are 75 youths in custody in the East Midlands and 48 in the east of England. Therefore, when one considers the new build site for Glen Parva in Leicestershire, there is obviously an inadequacy of youths to go to that site, so it is self-evident that the youths would have to come from further away. However, we have had larger dedicated juvenile prisons in the recent past. First, Wetherby could take 360 prisoners plus a further 48 in a special purpose-built unit, but its capacity has now been reduced—mothballed—to about 200, so there is capacity there. Secondly, Hindley became a juvenile-only prison in 2009, with 450 places but because of falling numbers and after four and a half years it was resplit into 248 juvenile offenders and 192 18 to 21 year-old prisoners. The point that I am making is that building capacity is not the central issue, which is surely to provide the enhanced education. The £80 million cost is a lot of money. We do not know where it is coming from, but I suspect that many noble Lords, and certainly many pressure groups, would think that it would be better spent on enhancing education provision rather than building new buildings.

I move on to Part 3 of the Bill and the single justice procedures in Clauses 36 to 40. I agree with the Bill’s proposal that a single magistrate can convict and sentence high-volume, low-seriousness cases; this is when a defendant pleads guilty or agrees to the procedure or does not respond to notifications. I have sat on hundreds of these cases, and I am very glad to agree with the procedure. I say to my noble friend Lord Beecham, who is not in his place, that one magistrate is more than sufficient and you can, under current rules, sit with two magistrates. The Magistrates’ Association has raised a concern that this change in procedure should not be seen by the public as a lessening of the rigour with which criminal cases are dealt with in a magistrates’ court. To this end, the MA has come up with two alternative suggestions, which I may move as amendments in Committee. The purpose of the suggestions is to publish the courts’ list in a readily accessible way so that people can be confident that procedures are going through in a public way.

I move on to the committal of young offenders to the Crown Court, in Clause 41. I welcome this clause, which was introduced at the very last minute in the other place. If the Government have any estimate of the numbers of young people who they think will be sent up to the Crown Court under this provision, I would welcome that information. The Carlile report, which was a very good one, of course went much further than this in terms of trying many more cases concerning youths in the magistrates’ court. But this clause is a welcome step in the right direction.

On Part 3 and the costs of criminal courts, in my view it is wrong in principle that people should pay their court costs; it is the role of the state to provide the court’s services, so the state’s laws can be properly administered. I accept that my point of principle is weak when it relates to rich foreign businessmen who seek to resolve their contractual disputes in British courts. But from where I sit, as someone who regularly sits in magistrates’ courts, a very high proportion of the people I see are poor and on benefits. It is inevitable that imposing a mandatory court cost will make poor people poorer and more likely to plead guilty to reduce the potential court costs. Does the Minister think that that is fair? At the very least, magistrates and judges should have discretion about how much of the court costs are actually applied.

I want to make one comment on judicial review, and specifically on children, who are the most vulnerable. They cannot pursue these matters themselves and I would support any move in Committee that seeks to protect children with regard to judicial review.

Finally, in wrapping up, my noble friend Lord Beecham described this Bill as a pot pourri and then went on to give us a lesson in etymology—that it is not necessarily something that smells nice but could be a mixed pot of meat. We will see which is the correct interpretation in the coming weeks.

18:34

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, there are parts of this Bill to be applauded and other parts, alas, to be decried. I for my part particularly welcome the new provisions that place restrictions on the use of cautions. The overuse of these in recent years has gravely weakened public confidence in the criminal justice system. I also welcome the creation of new criminal offences in respect of the ill-treatment or wilful neglect of adults in care homes, the subject of a number of well publicised cases that have deeply and understandably shocked the public.

However, I can only deplore much of what appears in Part 4 with regard to judicial review, the area of law that principally has concerned me over the past 35 years, ever since I was privileged to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, as Treasury Counsel in 1979, before undertaking 28 years of judicial servitude. Necessarily, at Second Reading, one must be selective in one’s focus, and I shall therefore confine myself to comparatively brief comments on four topics only—IPPs, personal injury claims, juries and, finally, the proposed new test for refusing relief in judicial review challenges.

First, on IPPs, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, greatly to his credit, has for some time past, as we all know, steadfastly been pursuing the cause of these luckless prisoners—and, rightly, he continues to do so. Clause 9(3) returns to the topic, albeit, as I understand it, only for the very limited purpose of extending the Secretary of State’s power under Section 128 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012—that is, the power to modify the test to be applied by the Parole Board in deciding whether to release these prisoners—to IPP prisoners in the event that they have once been released and then recalled. Astonishingly, however, the Secretary of State has yet to exercise that power under Section 128, even in relation to the 773 prisoners to whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, referred, those who remain in prison long after their tariff sentences—often less than two years—expired, who were sentenced in the initial period after IPPs were first introduced in 2003, at a time when judges had no discretion but, instead, were under a statutory obligation to pass such sentences. In other words, this is before the 2008 modification of the regime, when it ceased to apply unless there was a tariff term of at least two years, when judicial discretion was to some extent introduced, and, of course, years before this entirely discredited form of sentence was finally abolished in 2012.

At the conclusion of the short debate on this problem back in March, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, while noting that the Secretary of State,

“has not considered it so far appropriate to exercise the power given to him by the LASPO Act”,

recognised that:

“The sentence itself was clearly ill conceived and its impact was wholly underestimated”.—[Official Report, 27/3/14; col. 700.]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, must be right in saying that Section 128 was specifically enacted to enable this most egregiously ill-treated group of prisoners to be released earlier than they might otherwise hope to be. Frankly, it seems to me deplorable that to this day it has not been exercised. I can see no possible point in now extending it to the new class encompassed by Clause 9(3) if it is never going to be exercised. Surely, what this Bill should be doing is requiring a favourable exercise of the discretion. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, will come back to that and seek to introduce it at Committee stage.

Secondly, I refer to personal injury claims. Like other noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate, a considerable time ago I had some experience myself in this field. Clause 45 provides basically for the dismissal of personal injury claims if the claimant has been “fundamentally dishonest” in the way he has advanced the claim. For example, let us suppose that a claimant suffers a broken leg through the defendant’s negligence but, having in fact made a full recovery after six months, he nevertheless claims on the basis that years later he still cannot manage to walk 100 yards and fully expects to be disabled for life. If, as sometimes happens, he is then filmed playing football or possibly running a half-marathon, surely we would all agree that that would be clear evidence of fundamental dishonesty. It would surely be right that, instead of being awarded, say, the £5,000 that the claim might have been worth if honestly advanced, he should get nothing—unless, that is, the court thinks that he would thereby suffer substantial injustice.

For my part, in common with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but unlike, I fear, the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Marks, I support this provision. I find myself unpersuaded by the briefing that I suspect many of us will have received from the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers. True, it will be necessary on occasion to argue over whether the claimant’s untruthfulness or exaggerations constitute fundamental dishonesty and perhaps it will be necessary to argue whether dismissing his claim entirely would cause him substantial injustice. However, given the readiness of some these days to treat an accident as a God-given opportunity to make a fortune—“Whiplash Willie”, I seem to recall, was the name of a character played by Walter Matthau in a film some years back—this seems to be a clear steer to how judges should exercise their discretion in the matter. The modest narrowing of an existing discretion is a price worth paying for the discouragement which it is hoped this new provision will provide to those who are inclined or tempted to advance dishonest claims. Again, unlike I fear the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, I see no possible logic in suggesting that this provision should therefore be mirrored in regard to the defendant’s conduct of their defence. Surely, on analysis, there is no sensible parallel to be drawn between the opposing cases.

I turn briefly to juries. Clause 56(3), consistently with the recommendations of the Law Commission, rightly introduces a new offence of research by jurors—most typically, jurors using IT to discover, for example, whether a defendant has previous convictions. I support that. However, the Bill says nothing about research into juries, the question broached by the noble Lord, Lord Blair, in March when, as he explained today, he misunderstood the position, as indeed—he hinted at this too—did I. Section 8 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 bars absolutely all possibility of research into juries. That is a provision with which I am very familiar given that the very reason it was introduced into the 1981 Act was that I myself had failed as counsel then acting on behalf of the Attorney-General in the prosecution of the New Statesman for contempt of court for publishing a juryman’s account of the jury’s deliberations in the Jeremy Thorpe trial. However, I knew nothing at all of any subsequent attempt to mitigate the effect of that section with regard to jury research. As the noble Lord, Lord Blair, today made plain, it seems that nobody else did either, with the possible exception of Professor Cheryl Thomas. Surely the Bill provides a perfect opportunity to correct what to many people will continue to appear to be an obstacle in the law.

I will briefly make a further point on juries. Is it not time to revisit the whole question of mode of trial for serious and complex fraud cases? The trial of such cases by a judge and two lay members chosen for their relevant expertise rather than by a jury would hugely reduce the length and cost of trials and at the same time increase the prospect of arriving at a sound verdict. Surely that, rather than drastically slashing counsel’s fees to a point at which the whole future of the criminal bar is now under grave threat, is the way to achieve economies in the criminal justice system without in any way damaging—on the contrary, it would advance—the fairness of the trial process. Indeed, that would allow more such cases to be brought to be trial, the better to deter the increasing number of those who engage in fraudulent white collar operations. That was the recommendation of the Roskill committee way back in 1986 and it was reinforced by the Auld report in 2001. The subsequent attempts to introduce this provision in Parliament are a sorry story. I suggest that we would do well to follow the course recently taken in the Defamation Act 2013, which by Section 11 provides that libel cases in future are routinely to be tried without a jury.

Finally, I turn to Part 4 of the Bill, which is the part that I regret so deeply and oppose sharply; the Government’s continuing attempt to curb the courts’ power by judicial review to supervise executive action. Regrettably, the Government have already begun to do this in the secondary legislation introduced earlier this year by substantially cutting public funding of judicial review, including, most unwisely, declining to fund leave applications unless they are successful. Now they seek to compound that by lowering the threshold for refusing permission to bring judicial review or, at the end of a hearing, for withholding any remedy—to reduce it from the existing test of inevitability to that of high likelihood.

As others have made clear, there are fundamental objections to that proposal, both in principle and as to the practicalities. So far as principle is concerned, this clause will in future require the court to reject a claim even though the decision may be deeply flawed in point of law simply because it is highly likely, although ex hypothesi not inevitable, that substantially the same decision would be arrived at, even if the matter was to be properly reconsidered and lawfully decided afresh.

Such an approach will allow public authorities to escape responsibility for their unlawful decisions. It overlooks both the central importance of honouring the rule of law and the inevitable feelings of resentment which one must feel, having been refused any remedy despite knowing that the decision taken against one was legally defective. It is worth repeating in this connection a short part of a celebrated dictum from a judgment given nearly half a century ago in the Chancery Division which is true in the context of a breach of the rules of natural justice but is equally applicable to the establishment of any other legal error in the decision-making process. The judgment in the case of John v Rees states:

“‘It may be that there are some who would decry the importance which the courts attach to the observance of the rules of natural justice. ‘When something is obvious,’ they may say, ‘why force everyone to go through the tiresome waste of time involved in framing charges and giving an opportunity to be heard? The result is obvious from the start.’ Those who take this view do not, I think, do themselves justice. As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not; of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which was fully explained; of fixed and unalterable determinations that, by discussion, suffered a change”.

As to the practicalities, one simply refers, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has already done, to the report of the Bingham Centre in February of this year, which expresses the senior judiciary’s view that the proposed new test,

“‘would necessarily entail greater consideration of the facts, greater (early) work for defendants, and the prospect of dress rehearsal permission hearings’”.

The report continues:

“The proposal thus stands to elongate and complicate the permission stage, by encouraging defendants to file lengthy and detailed evidence, with consequent delay and increased cost to all parties”.

Certainly, there has been an increase in the use of judicial review over the years, but is this such a bad thing? More and more areas of our lives are controlled by public authorities. At the same time, we have become, understandably I suggest, less trusting and certainly less deferential towards those in authority over us. I sometimes wonder whether it did not all start with John McEnroe’s outraged questioning of line calls at Wimbledon way back in the 1970s. However, we should consider how in the long run his behaviour has contributed to the hugely improved policing of those lines that is in operation today. I speak as someone who was lucky enough to be on the centre court on Friday. By the same token, the use of judicial review has to my mind undoubtedly raised the standards of public decision-making in recent years. Alas, technology cannot be deployed to solve disputed calls in the law courts as on tennis courts, but the judges’ supervisory jurisdiction is assuredly the best safeguard that the public have against unlawful executive action and the abuse of power, and the Government most certainly ought not to be legislating to weaken it. Therefore, I join my voice to the many others who have already spoken, and those who are yet to speak, in condemning not only Clause 64 but the further provisions which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, so powerfully analysed and criticised.

I apologise for taking so much of your Lordships’ time but, in truth, this is a Bill of the first importance and it contains a number of provisions of which we should be decidedly wary.

18:54

[Baroness Linklater of Butterstone (LD)]

My Lords, little did I think that I would get to my feet having heard parallels being drawn between judicial review and line decisions at Wimbledon, but I think that my speech will be much more boring than that.

This Bill comes hot on the heels of a previous Bill, now the Offender Rehabilitation Act, which contains important changes such as the new levels of support to be given to offenders coming out of prison, which I support. This Bill in turn looks at the more punitive aspects of government plans, which involve being tough on crime and collectively are likely to put further pressure on our already overstretched prisons and the overworked Parole Board in particular.

These are difficult times for the Prison Service in England and Wales, with rapidly rising numbers, huge budget cuts, significantly reduced staffing levels and disturbing increases in serious assaults and suicide in custody. The Chief Inspector of Prisons, Nick Hardwick, has recently warned of a situation of “political and policy failure”. Although the number of offenders coming into the system over the recent past has decreased, in the past five weeks the prison population has increased by 734 people—the size of a large prison—and now stands at 84,533 souls, while the prison estate as a whole is holding 9,242 more prisoners than it is designed to hold. Cuts to the MoJ budget are due to total £2.4 billion by 2015. Now, like never before, it is time to give priority to alternatives to custody as a matter of urgency, which some of us have been trying to promote for years, and which are far cheaper, with far better outcomes in terms of reducing reoffending. The proposals in the Bill, I suggest, should be tested against these realities.

The scope of the Bill is very wide and I will focus my remarks on the first part of it. Clause 6 deals with electronic monitoring or “tagging”. Used appropriately, it is an effective tool, particularly when coupled with good supervision. However, subsection (3) of this clause gives new powers to the Secretary of State to make tagging mandatory, either by type of offence or type of sentence, thus limiting operational discretion and the flexibility to best suit the needs of individual offenders. These powers can be exercised by order, thereby limiting the role of Parliament to scrutinise, and any provision to guard against inappropriate use is currently vague. The code of practice just states that the Justice Secretary must implement a non-binding code of practice in relation to the processing of data gathered via tagging—in other words, a virtual free hand. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has said that,

“detailed safeguards in the Code of Practice will be crucial to ensuring that the processing of data”—

that is, data gathered in such a way—

“is carried out in such a way that any interference with the right to respect for private life is necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued”,

thus pre-empting the possibility for human rights to be ignored. The committee suggests that the Bill,

“be amended to make the Code subject to some form of parliamentary procedure”,

to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the adequacy of the relevant safeguards. I endorse that suggestion since these proposed changes, as they stand, are flawed and do not allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny, as they should do.

In Clause 7, there is a new provision allowing for recalled determinate-sentence prisoners to serve the whole remainder of their sentence in custody, rather than a fixed period of 28 days, as at the moment. This is if it “appears” to the Secretary of State that the prisoner seems highly likely to breach the conditions of their licence—thus punishing a prisoner on the presumption of future behaviour. There will be a new statutory pre-release test for these prisoners by the already overstretched Parole Board, which on top of all its other demands, will have to decide on the “likelihood of breach”, by making the same presumptions as the Secretary of State. It has been suggested that this clause places too much emphasis on the gamble of the likelihood of breach, at the expense of ensuring effective supervision and making a more positive and constructive gamble. In general, the chances of making good in the community are always higher out of prison, rather than in it. Good, effective supervision should always be built into the new release test. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this.

Under Clause 8, the Secretary of State is given the power to change the release test for these prisoners, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, thus giving him an unacceptable degree of power. Parliament must be able to scrutinise and ultimately oversee all decisions that affect the fundamental rights of citizens, such as depriving them of their liberty. Citizens of this country must be confident that such decisions will always be the responsibility of the courts and not of a single individual—including any politician—who is here today and may be gone tomorrow. Any other way would be quite unacceptable.

Clause 25 deals with knife crime and was included at the last minute in the House of Commons. It includes minimum custodial sentencing for a second conviction. A previous conviction for “threatening” with a knife or offensive weapon will count as a first strike. The minimum sentence is a custodial term of six months for over-18s and a four-month DTO for over-16s. This clause is bound to lead to the inappropriate imprisonment of children and young people, estimated at around 200 children and 2,000 adults per year. The term covers offences ranging from threat and injury to the far less serious one of possession. It is well known that many children and young people in particular carry knives out of fear and in the vain hope of protection, and not to threaten others with the knife—I do not know if it is in vain, but it is certainly done in hope. In fact, possession-related offences have been dropping in the past three years—by 34% for children—and courts already have the powers necessary to deal with repeat offenders. I agree with many others that the measures in this clause are not necessary, could well cause more trouble than they seek to prevent and should be deleted. I sincerely hope that the Minister will give this suggestion serious consideration.

Clauses 29 and 30 deal with secure colleges. This proposal appears dear to the Government’s heart and we are told that considerable work has already gone into the idea. They think it sounds like a good idea, but I agree with the many who think it is a disastrous idea. The plan is that over time these colleges will replace all YOIs, STCs and some secure children’s homes, with the exception of a few for some particularly needy children. The rationale is to cut the costs of detention, and provide a more holistic and educational environment for young people. That sounds good. However, a glance at even the rough detail that is available shows a scenario that is not good at all.

I have a particular interest in this area, as I founded a school for children with special needs about 15 years ago. It is going strong and, I am proud to say, changing lives. It is predicated on being small—with around 35 children aged from 12 to 18 and it will never get bigger—so that every child gets all the individual attention he or she needs. There is no division into houses and it is run as a whole. It is like a family where everyone knows everyone else and its core mantra is, “It’s brilliant to be you”. The children in my school have to learn that they are valuable and worth something. They come from a range of complicated backgrounds, some staying most of the time and others going home at weekends. As I said, we change children’s lives.

A 320-place secure college is, by definition, not going to work, because a small scale is vital. Also, a regime of mixed ages and sexes, with children with extreme challenges in large numbers—however well divided up—cannot meet such children’s needs properly and is an impossible mix. The proposed idea of rules that authorise the use of force to maintain “good order and discipline” is a terrifying thought and bound to fail as well, being contrary to any understanding of best practice among professionals in the field. Is all this also to be delivered on a cut-price budget? That is an insult to the intelligence of the people who might be persuaded to run such a place, who are unlikely to provide anything like appropriate care.

So far there is no evidence of how offending rates will be reduced in the proposed system, how the education and training will work in reality or what the qualifications of the staff might be. For this cohort of children there is consensus among experts that boys should be separated from girls, and older children from younger children. The children are typically the most fragile, vulnerable, frightened—however they might seem otherwise—and poorly educated children. They are needy in so many ways and require an enormous amount of individual attention, patience and support. A culture in which use of force is authorised to enforce good order and discipline is against the law, sets itself up to fail and is, above all, completely abhorrent. It is astonishing that the Government are giving the idea the time of day, let alone allowing it to be the subject of serious debate in Parliament.

This planned pathfinder college would be vast, with 320 places, and it is inevitable that children of all ages will get lost. They would cause greater trouble than ever and find it impossible to have their needs properly met. Given the breadth and depth of need these young children have, and given that the Government are apparently prepared to spend £85 million, let them open, say, five small specialist units around the country and give a few children real help near their own homes. Secure homes are a good model, and that would be money well spent. Otherwise, pathfinder colleges costing £85 million when the MoJ budget is being cut and youth offending teams and other valuable services are being squeezed, would be a grotesque and unacceptable way of squandering our money and doing nothing but harm to our most vulnerable children.

There is a lot of material in this Bill that I have not touched on, but thankfully there are many noble Lords present who will do so much more ably than I, and I have spoken long enough. We will, of course, revisit all these issues during the passage of the Bill, which concerns some of the most challenging and needy citizens in the land.

19:09

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

My Lords, as the Minister said at the beginning of this debate, the Bill makes significant changes to the justice system through measures that create some new offences and reform sentencing and the operation of the courts. It is not a legal aid Bill, but having chaired a commission on the future of advice and legal support in social welfare law—an interest that I declare—I am naturally anxious to probe the potential impact of the Bill on the provision of legal aid.

As regards Part 1—Clause 28 in particular—questions need to be asked about the impact of this package of criminal justice measures, especially new offences and the cost of parole hearings, on legal aid costs. Has a legal aid impact assessment been undertaken, I wonder? Whenever new criminal offences are put on to the statute book, we need to understand whether this will lead to additional demand for criminal defence services and inflation in the criminal legal aid budget. It is important to know this in the current context when legal aid for both civil and criminal work is facing further cuts. Historically, greater pressures on the criminal legal aid budget have led to ever greater cuts in the scope of and entitlement to civil legal aid, since civil problems do not merit the same equality of arms in access to justice under the UK’s human rights obligations.

As regards the proposals for a new model of youth justice provision in Part 2 and the establishment of a new secure training college, what, if any, work has been done on locating support services at the college, such as help with claiming benefits on release, debt advice and housing options? The voluntary sector has an excellent record in successfully delivering such services in custodial settings, but I fear that many such services have been delivered by agencies such as citizens’ advice bureaux extending the outreach of their social welfare law advice services into prisons—sometimes through specific matched-funding formulas between civil legal aid and support from NOMS and probation services. Now that there has been a retrenchment in legal aid for social welfare law, I am worried that such services focusing on prisoners’ needs have declined, and given the changes to the scope of legal aid for prison law issues, the opportunity for advice providers to work with prisoners on a range of needs that might help them to change their offending behaviour seems to be diminishing. Money advice and financial capability support are particularly important for young offenders. Youth Access has consistently demonstrated the value of early interventions in working with troubled teenagers to develop money skills.

This brings me on to wider issues of financial exclusion and criminal justice that are relevant to the provisions of Part 3. The direction of criminal justice policy is for ever greater use of larger financial sanctions and penalties by the criminal courts. In Clause 42 we are presented with new proposals for magistrates’ courts and Crown Courts to impose on defendants mandatory court cost-recovery charges of between £100 and £900. This is in addition to the victim surcharge and any fines or compensation orders imposed. Yet all the social and demographic data that we have show us that defendants in magistrates’ courts are the most financially excluded in society. The MoJ’s own prison population data show that some 68% have been unemployed before conviction, and a survey of magistrates’ court defendants undertaken by Kemp and Souza in 2009 for the Legal Services Research Centre came out with a sample of more than 50% having incomes below £12,475.

Overreliance on financial sanctions in the criminal justice system may explain in part why the MoJ has such a poor rate of fine collection. Sometimes the Government can spend more on the cost of enforcement than they can actually recover in fines and other financial penalties. I note that the impact assessment puts the estimated costs of introducing, administering and enforcing the new criminal courts charge at £20 million a year. Is this really economical if only low rates of collection can be expected? One of the problems is that courts do not have nuanced systems for determining ability to pay, as the magistrates’ courts’ means-assessment form misses out a lot of priority and non-priority debt such as fuel bills and rent arrears.

Clause 44 suggests that the Government’s solution to the enforcement gap is greater discretion for fines officers. However, as appeared when we debated the previous criminal justice legislation, the Crime and Courts Act, these enforcement functions are being increasingly outsourced to the private enforcement industry. That means large private firms of bailiffs, and many noble Lords will have concerns about the methods and record of these firms.

This brings me back to my earlier point about the importance of access to timely and appropriate debt and money advice, and the importance of this sector being able to work within the criminal justice system to help to turn lives around. It has the tools to help people and the means to properly assess, via the common financial statement, how defendants can meet their liabilities on a very low income. A better approach would be to bring money advisers into the magistrates’ courts to run fines clinics and work with the fines officers.

Many other provisions on courts and tribunals in Part 3 merit greater scrutiny, including those on civil appeals and wasted costs. We need to think more imaginatively about how our administrative tribunals are funded and how users are supported. I should like a system to be put in place, for example, whereby tribunals can recover costs from government departments that have shown poor decision-making.

Finally, I turn to the provisions of Part 4 on judicial review. Nothing I can say can begin to match the withering attack directed at this part of the Bill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Others have commented on how the higher threshold set for granting permission to proceed with judicial review and the new cost liabilities on interveners and third parties could have a significant deterrent effect for citizens and their representatives pursuing their legitimate interests. These provisions, however, must also be seen in the context of some of the recent, post-LASPO, legal aid regulations that have restricted legal aid for pre-permission work in judicial review cases. Even though such cases remain within the scope of legal aid funding, the combined effect of legal aid changes already introduced alongside the judicial review changes in the Bill will surely act to cut a key avenue for citizens who need redress when unreasonable and unlawful decisions are taken by the statutory gatekeepers of welfare benefits, social housing and community care services.

In the time that remains, I want to say something about a group of victims of crime who are often forgotten: the children and adults dependent on offenders sent to prison. They feel isolated and ashamed. Prisoners’ children are often bullied and stigmatised. The experience of witnessing a parent being arrested can be extremely traumatising for a child, who may even be too young to fully understand what is happening or where their mum or dad is being taken. The statistics serve solely to emphasise their vulnerability: they are twice as likely as other children to experience behavioural and mental health problems, and they are three times as likely to go on to commit an offence. There are an estimated 200,000 children with a parent in prison at any one time, nearly three times the number of children in the care system, yet there is no official way of identifying them or ensuring their need for support is met. No one currently asks about them, so nobody looks out for them or cares about them.

The Families Left Behind campaign is therefore calling for a statutory duty to be placed on courts to ask an individual whether they have any dependants when they are sentenced to prison or held on remand. If they do, steps can then be taken to ensure that appropriate care arrangements are in place. They may be children, elderly parents or disabled partners: they are all people who are at risk of being forgotten when their parent or carer is sent to prison. The members of the Families Left Behind campaign and charities such as Barnardo’s, PACT and Partners of Prisoners can all give examples of children who have finished their day at school expecting their mother or father to be there to pick them up, only to find that there is nobody. Why? Because their parent had not expected to go to prison and had not made arrangements for the end of the day, let alone for the rest of their sentence.

An amendment to require courts to ask offenders this simple question and to check whether there are care arrangements in place would give offenders an opportunity to disclose whether they have a dependant. It would then no longer be so difficult to ensure that they get the support they need. Such an amendment would not be resource-intensive. Where care arrangements are already in place, no further action would be necessary. Where they are not, all that would be required would be a referral to a relevant local authority care provider.

The Bill provides an excellent opportunity to make a difference to the lives of these children and adults. It would be a tragic shame if the Government, while toughening up the system of justice delivered to criminals, missed the chance to help crime’s forgotten victims.

19:21

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I may be about to enter the record books for the shortest ever Second Reading speech. My thunder was well and truly stolen by the Minister in his opening speech. I had intended to talk this afternoon at some length—something that I can now spare noble Lords—about the serious problems arising from Clauses 51 and 52 of the Bill on contempt, which, although crafted with the best of intentions, raised profound implications for freedom of expression and the public’s access to information. Instead—duly declaring my interest as director of the Telegraph Media Group—all I have to do is warmly to welcome the Attorney-General’s decision to drop these clauses from the Bill, following a full and frank consultation with media organisations, including the Newspaper Society, the Media Lawyers Association and the Society of Editors, and to praise him for listening to the arguments made, including those of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I should add that the whole area of jurors’ potential access to digital archives, which was at the root of those clauses, is of course one that needs to be treated with the utmost seriousness. It seems to me that Clauses 54 to 58 on juror research are a sensible and proportionate way to do that in an online age, as was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I should add that the media, too, maintain a great deal of vigilance in this area. All mainstream media organisations take the greatest care, when criminal proceedings become active, not to put material on the front pages and their websites, where such material could create a substantial risk of prejudice. That highly effective system, working alongside the new offences created in the Bill, should serve well the interests of justice, which is our primary concern. That comes in at just over one minute.

19:23

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure everyone in the House will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Black, for that intervention. I fear I am not going to be quite so brief. I will address Clause 28 of the Bill, concerning the possession of pornographic images of rape and assault by penetration. I will support my noble friends Lord Beecham and Lord Kennedy throughout the passage of the Bill.

The Bill amends Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to extend the current offence of possession of extreme pornography to include possession of pornographic images depicting rape and other non-consensual sexual penetration. Possession of such pornography is an existing criminal offence in Scotland. We on these Benches welcome the Government’s intention to extend the extreme pornography offence. I wish to thank Professors Clare McGlynn and Erika Rackley of Durham University for all the research they have done and the excellent evidence and briefs they have prepared at every stage of the Bill. I also thank End Violence Against Women and Rape Crisis South London for the research they have carried out and the work they have done in their campaign to ban rape porn, which involved writing to the Prime Minister in June last year. I will quote some of this letter, which states:

“The vast majority of images depicting rape are lawful to possess, although they are banned in Scotland under its Extreme Pornography legislation”.

It goes on to say:

“We are talking about sites that explicitly advertise sexually violent content and with titles such as ‘Father Raped Drunk Daughter’ and ‘Incest With Daughter at Family Cabin’”.

Fifty of the top accessible rape porn sites can be found through a Google search. Some 78% advertise rape content of under 18 year-olds—in other words, schoolgirl rape. Some 67% advertise rape content involving knives and guns; 44% advertise rape content involving incest; and 44% advertise rape content where the woman is unconscious, drugged or semi-conscious. Of those being assaulted, 100% are female; 82% of perpetrators use restraint by force; 65% of the women express pain; and 71% show signs of visible distress.

The Government have a coherent strategy on violence against women. In the Bill they recognise the failure of the current law to take a strong stand against the normalisation of sexual violence. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights says in its report on the Bill:

“We welcome, as a human rights enhancing measure, the provision in the Bill to extend the current offence of possession of extreme pornography to include possession of pornographic images depicting rape and other non-consensual sexual penetration. We consider that the cultural harm of extreme pornography, as set out in the evidence provided to us by the Government and others, provides a strong justification for legislative action, and for the proportionate restriction of individual rights to private life (Article 8 ECHR) and freely to receive and impart information (Article 10 ECHR)”.

None the less, criminalising the possession of extreme pornography is a serious matter. Legislative action and any potential restriction of an individual’s rights under Articles 8 and 10 must be taken only if we can be certain that there is sufficient justification. Our liberal democracy rightly champions the values of equality and dignity, which are directly challenged by much violent pornography, especially rape pornography, thus demanding regulatory action. Surely the law has a precautionary role to anticipate, preclude and counter the risk of harm to society and individuals.

There has been in the past a demand for evidence of direct causal links between pornography and sexual violence. I think it is now accepted that that is oversimplistic. Understanding the drivers that lead to the commission of sexual offences is extremely complex and cannot be reduced to simple explanations. Challenging and seeking to prevent sexual violence will require a multifaceted approach, including challenging the normalisation of sexual violence through pornography.

The argument is not that the person who views extreme pornography, such as pornographic images of rape, will then go on to commit rape: rather, it is that the proliferation and tolerance of such websites and images, and the messages they convey, contribute to a climate in which sexual violence is condoned and seen as a form of entertainment. Rape pornography sustains a culture in which a “no” to sexual activity is not taken seriously. It promotes the myth that women enjoy being coerced into sexual activity, and that they enjoy violent, non-consensual sexual activity. The cultural harm posed by such depictions is a strong justification for legislative action and for the proportionate restriction of an individual’s rights.

All this was recognised in the United Nations fourth World Conference on Women report, which refers specifically to depictions of rape as contributing to the context of continuing violence against women. It states:

“Images in the media of violence against women, in particular those that depict rape or sexual slavery as well as the use of women and girls as sex objects, including pornography, are factors contributing to the continued prevalence of such violence, adversely influencing the community at large, in particular children and young people”.

This is also a culture in which, as research for the Children’s Commissioner suggests, young children are turning to pornography for guidance on sex. They are engaging in risky behaviour as a result of viewing pornography. They are uncertain about what consent means and are developing harmful attitudes towards women and girls.

That does not mean that there are not areas which we might hope to explore during the further stages of the Bill in relation to this clause. The first is whether there should be the inclusion of a provision stating clearly that the “realistic” portrayal of acts in question refers to both real and simulated images. We will suggest that we may need an amendment to clarify that exactly. An amendment to this effect was moved and discussed in the House of Commons Public Bill Committee. However, it was withdrawn in the light of an explanation that the Bill’s Explanatory Notes would clarify that the offence,

“would cover both staged and real depictions of rape or other penetration”.—[Official Report, Commons, Criminal Justice and Courts Bill Committee, 18/3/14; col. 215.]

This may not be adequate, and I would appreciate some clarification, which might appear on the face of the Bill.

Secondly, we might consider the inclusion of a provision requiring reference to be made to the context—the description, sounds and narrative—of the image when determining whether it is one of rape. The context of an image is valuable in determining whether pornographic images are “extreme”. Simulated images of rape are widely available on free-to-access pornography websites. The images are often accompanied by banners and text which glorify rape and sexual violence: “These girls say no but we say yes”; “See what happens when men lose control … whether she says yes or no … Damn, the guys enjoy a ‘no’ more”, for example. The narrative of the story similarly conveys such meaning, as does the soundtrack. This contextual material makes it clear that the image is intended to be of rape and other non-consensual sexual activity. The non-consensual aspect, or what makes an image one of rape, is therefore clear from the overall context.

The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 includes a provision to ensure that the context of the image—the descriptions or sounds accompanying it—is relevant to deciding whether an image is extreme. This ensures that simulated images of rape come clearly within the remit of the legislation, whether or not the act was itself consensual—that is, whether the actors in the image were consenting.

Thirdly, we need to think about whether we clarify the defence of “participation in consensual acts”. The target of the extreme pornography legislation is not, and should not be, private depictions of consensual sexual activity. Consideration might be given to clarifying the scope of this defence so that it permits the possession of images which are taken of those participating in consensual acts and which are for private use only.

We might also have the inclusion of a “public good” defence. Section 4 of the Obscene Publications Act 1959 includes a defence where the material in question is for the public good. The absence of a “public good” defence in the extreme pornography law reinforces the fear that the provisions could be used to criminalise the possession of legitimate works of art, film and such-like. The introduction of a “public good” defence might demonstrate that there is no intention of bringing educational, legitimate artistic or similar works within the scope of the legislation, and it would help to ensure that only harmful material is covered by the provisions.

Your Lordships’ House may also wish to consider the issue of an image being obscene. The current law provides that for an image to be extreme, it must be one which is,

“grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”.

The use of the term “obscene” has long been criticised on the basis that it is typically deployed to catch material which is not only harmful but causes offence or disgust. I would appreciate a discussion on that because I am not clear whether that is an expression that we should continue using.

On the other hand, my honourable friends Diana Johnson, Helen Goodman and Dan Jarvis in the Commons brought forward an amendment which used that description. They proposed it in response to the fact that the Prime Minister has promised to equate online and offline restrictions to regulate pornography. It was a promise that we in the Opposition welcomed and we would like to see it implemented. We think that the Government’s proposals in this Bill are a welcome step forward, but they are quite a small step forward and we would like further clarification.

The Government’s proposal is to ban the possession of pornography which is deemed to be,

“grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”,

and a realistic depiction of rape or assault by penetration. Both elements of this test are complex and open to wide interpretation. Therefore, we may propose an amendment which leaves in place the first part of this test and replaces the second part with the description of rape employed by the British Board of Film Classification—that is, content depicting,

“sexual activity which involves real or apparent lack of consent. Any form of … restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent”.

This simplifies the law in two ways. First, it makes it clear that we are criminalising the possession of porn depicting rape scenes, even if they are staged. Secondly, our amendment would ensure that content was banned if it showed sexual assaults and maybe even rapes but not the act of penetration. Has the Minister had any discussions with the British Board of Film Classification on this matter? I should say that I intend to invite the board to come to the House to discuss these matters with any noble Lords who may be interested.

I am looking forward to the discussions and I am very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to see me to talk about these matters.

19:36

[Lord Woolf (CB)]

My Lords, when I was a relatively young judge, a long time ago, and I had to travel on judicial business, it was suggested by the then Lord Chancellor’s Department that I should travel under a nom de plume for my safety. It was suggested that Mr Sheep would be an appropriate name. I am afraid that I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that, as regards the rule of law, the Lord Chancellor, Mr Grayling, is showing signs of becoming a wolf, so far as clothing is concerned, rather than a Lord Chancellor. The judiciary, I fear, may be the sheep. I hope that he is not doing this deliberately. I believe that he is sincere in his many protestations that he is seeking to fulfil his oath and his special statutory responsibilities, but he has to be judged by his actions, to some of which I am about to refer, as well as his words.

Of course, if the Minister were able to drop Part 4 from the Bill, I could compete—just—with the noble Lord, Lord Black, but there is no sign of that yet. I should make it clear that there are aspects of the Bill that I welcome. There are others about which I have reservations, but it is Parts 4 and 5 that I am really concerned about. They have to be considered against the role of judicial review in our judicial system. I therefore disclose my joint editorship of De Smith’s Judicial Review and Zamir Woolf on declaratory relief. Both volumes make it clear why what is being proposed is contrary to the rule of law. It has been suggested that what is proposed would undermine confidence in the judges and that it might be inspired for that purpose. Again, I hope that that is not the case. However, that might be understood if I explain judicial review in a little more detail than has happened hitherto. I have had a unique opportunity to be involved in the procedure.

The procedures—not the task of a judge scrutinising the Acts or the Executive—go back to 1978, when I had just become a High Court judge after being the “Treasury Devil”, as my noble and learned friend Lord Brown was subsequently. Chief Justice Widgery gave me, together with others, the task of devising a new procedure of judicial review. A handful of nominated judges, of whom I was one, were given the responsibility of hearing these cases in accord with the new procedure. Judging by the number of cases heard, it was a great success. As Lord Widgery said, if you provide a motorway, the public will use it. The old procedure did have advantages until it was swamped. It provided protection for the Executive as well as the public, but a new procedure was desperately needed. The advantages for the public were that judicial review was a means by which their rights could be vindicated, but there was also protection for the Executive. This was due primarily to the requirement for leave to bring prerogative writs, which was adopted into judicial review, and to its discretionary nature, which gave judges powers to mould the procedure so that it would fit the needs of different cases.

The procedure was expeditious because it did away with the need for oral evidence; a case could be dealt with on the papers. Discovery was usually unnecessary because at every stage the procedure gives judges a wide discretion. That is needed. The judge can tailor the procedure to meet the case. It is a remedy of last resort and it cannot be used if there is another alternative. If an application serves no purpose, it is dismissed at the outset. It has been admired by many jurisdictions, but not widely adopted because a requirement of leave would be regarded by many of them as being unconstitutional. In these respects, judicial review has always been tilted against the citizen in a way that other litigation is not. This was done deliberately because of the recognition of the need to protect the Executive. After all, it is the Government’s job to govern.

I have no doubt that if judicial review had not been such a success, there would have been a much stronger movement in this country for an entrenched constitution. It is the discretion of the judges which means that judicial review is at the very heart of the rule of law in this country. This does not mean that the procedure cannot be amended. Of course it can, and it has been amended regularly over the years, including amendments for which I should take some responsibility, and others for which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, should take responsibility. However, it means that if you are going to interfere with the procedure, you must be sure that you understand the danger of the unintended consequences that could result from your actions.

I draw attention here to what has recently happened to legal aid for judicial review, which we have already heard about. If the Government had understood judicial review, they could not possibly have brought in the changes to judicial review legal aid that they have. It is a procedure that is designed to be used by lawyers; it is not one that is designed to be dealt with by individuals acting in person. I fear that judicial review will be less efficient and more expensive because of the action the Government have taken in regard to the provision of legal aid.

I come to the proposals set out in the Bill. They interfere with the ability of a judge to provide, so far as is practicable, a level playing field. So far as it is practicable, the needs of the Executive and of the public are served. There are conflicts, and it is therefore essential that judges should hold the ring. It is quite impossible to anticipate what the cases that come before the courts will require, but the procedure is both wide and flexible. I find it very difficult to understand what possible reason there is that is capable of being substantiated to justify what is set out in Part 4 of the Bill. I fear that it is due to ignorance. That is not an excuse, but it underlines the importance of the need to understand what you are doing. Changes are being made with regard to cuts in legal aid because it is now appreciated that they will not work. I hope that there will be second thoughts on Part 4.

I turn briefly to the statutory provisions. Clause 64 states that the judge “must” refuse leave. That is wholly inconsistent with the requirements of discretion. The present law uses “may”, and there is a world of difference. Under Clause 64, information on financial resources has to be provided by applicants. That is a totally novel idea. As far as I am aware, in no other area is such an imposition put on an application for judicial review. It is just unacceptable. It is a barrier that is out of accord with the rule of law.

Clauses 66 and 67 deal with costs where a party intervenes. Sometimes, but not in many cases, it is very useful for there to be interveners. Under the provisions here, you will not be able to receive any assistance from interveners.

Clauses 68 and 69 deal with capping the liability of an unsuccessful litigant to pay costs. These provisions have been explained very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others. Again, it is an effort by the judges to obtain a level playing field. It is known that applications for judicial review that should be heard in the public interest will simply not be heard and will not come before the courts, to the disadvantage of the public, if litigants have to pay costs they cannot afford. The courts look into the matter and put a restriction on the level of costs for which a litigant is liable so that they have confidence to move forward. However, to do that after the permission stage is pointless because it will never get to that stage. I am at a loss to understand how that could have been suggested.

One of the reasons that has been put forward as a justification for the provisions to which I have referred is that too many cases are going to judicial review. I have to tell the Minister that the number of cases is due largely to incompetence on the part of the Executive and other public bodies. If they did their job properly, there would be no need for judicial review. One of the great virtues of judicial review is that it sets standards. Public servants have to realise that they cannot take short cuts. There was a time, when I was directly involved in these matters, when the standards of the government legal service were exemplary. I am afraid that those standards have dropped through lack of resources and because, unfortunately, civil servants are moved too frequently. In the old Lord Chancellor’s Department, they would remain for the duration of their career. That may not be appropriate for other departments, but it had considerable virtue in the Lord Chancellor’s Department.

I suggest that there is really only one action that the Government can properly take in this case. They should take Part 4 away and look at it again. It should cease to be part of the Bill. If it remains, it will be a blot on the reputation of this Government in terms of their commitment to the rule of law. They should realise that. They should realise that these provisions have been strongly criticised by the judiciary and in this House. Part 4 really is not something that should grace the statute book.

19:49

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a great privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. If ever a wolf showed that he was not a sheep but how to bite with gentle ferocity it was tonight in this House.

My verdict on the Bill is that there is much to support but possibly even more to amend. It is a matter of concern that a Bill has arrived from the other place in such poor order requiring so much amendment. I support in general terms the powerful and excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and the persuasive remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I want to concentrate on two aspects of the Bill that have caused widespread concern. My first point relates to the Bill’s provision for secure colleges, which has been widely discussed, but I want to pick up on a couple of specifics.

I applaud the reduction in the number of minors held in custody in recent times and the work of the Youth Justice Board under the chairmanship of Frances Done. I look forward to an equally fruitful period under my noble friend Lord McNally, whom I am delighted to see in his place and with whom I, along with many others, have already had discussions. He is showing great enthusiasm and a huge appetite to learn about his new post.

My observation during my period as president of the Howard League for Penal Reform persuaded me beyond any doubt about the important role of education within the custodial environment. I will never forget the maths certificates, all at highest grades, that I saw on the wall of a 17 year-old prisoner. When he informed me of his wish to be a maths teacher when he was released and able, as he hoped, to go to university, I asked him, “How was your maths when you were at school outside this place?”. His reply was, “I never went to school, sir”. He had been the beneficiary of excellent education, not on a large scale, but in a targeted way, in a custodial environment where it just so happened that the education was extremely good, at least for him. I agree entirely with my noble friend Lady Linklater that small institutions are best equipped to deal with the multiple needs of young men such as the one to whom I have referred. Indeed, I would also cite the experience and the excellent successes of the now sadly defunct Peper Harow Foundation, which achieved much in the same context and I know is well remembered by a number of Members of this House. I hope that the young man to whom I have referred has now found his true vocation, which was started through good education in custody, and has gone on to university and become a maths teacher.

I absolutely agree with the Secretary of State and my noble friend the Minister this evening that there should be a strong focus on education in custody. However, the cohort of children in custody has complex issues and needs. These were well described by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I do not propose to repeat what he said. But what is proposed in the Bill needs to be examined in relation to two particular issues. The first is the size of the institution and above all the fracture from home that such a large institution is likely to cause, by definition, by bringing people possibly hundreds of miles from their homes. The second is the provision for physical restraint as it is described for good order and discipline.

The Government’s commitment to a large institution is, in reality—this is clear from the papers—an economic decision, not one related to the needs of the children in custody. Real concerns have been expressed to us all by many experts about bullying, safety and, above all, resettlement from a large institution distant from home. For this group of offenders, one size simply does not fit all.

Restraint is an extremely important issue, which is dealt with with extraordinary superficiality in the Bill. In 2006, with others, I produced a report for the Howard League on the use of physical restraint on children in custody. It was quite evident that the rules varied from institution to institution and that the techniques for the use of restraint in some places were violent and relied on pain compliance and in others were quite different. What was absolutely clear was that restraint was very rarely needed. In the best institutions, compliance could be obtained by de-escalation techniques, as I think they are generally called—in other words, sitting down and taking the time to talk to the young person concerned about why he or she had kicked off and how the problems could be resolved. That technique leads to a constructive outcome.

The use of pain compliant violence and other forms of physical restraint leads to resentment and trouble in custodial institutions. There was clear evidence when we were doing the Howard League report that kicking off and being restrained was almost a badge of office for young people. It is asking for trouble to allow private sector institutions to form their own rules for the use of restraint. It is just too vague to be credible and it will lead to numerous cases in the courts for damages and, if it is possible, some judicial reviews.

Clause 67, too, has been addressed by a number of Members of your Lordships’ House. It deals with the proposal to make interveners liable for costs arising from their part in public interest legal challenges. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that this proposal is not necessary. The courts already have adequate powers to refuse an application to intervene or penalise inappropriate behaviour by interveners through costs actions. It rarely happens. I have not been able to find a case in which it did happen, because on the whole interventions are constructive. Indeed, the proposal is counterproductive. It will result in deterring parties from intervening, depriving the High Court and the Court of Appeal of important legal and factual information that leads to the right decision. In some of these public interest cases, it is not a game. These are important cases and what matters is doing right to citizens and of course to the Government.

The role of interveners has been praised on many occasions. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, said in 2013 that the more difficult the issue,

“the more help we need to try to get the right answer”.

She described the potential for interventions to be “enormously helpful”. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann, in the case of E v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in 2008, explained that permission to intervene is given,

“in the expectation that their”—

the intervener’s—

“fund of knowledge or particular point of view will enable them to provide … a more rounded picture than it would otherwise obtain”.

Interveners add value to the court. They provide the sort of analysis that sometimes is not readily available to the party, such as international comparison. We should remember that it is not only NGOs that intervene; government departments intervene frequently in judicial review cases, principally with the good purpose of protecting the legislation and the policy for which they are responsible. For example, in the case of Yemshaw v Hounslow London Borough Council in 2011, a case that went to the Supreme Court, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government intervened in support of a wider definition of domestic violence.

Clause 67 makes sweeping changes to interventions in judicial review cases. It appears to require the court to order that an intervener—and this is incomprehensible to me—must pay the other parties’ costs arising from the intervention. Where another party applies for such an award to be made, the court will have discretion to depart from this rule only in exceptional circumstances. That is absurd, especially when you consider that many interventions are made in writing or by short submissions to the court. The inevitable consequence of this is that charitable and not-for-profit organisations will no longer be prepared to provide their expertise to assist the court in cases of wide public importance. How could trustees reasonably agree to support an intervention when it could result in losing tens of thousands of pounds or more in costs, jeopardising, in some cases, the existence of small charities?

The senior judiciary, of which we have some very distinguished representatives in this House, some of whom have spoken tonight, has spoken out this year in relation to these proposals. It said:

“The court is already empowered to impose cost orders against third parties. The fact that such orders are rarely made reflects the experience of the court that, not uncommonly, it benefits from hearing from third parties. Caution should be adopted in relation to any change which may discourage interventions which are of benefit to the court”.

There is no need for this new proposal. I agree entirely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that the Government should take this proposal back to the drawing board. The court already has wide powers to penalise parties, including interveners, who act irresponsibly or to award costs against interveners who play a leading role. There is no problem. The Government are creating a problem when it does not exist and does not require a solution. In your Lordships’ House, we can ensure that that consequence does not follow.

20:01

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I begin by assuring the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that Peper Harow, in the name of Childhood First, is alive and well. Indeed, my noble and learned friends Lord Woolf and Lady Butler-Sloss and I have the honour and pleasure of being patrons of the organisation.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I apologise to the noble Lord. I remember it being burnt down and have not kept up with developments since.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

The house itself was burnt down, but the organisation is functioning in smaller houses, which is much more effective than having one large house.

I propose to speak only about Part 2 of what was already a vast Bill before other clauses were added during its passage through the other place. That is not to say that I do not have concerns about Clauses 1 to 5, which will add significantly to the work of the already overstretched Parole Board, about Clause 6, which appears to be a badly rushed measure on which the Minister in the other place was unable to provide information, either about its projected cost or its alleged benefits, or about Clauses 7 and 8, about which there must be doubt because the impact assessment seems to ignore the inevitable number of breaches of supervision by short-term prisoners, discussed many times during the passage of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill. I leave Part 4 to my noble and learned friends with great confidence, enhanced by their contributions to today’s debate.

My concerns about Part 2 began with the Government’s published response to the consultation on Transforming Youth Custody, in which I was disturbed both by the lack of detail about the proposed secure college and the phrase in the final paragraph of the ministerial foreword, signed by the Secretary of State and the Deputy Prime Minister,

“we are committed to delivering at pace”.

That suggests that this is a pet project of the Secretary of State, which he is determined to push through as quickly as possible whatever anyone says. My concerns were further fuelled by three things that the Secretary of State said at Third Reading of the Bill in the other place. First, he said:

“We are not a Government who legislate without taking into account the views of Parliament”.

That claims sounds a little hollow when I recall the deliberate denial of parliamentary scrutiny of the reordering of probation. Secondly, he said that,

“the rules that underpin the secure college provisions will be subject to public consultation. They were published during the passage of the Bill to benefit from the wealth of expertise within the youth justice sector”.

Bearing in mind their importance, as mentioned by the Minister, it is essential that this House sees and scrutinises those rules. I therefore ask the Minister why they have not been available to the House before we start work on the Bill. Thirdly, he said:

“I urge the Opposition to think again before they play politics with the future of young people”. [Official Report, Commons, 17/6/14; cols. 1070-71.]

Like many other noble Lords, I welcome the Government’s stated ambition of creating secure educational establishments where core learning skills, vocational training and life skills will be the central pillars of a regime focused on educating and rehabilitating young offenders. I also welcome the acceptance of the measures introduced by the Children and Families Act for the treatment of those with special educational needs. As an independent Cross-Bencher, my opposition to this proposal is nothing to do with party politics, but entirely based on my practical experience as Chief Inspector of Prisons, when I inspected every young offender institution, and many secure training centres and secure children’s homes, in England and Wales. I found good establishments and bad establishments. What united the good ones was that their governors were trying desperately to achieve what the Government state to be their ambition, while regretting that their attempts were hampered by a lack of resources, including time—the average length of sentence being a bare 78 days. My inspection experiences and my subsequent involvement with the youth justice system lead me totally to disbelieve the maths of the Government’s claims and to ask the Minister: first, whether there are any maths; secondly, on what they are based; and thirdly, why they have not been made available for us to scrutinise.

Having seen many wise, dedicated and experienced governors try and fail to squeeze more out of their pint pots, I have to admit that what I dislike most about this proposal is the presumption, based on no evidence, that private sector companies working for profit can come in and do what experienced professionals have failed to achieve, in larger establishments, with larger catchment areas and at less cost. Such a presumption suggests that no one has worked out the cost of essential custodial educational staff/offender ratios, because, if they had, they would have realised that the cost of ensuring there are sufficient skilled custodial staff is bound to have an impact on the provision of purposeful activity and vice versa. The risks that private sector companies take with staff numbers in adult prisons are simply not acceptable when they are responsible for safeguarding this vulnerable age group.

The proposal also confirms that pace has encouraged the rejection of the unanimous advice from experts that small establishments are far better and safer if anything is to be achieved with this particular group, and for the need to preserve the principles of maintaining closeness to home, development of good family contact and links to the local authorities of children in care. If pace means commissioning £85 million of limited funding on an unsubstantiated proposal before it has been scrutinised and approved by Parliament, without knowing whether it is possible to implement what is proposed, it is better described as playing with the future of young people.

The Minister said that the commission to build would not be confirmed unless and until the Bill receives Royal Assent. I submit that it is bordering on contempt of Parliament for the Government to announce the award of the £85 million pathfinder contract to Wates to build what they describe as a purpose-built 320-place secure college on a site at Glen Parva in the East Midlands before the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament and without any idea about the requirements of the educational contract whose delivery the build is meant to facilitate. Far from it being designed to satisfy secure college aspirations, Wates has been commissioned to build what was agreed for a young offender institution on the same site in 2009 but subsequently not built. The Minister’s mention of Titan prisons reminded me that it was Wates that told me of Jack Straw’s infamous direction that they were required “to hold as many people as possible as cheaply as possible”. I hope that the same has not been directed by the Secretary of State in connection with the proposed secure college.

Other noble Lords have mentioned paragraph 10 of Schedule 6, which allows staff to “use reasonable force” to ensure “good order and discipline”. I fail to see why this paragraph is necessary, because an independent review of restraint in juvenile secure settings chaired by an eminent adolescent psychiatrist produced admirably clear minimum rules that were accepted and published by the previous Secretary of State. Presumably they are not tough enough for Mr Grayling. I could go on but I will reserve my fire for Committee.

Before that I would like to make an appeal to the Secretary of State through the Minister. Bearing in mind that, thanks to the welcome reduction in numbers, largely achieved by the efforts of the Youth Justice Board, the nature of the child prisoner population has changed from its far wider representation into being a toxic mix of the most violent, troubled and damaged. That change gives him a perfectly valid reason for dropping his proposal and putting it into the aspirational basket. All would not be lost because he could then task the newly appointed director of young offenders, if paragraph 20 of the Government’s response to the consultation is to be believed, to conduct a deliberate and costed examination of what improvement and change was possible with the available resources, including quantifiable evidence to support his claim that secure colleges will reduce reoffending rates and show how such a reduction will be achieved in practice. Meanwhile, in the absence of proof, it would be irresponsible of the Government to ask this House to rubber stamp this proposal and responsible of them to prove that I am wrong by producing the evidence that justifies the pace with which they are pursuing their proposal with unsubstantiated ambition.

20:10

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, my remarks will be directed to Part 4 of the Bill. However, I cannot resist noting how it was exactly this type of Bill—perhaps best described as a Christmas tree Bill which is also introducing new offences—which was the subject of so much stern criticism from the then Opposition in the previous Parliament. Now, of course, the present Government commend the good sense of putting so many disparate elements—I doubt we have had them all yet—into one Bill and then, conveniently, adding more and more offences to the list. One perhaps should not be surprised by this change of heart, but the contrast in attitude is striking.

As to Part 4 and its attack on judicial review, we should not be surprised at all. It is no use claiming, as the Minister did, that these proposals are technical—he did not use the expression de minimis, a mere tidying-up operation, but that is what he perhaps meant—and should be seen just for themselves. Even if they stood alone, they are much more serious than that.

However, the provisions do not stand alone. They are the latest instalment in a series of provisions that are consciously and deliberately undermining our precious system of civil justice and, thus, every citizen’s right to access justice. I agree with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said in his remarks.

Let us begin with the Government’s first step, taken days after they came to power, to administratively cut back the number of cases in which civil legal advice was available. The numbers declined in the first three years from 485,000 to 293,000. Then, of course, came legislation in the form of Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, LASPO. This removed legal aid from the majority of social welfare law advice and, since its implementation exactly 15 months ago tomorrow, the results, frankly, have been devastating—as the Ministry of Justice’s own recently published Legal Aid Statistics in England and Wales 2013-2014 show in painful detail.

It is ironic in the extreme today that, looking back, the underlying message from government Ministers while LASPO was being debated was that Parliament should pass those provisions because there were two safeguards that would protect the poor claimant. One was exceptional cases funding. Noble Lords know now that that is a farce. Of 1,320 non-inquest applications for exceptional funding last year, how many were granted? Sixteen—not one in the field of welfare benefit; not one in the field of housing. Those statistics come from the document to which I referred a moment ago.

The other safeguard, we were regularly told, was judicial review, which was safe in the Government’s hands. Even if there was no legal aid funding any more for benefit, debt or employment advice, there was always judicial review available to all when appropriate and when needed. This House voted down Part 1 many times. It did not like what the Government were doing but eventually it allowed the Government their way. Is it too fanciful to think that one of the reasons it did this was because of the promise of Ministers relating to judicial review?

As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, eight days after Royal Assent the first judicial review consultation was announced. Of course, LASPO regulations have been debated in your Lordships’ House over the months. The Government were defeated on one but did absolutely nothing about it. Of course, the inevitable attack on judicial review has begun and is now well under way.

The Lord Chancellor’s accusation that judicial reviews are the preserve of left-wing pressure groups, and other such nonsense, has set the background for the scene. Then came the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2014, which by negative resolution, unbelievably, radically altered the long-standing principle by saying that unless permission is given, legal aid practitioners will not be paid—unless of course the legal aid authority agreed, which was not likely to happen.

With this one move, as was strongly argued in this House by Peers from across the Chamber on 7 May last in debating the regret Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the Government have just changed the nature of judicial review. It will without doubt mean that some claimants, often poor and sometimes disabled, who have a good claim will not be able to find a lawyer to represent them. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights put it,

“the uncertainty and financial risk for legal aid practitioners would affect both the number of practitioners willing to carry out public law work and the kinds of cases they would be willing to take on in future”.

Our own House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was critical, not least of the level of uncertainty.

That brings us to Part 4 of the Bill. The proposals in Part 4 cannot just be viewed in isolation; they are part of a process that began when this Government came to office and will reach its nadir when the appalling residence test regulations are debated shortly in both Houses. Why have the Government done this? It was not in the manifestos, nor was it part of the coalition agreement, that our system of civil justice should be dismantled so that instead of remaining a gem in our legal crown, it is something which we may soon become ashamed of.

Many noble Lords have linked the judicial review proposals in this Bill with the earlier legal aid proposals: my noble friend Lord Beecham did so in his excellent speech, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Low. They all linked judicial proposals with earlier legal aid proposals, as did the Bingham Centre in a very telling paragraph. It said:

“The relationship between the judicial review and legal aid proposals is important because it goes to the right of access to justice, which is a key element of the rule of law and which is acknowledged both at common law, as a constitutional right, and by the European Convention on Human Rights. It is well-recognised that the right of access to justice is capable of being curtailed or infringed not only directly, but also by placing recourse to litigation beyond individuals’ financial means. It is equally axiomatic that whatever other valuable mechanisms may exist for protecting the rights and interests of individuals, it is independent courts of law, in a democracy founded upon the rule of law, that stand as the ultimate guarantors of basic legal rights”.

As for judicial review itself, it is worth quoting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court. In his 2013 Justice annual lecture, he said on that occasion:

“The courts have no more important function than that of protecting citizens from the abuses and excesses of the executive—central government, local government, or other public bodies”.

He went on:

“While the Government is entitled to look at the way that”,

judicial review,

“is operating and to propose improvements, we must look at any proposed changes with particular care, because of the importance of maintaining JR, and also bearing in mind that the proposed changes come from the very body which is at the receiving end of JR”.

Frankly, there is no serious commentator who supports the Government’s proposals for judicial review. Judicial review is a part of our law well worth defending and it falls on this House to do so.

20:22

[Baroness Stern (CB)]

My Lords, I shall concentrate my remarks on the proposal for the establishment of secure colleges. Before that, I turn briefly to the excellent comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who deserves huge admiration—he certainly gets that from me—for his determined pursuit of the issue of life-sentence prisoners and the overuse of that sentence. He suggested that I might have some figures about the use of life sentences in England and Wales, compared with other European countries. I would not wish to let him down, so here are the figures. Per 100,000 of the general population in 2012, the Netherlands had 0.18 life-sentence prisoners, France had 0.77, Sweden had 1.63 and Germany had 3.05. England and Wales had 13.57 without indeterminate sentences; with indeterminate sentences, they had 24.31. As I recollect, the noble and learned Lord and I have said in past debates that there is a peculiar addiction to indeterminate sentencing in England and Wales, and that seems to be continuing.

I now move on to secure colleges. I begin by putting this proposal in the context of youth justice policy. For many years, policy on children and young people in trouble for whom loss of liberty has been deemed to be appropriate has been marked by a range of experiments. These experiments, introduced by enthusiastic government Ministers of all parties, have an aura of “Now at last we’ve found the answer”. The treatment of adults in prison has barely changed in essence for a century, but the treatment of young people changes according to enthusiasms that can be very seductive at the time.

It may be that this happens because there is a strong feeling, which I share, that the number of young people involved in delinquency is so small, and the benefits of turning them from a life of crime so great, that an answer is well worth finding. It is thought that there must be something new that would work. A century ago, a small village in Kent called Borstal became widely known because reformers had the idea of putting young people in trouble with the law into an institution modelled in every way on a public school. The wings were called houses, the assistant governors were called housemasters and there was even a matron. The regime was intended to be kindly and reformative, with teachers, a lot of sport and good relationships between staff and prisoners. It was a seductive idea, which sounded as though it should have been successful. It was not successful, and borstals are no more.

Some noble Lords will remember the short, sharp shock, a detention centre regime announced in 1979 and designed to provide a firm, disciplined, semi-military regime. It was felt that it was a good way of helping an errant teenager turn his life around. It was seductive idea that sounded as though it might work, but the short, sharp shock detention centres faded away, and they are now a small note in history.

The Minister is now trying to seduce us with the idea of secure college for 12 to 17 year-olds, starting with a 320-bed establishment in Leicestershire where, according to Clause 29, the governor will be called the principal and the deputy governor will be called the deputy principal. This establishment will be like a school and will be staffed with by people with the values of education rather than the values of incarceration. Education is very important and a basic right. Young people should have it whether they are imprisoned or not. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is right that it is a very good thing if a young person in prison has certificates in maths around his walls. It is a pity that he will never be able to be a maths teacher because of his convictions and his record, but education is undoubtedly hugely beneficial.

Will the secure college produce the results dreamed of? I suggest to your Lordships that it would be wise not to be too easily seduced. We heard the Minister in his fine attempt to persuade the House of the merits of the Bill. I admire his skill in this respect, but he must have suspended disbelief when he had to argue that each custodial place for a young offender costs £100,000 a year, 70% of them go on to reoffend within 12 months and, therefore, we shall set up a secure college. That is a non sequitur. There is no logic whatever in proceeding from saying, “We spend a lot; when they come out they are convicted of another offence; the answer is to spend £85 million on an establishment in Leicestershire which will, in theory, have an educational ethos”.

I should add that the Minister did not say in this House, as the Lord Chancellor said in another place, that the cost per head per year will be £60,000 and that, according to the impact assessment, the aim is to,

“reduce the overall cost of youth custody, focusing in particular on driving down the cost of the most expensive provision”.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for the research he presented to us, making it clear that this proposal has no logic in terms of custodial places where they are needed and in what numbers—no logic at all.

Although we spend £100,000 a year, the reason why seven out of 10 of those on whom the money is spent are reconvicted is that the money is not spent well enough to affect the deep-seated damage that most of these children and young people have suffered in their young lives. The highly respected deputy children’s commissioner, Sue Berelowitz, told the Public Bill Committee on 11 March that in all her many visits to young people in custody, she had,

“never yet met a young person … who did not come from a very troubled environment, who did not need a lot of intense support and who did not need help in forming relationships”.—[Official Report, Commons, Criminal Justice and Courts Bill Committee, 11/3/14; col. 6.]

She goes on to describe the best environment for such young people: a small environment where good relationships can be made between young people and staff. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, described exactly the sort of environment that is needed by describing to us her marvellous school where the children have to learn that they are valuable and worth something. I hope I have quoted her accurately.

This proposal takes us backwards. Thanks to the excellent work of the Youth Justice Board in recent years—I, too, warmly welcome the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and expect great things from him—the institutions have become somewhat more child-centred and based on good relationships. To be particularly applauded is the reduction in the numbers in custody.

Before I end, there is one more matter I must raise. In this debate, we must get on the record the names of Adam Rickwood and Gareth Myatt. At this point I must pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, whose work to draw attention to the ill treatment of children and young people in custody has been untiring and hugely effective. Few people may now remember Adam Rickwood, except perhaps a few lawyers, judges, experts in the care of children and, I hope, some Members of your Lordships’ House. He was 14 when he died, having, as a judge said,

“the mournful distinction of being the youngest person to die”,

in custody in the UK. He died after he had been restrained by four prison staff because he refused to go to his room and had had administered a blow to his nose—a technique in use at the time to regain control by inducing pain. He hanged himself with his shoelaces from a curtain rail. The outcome of Adam’s death was the revelation that force to restrain children held in secure training centres, with the addition of inflicting pain, was being used to get young people to obey orders contrary to the secure training centre rules. Eventually the courts ruled that using force to restrain young people to preserve good order and discipline was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Let me remind the House also of Gareth Myatt, a 15 year-old boy sent to custody in 2004 for the first time. He was small for his age—four feet and 10 inches tall, weighing six and a half stone. He was restrained because of a dispute over the cleaning of a toaster. Three staff restrained him using force; he said he could not breathe. He became unconscious and died of asphyxia. That technique used by the staff was never used again. Following the deaths of these two children, it was some small consolation to their families that lawyers went to court and won their cases, and the methods of restraint were changed. It helps to think, after such an injustice, that at least this will not happen to someone else’s child.

I hope that the Minister has heard the contributions to this debate, about the use of force on children in detention and the need for stringent restrictions on its use. I look forward to making the Bill better in Committee.

20:35

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, that was a powerful and salutary speech to have to follow.

At the Second Reading of the Serious Crime Bill, I confess that I was at a loss as to how to speak without asking apparently innocent questions as a painful way of masking criticism. That Bill is causing me relatively little anxiety. Today, winding from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am at a loss as to how to cover even a small portion of the questions and to do justice to the large number of briefings we have all received which display considerable anxiety. Many of their points have been raised today. It is clear to me that your Lordships will do them justice during the passage of the Bill.

Like others, many of my concerns are about the risk of losing focus on rehabilitation, and of reversing progress that has been made in that area. There is also the issue of resources; that, of course, is not a novel point. There is also the evident unwillingness manifest in the Bill to trust the judiciary. Reducing judicial discretion puzzles me. If we want to make the punishment fit the crime, who is better to do so than the person who has heard all the details? I am also concerned about how much of the Bill is there to send messages. We are all aware that this becomes more strident as one gets closer to an election. I hope and believe that this House will consider that the most important thing is producing legislation where legislation is needed—legislation which works.

The House is not short of experts on judicial review and its operation, including the Minister. It is common ground that there has been a proliferation of applications for judicial review; I was interested to see that the number has remained quite steady when immigration judicial reviews are disregarded. If that proliferation is a problem, then it seems to me that the analysis of the problem should start not with the procedures but with why proceedings are thought necessary. I certainly do not want to challenge the tremendously valuable tutorials to which we have been treated this afternoon, but one of the purposes of judicial review is often to achieve transparency and clarity in Executive decision-making, as well as establishing whether there has been an error by the Government or the body in question.

I was in a debate last week on financial support for asylum seekers, a matter on which the court recently found the Home Secretary’s rationale for decision-making was inadequate. I said, and repeat, that I am sorry that the announcement of the Home Secretary’s review following that decision will be made when Parliament is not sitting. There might be less call for judicial review if there was less call for the Government to think again or to express their thinking clearly.

Part 4 of the Bill will be dissected and analysed and will, I am sure, have many other quite rigorous things done to it—but not just by the lawyers. These are citizens’ issues, none more so than the clauses on interveners. The NGOs have an important role and we will—or, I would like to say, we would—lose the benefit of their intervention if the clause were to remain in the form in which we have it now. I look forward to the modifications that the Minister trailed at the start of this afternoon’s debate.

There has been reference, too, to the Lord Chancellor’s powers. I can see that there may be a need to allow for tweaking if practice shows that something is not quite workable, but whether a matter is, for instance, of general public importance seems to me to come close to being a political judgment.

With regard to care workers, the clauses on which were covered my noble friend Lady Barker, I am generally sceptical of the creation of new offences when there are others that would cover the matter, but clearly this has been the subject of very considerable and careful attention. I congratulate my colleagues who ensured that the Bill deals with abuse or “wilful”—which I take to include reckless on the basis of discussions on another Bill—neglect by care workers, and I would put “care” in quotation marks in this context. We are all aware of the scandals that have come to light, though not before much suffering on the part of those who are dependent on others for their care. I am not wholly clear whether issues of whistleblowing, inspection powers and management are all adequately dealt with elsewhere. However reprehensible the actions of an individual worker, it is unlikely that there is not a management issue as well.

Like other noble Lords, I was intrigued by the provisions on “fundamental dishonesty”. I hoped that the Minister might have given us a demonstration of FE Smith’s cross-examination of the claimant, who was asked, “How far can you raise your arm?”, and then, “How far could you raise it before the accident?”—and the witness showed the court. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am troubled about the standard of proof and whether the court can still make an award, albeit a reduced one. How does this fit with the context of contributory negligence and of utmost good faith in insurance matters? Indeed, what are the views of the insurers? Not everything is black and white, which of course is why leaving a lot to the judiciary has a lot to commend it because they see all the shades of grey.

Judicial discretion, I would have thought, should be at the heart of dealing with knife crime. The opposition of my party to the knife crime provision has been made very clear for this reason and for the following reasons: whether the threat of imprisonment is effective—a matter that has also been the subject of debate—especially when a knife is carried for protection; the likelihood of knives being passed on to young people, sweeping them into the centre of gang violence; the use of alternative weapons; the impact on stop and searches and the choice of whom to stop and search; and the sheer cost.

As regards secure colleges and education, the demarcation point for the proposed mandatory sentence is the age of 16. Teenage boys up to the age of 18—I should say children because my noble friend Lady Linklater always reminds us that they are children—will, or again would, be affected, and this is the cohort most affected by the new secure colleges. I share the Government’s aim—of course, who could not?—of putting education at the heart of youth custody and, or maybe but, I share the huge concern of so many who work in the field that large institutions whose students, residents, inmates, or whatever we are going to call them, will mostly be 15 to 17 year-old males with all the safeguarding and other risks that this raises.

We have had detailed and to me very persuasive critiques, many of which point us to the risks to rehabilitation of the young people involved. My noble friend Lady Brinton, who wanted to be here this evening but was unable to, has reminded me that learning in offender institutions tends to focus on basic skills—although we are all well aware of literacy and numeracy issues—without any vocational context. Because of their frequent moves, young offenders do not finish courses and the new institution does not receive a proper assessment of where they are on their course. Some seem to do the same course over and over again.

Improving vocational skills levels is a key marker to reducing reoffending. One secure college will not change the culture of learning, or not learning, in custody when children are coming and going at different stages and often far from home. The Prison Minister’s view was that,

“as with free schools it will be for education providers to determine how best the educational engagement and attainment of young people in a secure college can be raised”.—[Official Report, Commons, Criminal Justice and Courts Bill Committee, 20/3/14; col. 291.]

That does not fill me with confidence that the complexities have been addressed.

Then, of course, in the past few days we have heard that lights will be turned out at 10.30 pm, which does not seem to be a sophisticated, delicate, case-by-case solution. I am surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, resisted mentioning that in her explanation of how we came to have borstals based on public schools.

Finally, I was glad to hear raised by two speakers the needs and interests of children whose parent is in prison. No doubt, some of them will also be clients of the youth offender system.

Inevitably—or at least it is inevitable to me, at any rate—a Second Reading speech wants to look at what might be changed. In my case, I am afraid that it means that I present criticisms in a rather concentrated form. Other provisions of the Bill will dilute the criticisms and, no doubt, the explanations in discussions to come will dilute them further. But what bears repeating is that what is best for society’s victims and offenders is to stop crimes happening in the first place—and the best way in which to reduce crime levels is rehabilitation.

20:47

[Lord Hart of Chilton (Lab)]

My Lords, for some inexplicable reason my name was omitted from the list of speakers for this afternoon. However, instead of commencing judicial proceedings for a review against the list-maker, I have accepted an invitation to speak in the gap, against an assurance that the Government Front Bench will not harass me if I stray slightly over four minutes.

I must disclose three interests. First, before I became a special adviser to two Labour Lord Chancellors, I was a solicitor in practice, specialising in planning and property law. Accordingly, I carried out a very large number of judicial reviews on behalf of both claimants and interveners. Secondly, I have personally been involved in judicial review proceedings in local planning matters in Suffolk, the first of which we won and in the second of which nine grounds have been found to be arguable and the case will be heard next month. I do not expect the Minister to wish me well, but I thought that I had better disclose that fact. Thirdly, until lately I was a member of the Select Committee on the Constitution.

Each year the current Lord Chancellor comes before the Select Committee on the Constitution for a discussion of current events. On 26 March, that was Mr Grayling, and one of the topics that we discussed was judicial review. The first question he was asked was: what was the problem that Part 4 of this Bill was designed to solve? He reprised his Daily Mail online article, talking about hundreds of cases becoming thousands and very naughty left-wing campaigners seizing control of the system for their own benefit. We asked him to reveal the hard data to support his allegations and he could not do so, but he repeated the number of anecdotal examples that he had trotted out in the Daily Mail, with one or two additions. However, the data do exist, and they show that the very high rise in numbers was down to asylum and immigration cases. The increase in those cases dwarfed the number of civil cases, which showed only a small percentage increase. As to the serial misuse of judicial review, personally I have never observed such a thing. I was interested to see that the senior judiciary said the same thing in its consultation response.

The permission stage in judicial review is an essential step in the process, whose object, according to the White Book, is to filter out cases that are “hopeless, frivolous or vexatious”. The small increase in the number of civil cases to which I referred may well be explained by the proper operation of the filtering process. However, even if one case goes through on an arguable basis, the substantial hearing often puts that matter right. In my experience, practitioners are well aware that hopeless cases without merit will be stopped at the permission stage, and it would of course be foolish to advise clients to incur wasted costs embarking upon misconceived litigation. Mr Grayling was asked whether he had any estimate of the reduction in the number of judicial review applications when his reforms are—if they are—brought about. He had none. Accordingly, I have concluded—as have many others, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights—that the case for these reforms has not been made.

My second point concerns Clause 64 of the Bill—the “highly likely” test. In judicial review, the fundamental role of the court is to perform a supervisory, not an appellate, jurisdiction. Until now the courts have resisted substituting their own view of the merits of the decision-maker charged by law to make the decision. The court is concerned only to see whether the decision-maker has contravened the law by acting in excess of the powers confirmed upon them. The new concept of “highly likely” is novel and may well fundamentally alter the position. It seems to me that this new concept inevitably will involve judges departing from their traditional role; they will now have to speculate on what decision would have been made absent the defect complained of. Furthermore, the “highly likely” test is to be examined at the preliminary permission stage, which is usually a paper-only exercise, done quickly and without lawyers present. As we have heard this afternoon, the judiciary fears that the new test will lead to a lengthy dress rehearsal hearing, with the service of evidence and oral argument by lawyers. Time taken and costs incurred will inevitably increase. Accordingly, this new provision, far from improving the law, makes matters far worse and seems to me to be designed to obstruct the pursuit of judicial review. It should be completely rejected.

The third point concerns changes to the rules on costs. Because of time I do not intend to say anything about that, except that there will be many amendments and I will support them. Matters should be left to the court, which is the current position, where the judges have discretion as to the nature, extent and cost of any intervention.

I conclude by opposing these proposals. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, I would like Part 4 to be taken away completely. The proposals are based on inadequate evidence; they undermine citizens’ rights to fight the abuse and misuse of power; and it is quite wrong to immunise the Government and other public authorities from effective legal challenge. Judicial review is often a key source of guidance for improving policy development and decision-making in the public service. These proposals do not bring about any improvement and they certainly do not serve the public interest. It is quite the opposite: they undermine it.

20:55

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, on looking at the Bill for the first time, I think that many Members of your Lordships’ House will have been struck by the wide variety of issues it seeks to cover, not all of which seem to hang together very well. As my noble friend Lord Bach said, it is a bit of a Christmas tree Bill, on which many baubles have been hung, all of different shapes and sizes—and more and more keep getting hung on it. Generally, the Bill appears to the Opposition to be a rushed piece of legislation, and rushed legislation usually means bad legislation. It will require considerable improvement in your Lordships’ House.

I am in complete agreement with the contributions made by a number of noble Lords in today’s debate, including particularly those of my noble friends Lord Beecham, Lady Thornton and Lord Ponsonby and others. There are elements of the Bill we support, parts of it we think need improvement and parts of it we oppose. We support attempts properly to punish offenders. We also support keeping the public safe from the most serious and violent offenders and the provision of open and transparent justice. However, we do not support the watering down of the important constitutional tool of judicial review or the Government’s plans for a secure college.

The first part of the Bill concerning criminal justice matters has provisions we are content to support to keep the public safe. The scheme for extended determinate sentences for additional terrorist offences is such a provision. However, we have concerns about these additions and the changes to the release arrangements for people convicted of serious sexual and violent offences that are highlighted in the Government’s own impact assessment, which states that the sentencing changes will require 1,050 additional prison places, and will increase the workload of the Parole Board with an additional 1,100 hearings per year. Our worry is that the Government are not putting the measures in place to deliver the changes they want to see. These matters will require debate and probing during the Committee stage of the Bill to satisfy your Lordships’ House that the Government have their sums and thinking right.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights made some key observations when looking at the provisions regarding the release and recall of prisoners in Clauses 6 to 13. The committee was right to be unconvinced that the introduction of powers by the negative resolution procedure to enable offenders to be electronically tracked was adequate, and to recommend that the Bill should be amended to make the code subject to some form of parliamentary procedure to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the adequacy of the relevant safeguards.

Clause 14 regarding the mandatory drug testing of prisoners and the creation of a power for the Secretary of State to specify in secondary legislation drugs that are not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, for which prisoners can be tested, is a sensible move and should help to deal with drug misuse in prisons.

Clauses 15 and 16 make changes in respect of the use of cautions and stop their use for all indictable-only offences and certain specified either-way offences. Will the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, tell the House in his response why the Government think that the negative resolution procedure is acceptable in respect of the specification of the either-way offences, as I am more of the view that this should be done by the affirmative resolution procedure to give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise further what is being proposed?

I think that we have all been horrified at reports of the ill treatment, abuse and wilful neglect of vulnerable people who have been entrusted to the care of others. With the provisions listed in Clauses 17 to 22, the Government seek to close the loophole that Professor Don Berwick identified in his review of the events that took place at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, but they were added late during the passage of the Bill through the Commons and will require considerable probing and testing. I find it odd that these proposals do not extend to volunteers. This, I believe, is a serious omission. You have only to look at the activities and offences committed by Jimmy Savile, while he was acting as a volunteer at a number of NHS and other establishments, to be concerned that these proposals are in themselves inadequate and do not go far enough. I hope that your Lordships will amend the Bill accordingly so that what is agreed will give the maximum protection to vulnerable people in the care of others, be they employees or volunteers.

The murder of a police or prison officer is one of the gravest offences that can be committed and the whole-life tariff in Clause 24 sends a powerful message of how much we value these public servants and place the highest value on their safety. The noble Lord, Lord Blair, made a powerful point when he talked about the role of the courts in handing down sentences for the murder of police or prison officers, and said that Harry Roberts is serving the 48th year of his prison term for murdering police officers.

I am sure that we will return to the issue of possessing a bladed weapon in public or on school premises. We supported the amendment in the Commons, with Back-Bench Conservative MPs, and we will support it in this House as well. It sends out a strong signal that carrying a bladed weapon is serious and has serious consequences if you are caught for a second offence. The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, was right when he expressed concern about the reduction of judicial discretion, but I would point out that the proposals we supported for possessing bladed weapons in public places or school premises do have judicial discretion—unlike the proposals that the Liberal Democrats supported in the LASPO Act for the carrying of a knife, which are mandatory.

The proposals for dealing with offences committed by disqualified drivers are well intentioned, but their adoption, as they stand, would be quite confusing. The law at present is inadequate and needs improving. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, can explain how these proposals will fit in with a review of the road traffic sentencing framework that the Government are committed to carrying out in the next few months, because if there is a review, there could possibly be changes. Will those changes require primary or secondary legislation?

The clause in the Bill concerning malicious communications has the support of the Opposition. As technology becomes ever more sophisticated and can be used to threaten people with offensive and distressing material, we agree that the courts should have tough powers at their disposal to deal with offenders. My noble friend Lady Thornton made a powerful argument about what needs to happen in the case of extreme pornography and the proposals from the Government need amendment and revision. I hope that the meeting between my noble friend and the Minister will go some way in that respect.

My noble friends Lord Beecham and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, highlighted our concerns about the proposals on secure colleges. These proposals in particular need proper pre-legislative scrutiny. The Minister is right to say that we need to be better at rehabilitating young people, but I am not convinced by what I have heard from him so far today. We on these Benches are not convinced that housing 300 children together on one site—potentially miles away from their family, making visiting difficult and expensive—is a good way to provide a proper education and reduce their propensity to reoffend.

We share the concerns expressed by a number of organisations, including the Howard League for Penal Reform and others. The Government will have to provide much more information and set out their proposals more clearly. Issues such as the use of restraint, concerns about the effects on younger children and the problems that girls will confront in this establishment in particular will need thorough examination. I agreed with all the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, about secure colleges, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

Moving on, while the section of the Bill on courts and tribunals can be seen as administrative and time-saving measures, we on these Benches have some concerns about the single-magistrate hearings and weakening the principle of justice being seen to be done, and how the system will operate. I look forward to discussing in Committee these further proposals and the ideas from the Magistrates Association that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby referred to. No matter how well intentioned, we have to ensure that we get these right. I am also worried about the proposal for trying to get money out of penniless defendants. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said, I have sat as a magistrate for many years. I used to sit on the Coventry Bench when I lived in the city and I can tell your Lordships that imposing fines and court costs that individuals have no hope of ever paying off is a complete waste of time and could actually be damaging.

I am fully in support of people convicted of offences having to pay compensation to victims, fines and court costs, but it must be left to the discretion of the courts to decide what is reasonable and what is not. We have no objection in principle to leapfrog appeals, though it does always follow that every issue of national importance will go straight to the Supreme Court and it may be that in some cases, that will not be the best thing to do. I always thought that the case brought by Lewisham Council and others—and I declare that I am a member of Lewisham Council—about the decision of the NHS to close the A&E at Lewisham Hospital, would end up in the Supreme Court. In the end, having lost in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, the Government decided to draw a line there and instead changed the law to stop other organisations doing what Lewisham Council did.

We generally welcome the proposals to update the jury room process. However, we want to press the Government on what support they intend to give juries, so they can clearly understand their role and what they can and cannot do. Social media have a vast penetration and that will only increase. People can be active on a number of platforms numerous times a day. They may have no idea that they are doing something wrong and that could be a very serious offence.

I have been on a jury only once, and that was about 30 years ago. I do not recall being told very much at all, but there were no mobile phones, e-mail or internet. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and many other noble Lords will be much more aware than I am of what is said to juries today. I would hope at a minimum that they can be given clear “dos and don’ts” in writing and a proper briefing from a court official before they enter the courtroom—followed up, if necessary, by the judge at the start of the trial telling them what is and what is not appropriate. We have no objection to raising the age for jury service to 75, and in fact this could be a very positive move. The only thing that I would say is that some account may need to be taken of health issues.

The section that deals with judicial review contains some of the most controversial parts of the Bill and we have serious concerns about these proposals. My noble friend Lord Beecham, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Woolf, all skilfully highlighted the concerns of many noble Lords in this House. For the Justice Secretary to describe judicial review as a promotional tool for countless left-wing campaigns is a disgrace. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, repeated the full quote. I accept fully that for the Government, local authorities or other public bodies it can be irritating to have their decisions challenged—but without such provisions, bad decisions can go unchallenged, and that is bad for all of us, for democracy and for civil society.

The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, made key points when she talked about the use of judicial review, as did my noble friend Lord Bach. It is about holding people to account, and without a written constitution, judicial review is the one important tool for holding the Executive to account. Over the past four years, we have seen cuts to legal aid, limitations on no-win no-fee cases, and threats to the Human Rights Act and the European convention. The proposals here are another attack on the rights of the citizen.

The noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Hunt of Wirral, both referred to the activities of some claims management companies. I have spoken many times in this House about the industry and the problems it can sometimes cause. I am happy to pay tribute also to Kevin Rousell and his claims management team, which does a fantastic job. I should be delighted to put my name to some more amendments that can give him and his team even more power to deal with the problems of this industry.

As I said at the outset, this is a rushed and bad Bill, and we on these Benches will seek to work with others across the House to try to persuade and, if necessary, defeat the Government in the Division Lobbies if they will not listen to reasonable argument. I will draw my remarks to a close and I am sure that we will return to these matters in Committee.

21:07

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I said in opening that I anticipated that the Bill would receive scrutiny of the highest order by your Lordships, and this Second Reading debate has given an indication of the level of scrutiny that your Lordships’ House can anticipate where all these provisions are concerned.

It has been a full debate and I will have an opportunity to read carefully all the contributions that have been made—as indeed will the Secretary of State. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not respond to every single point that was made, time being what it is. If I single out some points, I hope those whose points are excluded will not feel that they have gone unrecognised or that they will not be appropriately responded to in due course. It has been an intensely serious debate, although references to Philip Larkin, John McEnroe and Walter Matthau provided slight light relief during its course. Unfortunately, few noble Lords were as brief or as accommodating as my noble friend Lord Black.

I can, however, begin with what I hope will be one or two reassuring propositions. First, there was a suggestion that there might need to be an amendment to deal with what has been described as “revenge porn”, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my noble friend Lady Barker. There seems to be a great deal in that, and I am happy to meet them and consider any suggestions to include it in the Bill.

I said in opening that I would also consider amendments to satisfy, I hope, some of the concerns about the role of interveners in judicial review proceedings. I do not want to give the House the impression that I am thereby, as it were, handing over a blank cheque, but I am anxious, if possible, to accommodate some of the concerns of many noble Lords in this area.

The noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Low, referred to a campaign, if I can call it that, from Families Left Behind and the suggestion that there should be some statutory duty imposed on the sentencing tribunal to take into account the effect of the sentence on those who may be left behind when somebody is deprived of their liberty. In my limited experience as a judge, this, and the consequences thereof, will first of all be considered by a judge in sentencing. The probation service will be aware of the consequences and local authorities have their own duties that will usually be triggered by the information that is available in court. Noble Lords may be right that some slip through the net. I will certainly consider any suggestions along the lines that have been described.

On the question of the meaning of the words “et cetera”, raised by my noble friend Lady Barker in the context of malicious communications, I think it is defined in the Malicious Communications Act 1988. It deals with all the various communications one would expect it to cover in the light of modern media.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, raised, as he has done many times before, the question of IPP prisoners and their plight. I look forward to debating any amendments in that respect in more detail. I responded to a debate on 27 March this year—in some detail, I hope—but I fear I will not be able to satisfy him today. There are no current plans by the Secretary of State to exercise the power to amend the Parole Board’s release test for prisoners serving such sentences.

I noted that the party opposite was silent on IPP prisoners. I am still not quite sure what its position is, and whether it opposes the very fact that the sentencing power was repealed as a result of the intervention of the former Lord Chancellor. I fear that I cannot help the noble and learned Lord for the moment, but I hope he will acknowledge—if not overtly, then tacitly—the fact that Ministry of Justice officials have been endeavouring hard to help him by providing details for the purposes of preparing this speech, and, indeed, any further interventions.

I was not aware that I had the pleasure of a meeting forthcoming with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to describe better the definition of rape on the internet. I look forward to that. I am sure that the Government, the Opposition and all noble Lords have similar intentions where this is concerned. We welcome any advice on trying better to define what the evil is that we all aim to stem.

I respectfully endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said about personal injury claims and the evil that the Government are trying to eliminate. Frankly, we do not think that a judge will have any difficulty recognising fundamental dishonesty. We are talking not about a schedule that contains some slight exaggerations or minor inaccuracies, but about fundamental dishonesty. If we ask a jury to decide a question of what is dishonest or not, surely we can entrust a judge to decide whether, in appropriate cases, there is fundamental dishonesty. The Government are appalled by the explosion of litigation in claims that involve, frankly, lying and fraud. Whether through the Claims Management Regulator or through this particular clause, I am sure that we share with all noble Lords the desire to reduce, and, if possible, eliminate it.

The redefinition in statutory terms of misconduct in public office was broadly welcomed, although not by the noble Lord, Lord Blair. There are some areas where it may not possibly apply. We do not think that police officers should be singled out, but on the other hand they are in a position where they serve the public in a very high-profile context. We cannot avoid the fact that there have been instances of police corruption. The Government consider that putting a clear offence on the statute book is not to persecute the police or to single them out as opposed to other public employees but to make clear the nature of the offence and, in appropriate circumstances, to provide the basis for a prosecution.

A number of noble Lords asked about the Parole Board and about the impact on its workload of the provision in Part 1. The provisions that will have the greatest impact on the Parole Board are the new discretionary release arrangements for extended determinate sentences and certain child sex and terrorism offences. However, it will be quite some time before the first of these cases starts to filter through the board and we have taken account of that. We are working with the Parole Board to assess the impact of the Osborn judgment. Additional in-year funding has been provided to the board, as well as an increased budget allocation for 2014 and 2015.

The offence of wilful neglect was mentioned by, among others, my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lady Barker. The House is well aware of the background to this offence and why it was considered necessary to make it part of the statute book. I listened carefully to concerns about the range of legislation that may apply in neglect cases and I accept that there may be a degree of overlap. However, where that occurs, it is for the police and the CPS to determine the most appropriate offence to pursue. The CPS regularly provides guidance in this respect. We think that it is far better to close any gap in working practice to arrive at the best solution than to retain even the possibility of any lacunae in the law.

My noble friend Lady Barker had a specific query in relation to Section 44 of the Mental Capacity Act. If I may, I will consider the point that she raised and write to her.

I come to the area of perhaps the most difficulty—the question of secure colleges. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said in her excellent and informative speech that it was one thing to point out the number and cost of young offenders who were currently accommodated in various institutions and who reoffended but another to move to the proposition that secure colleges were the answer. I hope that I do not mischaracterise what she said. Equally, one could turn that round and say that those bare facts simply do not justify the status quo. The status quo is not, we suggest, an appropriate response to this dreadful cycle of reoffending. We suggest that secure colleges, with their emphasis on education, are a solution. Of course, no one can guarantee the success of any solution to this recurring problem but we hope that this one will provide a real concentration of education, which most of these young people have never had before.

A number of anxieties were expressed in very firm terms about secure colleges: the question of different ages and different genders, and the possibility that secure colleges will be remote geographically. I will be hosting an open session for interested Peers to share our initial designs for the pathfinder secure college. As I mentioned in my opening speech, we will consult on our approach to the secure college rules ahead of Report.

I was asked whether it was our intention to replace all secure youth accommodation with secure colleges. Our long-term vision is for a network of secure colleges across England and Wales. That transformation cannot happen overnight, and we are committed to improving existing provision for young people in custody.

I very much hope that as a result of no doubt probing amendments and further information, which I shall be happy to provide, your Lordships’ House will share the Government’s vision of secure colleges to deliver high-quality and broad-ranging facilities that can meet the diverse needs—often special needs, I accept—of young people in detention. It requires something that simply cannot be achieved in a small local facility—desirable though such facilities are, as was well described by my noble friend.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

Before the noble Lord leaves the point about the network of secure colleges, does it follow that there would be three secure colleges to deal with the whole of England and Wales? There would be around 300 children in each college, making about 1,000 altogether? The noble Lord said that a few secure children’s homes would be retained. Does it therefore follow that there are to be three secure colleges for the whole of England and Wales?

[Lord Faulks]

I understand the noble Lord’s mathematics and on the current numbers there would be a logic behind them, but this is a pathfinder college and as such we are not committed to going further. However, it may well be that we will be moving in that direction. If your Lordships’ House or Parliament does not share our vision for secure colleges, the construction of the next generation of facilities will have to take place within the existing framework for young offender institutions in secure training centres. But we believe that a fresh approach and a new framework will provide a better way of ensuring that our planned new institutions educate and rehabilitate more effectively than the existing ones.

A great deal of anxiety has been expressed about the rules, in particular the use of force. In answer to my noble friend Lord Carlile, private providers will not be able to make up their own rules on the use of force, and it is not true that they will be able to do so. Rules on the use of force will be clearly set out in the secure college rules and we have committed to consult not just on the rules but on the content of the rules.

[Lord Beecham]

Can the noble Lord confirm that the rules will be subject to parliamentary approval?

[Lord Faulks]

They will be part of the consultation in the course of amendment but not specifically subject to parliamentary approval as such. I say that subject to correction, but I think that that is the position. My noble friend Lady Berridge asked about reporting restrictions and made an important point about the youth court. I can confirm that the Government are looking carefully at that particular issue.

The question of juror research was raised by noble Lord, Lord Blair, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I have some sympathy with the point about the need for greater understanding of what is or is not permitted in terms of research into juries. I cannot commit the resources of the Ministry of Justice to provide the information being sought, but I will take this back and try to provide some form of clarity. Professor Cheryl Thomas appears to encounter no difficulty in analysing the information and I think the contrary argument is that any other information tends to be anecdotal. It does seem to me that simply to accept that jury trial is the right answer without proper examination is not a proper approach to this matter. I also note the comments made by the noble and learned Lord about Lord Roskill’s commission all those years ago, and I take his point about the reduction in costs. Sooner or later, viscerally attached though we are in this country to trial by jury, that does not obviate the need to examine and re-examine whether it is appropriate in all circumstances. As he quite rightly said, the Defamation Act 2013 is a recent example of where trial by jury is no longer to be available.

Perhaps I may conclude with some comments on Part 4. To say that this part was not entirely welcomed would be something of an understatement. Noble Lords have made some remarkable speeches in the course of the debate and it is absolutely clear that the relevant clauses will be subject to the degree of scrutiny that one would expect on a series of provisions of this sort. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I keep my remarks short and respond in detail to the many amendments that I expect to receive on these matters in due course.

It was suggested that there had not been much growth in judicial review as most of them were either immigration or asylum judicial reviews. I would like to set out to the House that, as is shown in the published national statistics, the number of civil judicial reviews, not including immigration and asylum claims, increased by 27% between 2000 and 2013, albeit that we accept that such claims continue to represent a small proportion of the total number of claims. However, the Government continue to believe that there are fundamental issues with how judicial reviews are brought that require proportionate reform. Although I know there was little support for these changes, I think it was accepted that from time to time this area of law can need examination, re-examination and amendment. I said in opening and I repeat now that it is no part of the Government's approach to this that judicial review is not a vital part of the checks on administrative action, whether on central or local government or other arms of the state. We are concerned by these various provisions to restrict the costs of obtaining judicial review and to ensure that interveners’ participation in reviews is at least more circumscribed than it is at the moment. I accept that interveners can provide valuable assistance in judicial reviews having—I declare an interest—taken part by representing one of the parties and on more than one occasion acting for an intervener. However, there has been a proliferation of interventions. If one looks at reported cases now, almost any case at Appeal Court level appears to attract a considerable level of intervention and some of it is duplicated. It often takes the form of very lengthy skeleton arguments and many volumes of authorities. Although judges do their best to make economic use of the available material, all parties involved in the case are thereby put to the expense of having to deal with the magnitude of the contributions made by interveners.

While I do not reject the proposition that interveners can add value, we must look at the cost consequences of those who use judicial review as a form of campaign. That word was used during the course of the debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton. Campaigning organisations have an enormous value, but it should not be thought that judicial review is simply a method of campaigning. Judicial review is concerned with unlawful activity: it is not just another way of expressing the various objectives of a campaign.

[Lord Beecham]

Does the Minister accept that no intervention can take place without the leave of the court? What he is saying is surely somewhat derogatory of the decision of the judges to permit interventions.

[Lord Faulks]

My answer to that is that the hypothetical Mr Justice Beecham on a busy list is told that there might be an intervention of one sort. He may not be able to anticipate the level of the intervention that is then forthcoming in terms of its size and the number of others who intervene. The noble Lord scowls, but I am endeavouring to answer his question so perhaps he should not do so. Then, in due course, a hearing takes place by which time an enormous amount of material can be provided and the scope of the case can expand. This is not an evil, but it ought to be controlled. It is difficult without continuity of the judges involved in this to control it in the way that it should be.

[Lord Woolf]

Does the Minister accept that it is very important to look at the situation again with regard to these matters of management after the burden of immigration and asylum cases has been removed from High Court judges? They were struggling to keep abreast of those cases and they were deprived of the time that they should now have to look after the proper management of these cases.

[Lord Faulks]

I absolutely understand what the noble and learned Lord is saying about that. Such was the volume of their work that it may have been difficult to make the decisions that having more time available would have allowed them to make. I take that point. As I have indicated, the Government are listening on the question of interveners. There is merit behind the Government’s provision and we are looking for the best way of reflecting that in any amendment that finally finds its way on to the statute book.

[Lord Woolf]

I make one further point, if the Minister will be patient—I apologise for interrupting him again. Are these matters not best dealt with by discussions through the usual channels between the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary, rather than by going to litigation, which removes the judge’s discretion? I urge the Minister to think about whether this could be achieved in that way.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful for that advice and, if I may, will perhaps respond no further at this stage.

The information about financial resources is also a matter that will be probed in some detail, although time does not permit me to go into a detailed response on that now. I have heard the arguments that have been raised, and there will no doubt be profitable scrutiny of those provisions.

Judicial review is important but it is not a vase that would be caused to crack by simply touching it. We need to look carefully at the remedy but, none the less, it is one where change should be made.

I said at the outset that I could not cover everything. I have covered, I hope, some of the points that have been made and I look forward to dealing with them all in Committee—if, of course, your Lordships are prepared to give this matter a Second Reading. I conclude my speech by asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at 9.32 pm.