House of Commons
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
1. What recent progress the Government Digital Service has made on moving public services online.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
We have designed and created the award-winning and world-leading gov.uk, the central web domain for Government information. We are redesigning 25 major Government services to make them simpler, clearer and faster to use. That will not only provide savings to the taxpayer, but improve delivery for the public, focused on user need, not Government convenience.
Sheryll Murray
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to make sure that individuals who are not digitised, many of whom live in rural constituencies such as mine, are not disadvantaged if they cannot access digitised public services or can do so only at low speeds?
Mr Maude
My hon. Friend makes an important point. When, on the recommendation of Baroness Lane-Fox, we adopted the digital-by-default approach—if it can be done online, it should be done only online—we stressed that there must be an assisted digital alternative for those who are not online, and we will ensure that that is the case.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I congratulate the Minister on much of the innovative work he has done in the digital area, thanks to Martha Lane Fox, the Cross-Bench Member of the House of Lords? Will he, however, take on board the fact that older people in this country find it very difficult to make the transition from the traditional to a digital way of communicating with the Government?
Mr Maude
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his compliment. We are trying to make a lot of progress, and the British Government are now regarded as world leading, after having been, frankly, a byword for failure in Government IT. Other Governments are now using the source code for gov.uk, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Baroness Lane-Fox leads the Go ON UK charity, which is dedicated to getting more people online, which is the key purpose. When we provide the assisted digital option, we ideally want to frame contracts so that they incentivise the provider not just to provide a service, but to use it to help individuals to get online so that their lives are enriched more widely.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
In answer to the very good question from my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), the Minister responded that those, like many in my constituency, who have no access to computers and are not online will be given something called an “assisted digital alternative”. Will he perhaps tell us what that is?
Mr Maude
It can take many forms, but the point is that the service is provided or the transaction is conducted digitally—it is conducted online—although not necessarily by the citizen themselves. For example, it could be done in a library, where someone sits alongside the citizen to help them to input data or conduct the transaction, or it could be done on the telephone, with someone on the other end to put data into the web service. There are a lot of different ways of providing it, and they will be fashioned around the needs of the user, not the convenience of the Government.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
In the spring, the Minister announced his digital inclusion strategy to exclude 5 million people. In the summer, he told pensioners to get online or lose access to Government services. In the autumn, farmers found that they needed a credit reference from Experian to apply for common agricultural policy grants. The list of people he is excluding grows day by day. Next week, a report for the Labour party will highlight the impact of his policies on the most vulnerable, and how a Labour Government will change that. How many more people does he intend to exclude from public services before he is voted out of office?
Mr Maude
I invite the hon. Lady to dream on, on that front. Her party is ill-equipped to criticise us. The last Labour Government’s definition of an online service was enabling people to download a form from the web, print it off, fill it in by hand and send it off by post. They regarded that as an online transaction—they were not quite in the modern world. We are glad that she is catching up, but she still has a long way to go.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
2. When he next plans to meet the Charity Commission to discuss the operation of legislation relating to charities.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)
I met the chair of the Charity Commission, William Shawcross, and its chief executive officer, Paula Sussex, last month, shortly before we published the draft Protection of Charities Bill. I will continue to meet them on a regular basis.
Mr Bellingham
I welcome my hon. Friend to his well-deserved appointment. Does he agree that, under its new leadership, the Charity Commission is proving to be a much more effective regulator than it was a few years ago? Does he agree also that any organisation that encourages extremism of any kind should lose its charitable status and that, although the Charity Commission is getting tougher, it needs to get tougher still?
Mr Wilson
I do indeed. In the past, the Charity Commission was rightly criticised for regulatory failings. It now has new leadership, as I mentioned, with a strong board and a new chief executive officer. The Prime Minister has just given it an additional £8 million, and it will hopefully get new powers through the draft Protection of Charities Bill.
I think that my hon. Friend was referring to the concerns that were expressed on the front page of The Times this week about the threat from terrorism and extremism. The House needs to recognise that there is a threat to charities of abuse for terrorism purposes. For example, three men were convicted in 2013 for fraudulently using Muslim Aid charity logos to collect £14,000. I am right behind the Charity Commission in its efforts to ensure that it is a strong and robust organisation.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I am glad that the charities Minister will meet the Charity Commission. As a matter of urgency, will he also meet Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and his colleagues in the Treasury to sort out the nonsense whereby smaller charities in particular find it difficult to set up the gift aid system? That is a correct tax relief, but it is not going to many charities because of the red tape involved.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
In his discussions with the Charity Commission, will the Minister see how it can encourage the development of charitable community funds that tap into the desire of local people to support local charities?
Mr Wilson
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he does. I hope that he and people in his constituency will support Giving Tuesday, which is on 2 December. That is a great opportunity for smaller charities to raise substantial sums of money and I hope that he will support it along with me.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
3. What steps he is taking to maintain the level of youth services provision.
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)
We are working to offer practical support to the youth sector at a time when local authorities continue to make difficult decisions on how to deliver services. Our support focuses on promoting delivery models for innovative services, including mutuals, and better measurement of the impact of youth services on the lives of young people.
Paul Blomfield
Last week, BBC Look North revealed that more than £30 million had been cut from youth services across Yorkshire—deep cuts that had been forced on councils by the disproportionate reduction in local authority funding for areas with the highest need. What discussions is the Minister having with colleagues in other Departments about the impact of those cuts on young people?
Mr Wilson
I am slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman’s criticisms, because I did not notice his campaigning in Sheffield on the cuts made by his local authority and I could not find a single letter that he has written to the Department about those cuts. Sheffield city council is one of 10 local authorities that are co-operating with the Government to transform youth services using the new delivery models that we are talking about. I would add that we are working with the youth sector to launch the centre for social impact, which will make it much easier for the youth sector to justify the things that it does and to get the buy-in of local authorities to keep those services going.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Gavin Pardoe and his team, who have accessed finance from the Charity Bank, Sport England and many other sources to build a magnificent new skate and BMX park in Stourbridge that opens next week?
Mr Wilson
I do indeed join in congratulating Gavin Pardoe and the able team that supported him. I understand that it is a state-of-the-art skate park that will draw in people from right across the west midlands. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on her role in bringing it about. It sounds like a wonderful facility for young people in the area.
Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Minister will know that youth provision is not statutory provision, and that it is therefore vulnerable to local authority cuts. He will perhaps have seen the early-day motion that has been signed by Members from throughout the House, suggesting that there should be positive discussions now about making youth services a statutory provision.
Mr Wilson
I have seen the hon. Gentleman’s early-day motion, and we believe in supporting a statutory position, but it is important that local authorities have the right to make decisions about their local area. The Government do not wish to be too prescriptive in directing local authorities on what they should and should not do. For that reason, we do not support his early-day motion.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In my constituency, the Cedars youth centre, which is a partnership between Watford football club, Harrow council and the Government, is an extremely successful example of how youth services can be transformed. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a service is the way forward for youth services, and would he like to visit the centre and see for himself the excellent work that is being done?
Mr Wilson
I can feel a number of visits to hon. Members’ constituencies coming on. I congratulate my hon. Friend’s council on the work that it is doing. It is possible to innovate and make youth services even better and more efficient, so we do not have to accept the Opposition’s counsel of despair.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
11. The National Audit Office has said today in a report on local government funding cuts that the Government fail to monitor the impact of funding reductions on local services. The report into the exploitation of girls in Rotherham cited youth workers as repeatedly having raised serious concerns—they were often the only people to do so—which shows that youth workers are often the only dependable adult in vulnerable children’s lives. Will the Minister assure me that he will monitor carefully the impact of local government cuts to youth services and the effects on child safety, and report his findings back to the House?
Mr Wilson
Obviously the Rotherham child sex abuse case is complex, and most of the responsibility for the matter lies within the Department for Education, but the hon. Lady makes a good point. It is important that we all learn lessons across Government, and the Cabinet Office is as keen as any other Department to do so.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
4. What recent steps he has taken to address barriers to small and medium-sized enterprises participating in Government procurement.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
Central Government spend with SMEs increased from £3 billion in 2009-10 to £4.5 billion in 2012-13. They benefited from a further £4 billion in indirect spend through the supply chain, so we are on track to deliver our ambition that 25% of Government’s direct and indirect spend should be with SMEs. In addition, we are implementing further changes to procurement rules that will benefit small businesses.
Yasmin Qureshi
The majority of local authorities are still not using the Government’s Contracts Finder, resulting in local SMEs losing out on opportunities. What are Ministers doing to ensure that more local authorities submit their procurement opportunities to the website?
Mr Maude
I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that a new and greatly improved version of Contracts Finder will be launched early in the new year. It is a massive opportunity for local authorities to procure better and cheaper, but also to be able to support local businesses. There are now more than 1,000 suppliers on our G-Cloud framework, 87% of which are SMEs, a number of them based in Bolton. They are all now able to provide services directly to public sector purchasers, which helps growth and jobs as well as providing better value for the taxpayer.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
What is being done to encourage innovative SMEs to get in on public procurement, and will the Minister update the House on the effectiveness of the mystery shopper tool?
Mr Maude
We have enabled suppliers who suspect that a procurement is being done in the old-fashioned way that we inherited to raise it directly with my officials in the Cabinet Office, who can then intervene with the public sector procurer-commissioner to ensure that it is done in the modern way, which does not exclude small businesses from supplying to government in the way that was routinely the case in the past. We have made a huge amount of progress, but we still have a long way to go.
Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)
5. What his policy is on the deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll in the civil service.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The policy is delegated to individual Departments.
Ann McKechin
I am interested in the Minister’s response because I understand that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been writing e-mails and letters to other Secretaries of State, asking them not to write off. Will the Minister confirm whether that is correct, and will he make clear all correspondence between him and other Liberal Democrat Ministers concerning their opposition to this Tory attack plan on worker representation?
Mr Maude
I can do no better than quote a member of the Public and Commercial Services Union—she is just identified as June—who said that direct debit is
“the easiest way of paying my union subs. You know then that it’s going to get paid because you’re not dependent on your employer taking it from your wages. I think it’s better.”
I agree with June.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the relationship between trade unions and their members ought to be direct and not intermediated by the civil service?
Mr Maude
As the PCS said in the document from which I quoted, check-off is an archaic way of operating that pre-dates the existence of bank accounts and direct debits. Most civil service unions use direct debits, not check-off, because they think that is the modern, direct way for an organisation to have a relationship with its members.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Department for Work and Pensions estimated that the cost of ending check-off across Departments was £1 million. The Minister denies that, so will he tell the House exactly how much it will cost to implement what is a political attack by the Conservative party, rather than a policy worthy of Government?
Mr Maude
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point and she is completely correct to say that an official produced the figure of £1 million. However, when asked for the workings and calculations that underpinned that number they were unable to produce them, and it turned out to be a completely fictional number. The correct calculation of the cost is more likely to be a negative number and a saving to the taxpayer, as well as being a measure that enables the PCS to do what its members now prefer and have a direct relationship with them.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
The Paymaster General has reiterated his support for getting rid of check-off, even though the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has written to Departments saying that there could be legal costs associated with that. A leaked HMRC memo talks about marginalising the unions, which could lead to industrial action among civil service unions. Does that show that Ministers are playing irresponsible party politics with the trade unions, and that the right hon. Gentleman should abandon his plans to get rid of check-off?
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
My responsibilities are for efficiency and reform, civil service issues, public sector industrial relation strategy, Government transparency, civil contingencies, civil society and cyber-security.
Mr Donohoe
The right hon. Gentleman is also responsible for the list of Ministers’ interests, and it is some time since that was done—I wonder when it will be. I am interested to know whether his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is still a honorary member of the Irvine Burns club, and whether the Minister still lists the Blind Trust as part of his financial interests, and whether we can see where we are going on this subject.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
T3. My constituents Callum Brogan and Parvathi Thara have been selected as National Citizen Service leaders for 2014-15, and have told me how much the NCS means to them. Will my hon. Friend tell me his future plans for the NCS?
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work with his local NCS, and all Members across the House who also take an interest in the programme. I wish his two constituents the best of luck next year as NCS leaders. The programme has consistently demonstrated, through independent evaluations, that it delivers more capable, confident and engaged young people, and up to £6.10 in benefits for every £1 spent. It continues to grow and it saw its 100,000th participant this summer.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is good to see the Deputy Prime Minister this morning talking up family-friendly working, but what is the right hon. Gentleman doing to ensure best practice on family friendly across the civil service, in particular on access to high-quality and high-level part-time and flexible opportunities? Is it not about time that the Government showed leadership, instead of lecturing others on what they are not doing?
Mr Maude
I warmly welcome the hon. Lady to her post. I have slightly lost count, but on my reckoning she is the fifth incumbent of the shadow post and I am sure the best. I look forward to a warm relationship with her over the coming period.
On the hon. Lady’s valid point about the need for the Government to exercise leadership in providing family-friendly opportunities for flexible working, I very much agree that we should do that, and we are already doing that. We are providing more opportunities and we think there are significant productivity improvements in enabling people to work more flexibly. However, it is always to be stressed that it is not an entitlement; it has to be according to the needs of the business.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
T5. What assessment has the Minister made of Labour’s proposals for a mansion tax on legacy giving, which is so appreciated by our charities?
Mr Wilson
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I did notice that the Leader of the Opposition had a very compelling economics lesson on TV the other evening, when Myleene Klass said:
“You can’t just point at things and tax them.”
That is hardly a thought-through strategy. We have heard voices within the Labour party itself—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Minister should resume his seat. His answer suffers from one principal disadvantage: it has absolutely nothing to do with his important responsibilities as a newly appointed junior Minister, with which of course we wish him well.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
T2. Several Ministers, including, it has to be said, the Prime Minister, fail to handle data with a certain amount of precision. Indeed, two weeks ago the Prime Minister told the House that there were 1,000 extra GPs when in actual fact there are 36 fewer. Will the Minister, who is responsible for consistency and co-ordination across government, clamp down on these bad practices and perhaps help the Prime Minister to correct the record today?
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
T8. Like the Minister I, too, have seen at first hand the benefits of the National Citizen Service and believe that every young person would benefit from taking part in the programme. Will he tell the House how he intends to increase both participation and the availability of the programme across the whole UK?
Mr Wilson
I thank my hon. Friend for the efforts he is making in his constituency to support the NCS. He spoke this year at the regional awards and promotes the programme in local schools. I am delighted that the NCS has taken part in every local authority across the country this year. There are projects now in Wales and Northern Ireland, and my officials are in discussions with the Scottish Government to explore the possibility of a pilot in Scotland.
Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
T4. During this Parliament, the National Statistics Authority has repeatedly had to write to Ministers to ask them to correct misleading or false statements on the growth of the national debt, the amount the Government spend on flood protection and much else, and to ask the Government in future to publish the figures as quality assured official statistics. Do the Government agree it is now time to change the law?
Mr Wilson
I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that all correspondence to the UK Statistics Authority is publicly available on its website, but he will also know that it has responded to both the Government and the Opposition on the issue of statistics, such as when it wrote on 24 July concerning incorrect employment figures used by the Leader of the Opposition and a shadow Business Minister—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are going to get one more question in because we want answers about Government policy. The Minister will learn gradually.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I have previously praised the important role parish councillors play during national emergencies, as they did in my constituency during the flooding last year, but the picture nationally remains patchy in terms of parish councils with emergency plans in place. May I urge the Minister, ahead of this winter, to push again to ensure that parish councils take up their responsibility for emergency planning?
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 November.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning the senseless attack in a synagogue in West Jerusalem this week, in which five people were killed. One of the victims was a dual Israeli-UK citizen, Rabbi Avraham Goldberg, and we send our deepest condolences to his family and friends, as well as to the families of the other victims. This was an appalling act of terror, and we condemn all acts of this kind.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Graham Jones
I think the whole House will echo the Prime Minister’s comments regarding the incident in Israel. It is a tragedy that we are all deeply concerned about.
How confident is the Prime Minister that he will not see further defections to UKIP?
The Prime Minister
There is only one way to secure an in/out referendum on Europe, and that is to back a Conservative victory at the next election.
Andrew Bridgen
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
In 2007 the Conservatives gained control of North West Leicestershire district council following 30 years of Labour maladministration and inherited the worst quality council housing in the country. I am pleased to announce that by the middle of next year all the homes in North West Leicestershire will be up to the decent homes standard. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Conservative group, and does he agree that it is another demonstration of the fact that Labour does not fix the roof when the sun is shining?
The Prime Minister
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating North West Leicestershire district council on the work it has done. It is vital that we bring poor quality housing up to standard, and the results it has achieved are good, but it is also important that we get Britain building, and that is now well under way.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Let us see whether they are still cheering on Friday, Mr Speaker.
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Rabbi Avraham Goldberg, who was murdered in the horrific terrorist attack in Jerusalem, and to the other victims. It was an appalling act, and all my sympathies are with their families and friends.
Will the Prime Minister tell us why he is so in favour of the bedroom tax but so against the mansion tax?
The Prime Minister
First, I make this prediction: the people behind me will still be cheering the right hon. Gentleman on Friday.
On the views of close colleagues, it is worth listening to what the new shadow Cabinet member in charge of the election, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), said about the Leader of the Opposition. She said there was a
“wider concern in the public whether he has the leadership qualities to lead his own party, let alone the country.”
I knew we had moles in the Labour movement; I just did not know they were that high up.
The spare room subsidy is a basic issue of fairness: people do not get the subsidy if they are in private sector rented accommodation, so in our view they should not get it in public sector rented accommodation. It is as simple as that.
Edward Miliband
In case he has forgotten, two of the people behind the right hon. Gentleman have jumped ship—and the others are waiting for the result to see whether they should follow.
The Prime Minister tries to defend the bedroom tax. Let me tell him that on the bedroom tax the Government are today going to court against a victim of domestic violence who has been raped, assaulted, harassed and stalked by her ex-partner and is going to be charged the bedroom tax on her panic room. She is one of 280 victims of domestic violence in this category. Will the right hon. Gentleman remind us why that is the right thing to do?
The Prime Minister
This is why we have a discretionary housing payment system with money made available for council after council, and up to date that money has been underspent.
Mr Speaker
Order. The answers from the Prime Minister have not always been fully heard and they must be, and the questions from the Leader of the Opposition have not always been fully heard and they must be. I remind the House that that is what our voters, the electorate, would expect—some decent behaviour, and robust but courteous exchange.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister does not know the facts. Many of these victims of domestic violence are not getting the hardship payment, and protecting the victims of domestic violence should not be a matter of discretion; it is a matter of principle. Nothing better illustrates the contrast of values between those on this side of the House and those on that side of it.
Now let us talk about the mansion tax—[Interruption.] Yes. A penthouse in Hyde park recently sold for £140 million. Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that someone living in that penthouse should pay the same annual property tax as someone living in a house worth a fraction of that value?
The Prime Minister
We have made sure that the richest in our country have made a contribution by putting up stamp duty. We put up stamp duty on empty properties, and we are properly charging foreigners who come and invest in our country. The point is that we need a growing economy that is providing the jobs and the livelihoods for our people. That is what we are getting, whereas what the right hon. Gentleman has had in the last week is a pasting from a pop star.
Edward Miliband
That is exactly what I expect from this Prime Minister. He feels the pain only of people struggling to find a £2 million garage. That is this Prime Minister. Let me tell him why we need a mansion tax. It is because the NHS is going backwards on his watch. Will he explain why it was announced this morning that the NHS has missed its cancer waiting time target for the third quarter in a row, meaning that 5,500 people waited more than 62 days for treatment?
The Prime Minister
We are certainly not seeing a Klass act opposite. In the last week, the right hon. Gentleman has been called useless, hopeless, out of his depth, does not cut it and an absolute disaster—and that is just what his Front Benchers think. He asks about cancer standards, and the number of people treated for cancer is up 50% under this Government. We have put £12.7 billion extra into the NHS—money he thought was irresponsible—and we are meeting nine of the 10 cancer standards.
Edward Miliband
The right hon. Gentleman has absolutely no answer on the NHS. This is a target that he pledged to meet, and Cancer Research UK— [Interruption.] I know they do not want to listen to Cancer Research UK. It says:
“This isn’t just about missed targets…thousands of patients are being failed.”
He is missing his cancer targets—[Interruption.] No, actually, they are doing a better job on cancer targets in Wales than they are here. He is missing his cancer targets and he is missing his A and E targets. Let me put it to him in terms that he might be capable of answering. On his visit to Rochester and Strood, has he had time to explain to people why over the last three months nearly 4,000 people waited more than four hours for A and E, and more than 700 people waited more than four hours on trolleys?
The Prime Minister
I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what is happening in the NHS. The number of nurses is up by 2,500 under this Government, and the number of doctors is up by 8,000 under this Government. Millions more patients are being treated, all because we put in the extra money that Labour said was irresponsible.
The right hon. Gentleman made a point about Wales. Let me just give him the facts. The last time A and E targets were met in Wales was March 2008. The last time the urgent cancer treatment target was met in Wales was 2008. What is the difference between Wales and England? In England the Tories are in charge, putting more money in and reforming our NHS. In Wales Labour is in charge, cutting the NHS and missing targets.
Edward Miliband
The truth is that the NHS is going backwards on the Prime Minister’s watch, and the British people know it. We are going to campaign on the NHS between now and the general election, because the Prime Minister has failed—he has failed on the NHS. We all know why this Prime Minister thinks the bedroom tax is great and the mansion tax to fund the NHS is terrible. If you have big money, you have a friend in this Prime Minister. If you have not, he could not care less.
The Prime Minister
I think it fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman’s week has not got any better. This was the week in which Myleene Klass wiped the floor with him in a television programme, and this was the week in which an opinion poll in Scotland showed that more people believe in the Loch Ness monster than believe in his leadership. The only problem for the Labour party is that he does actually exist.
Tim Farron
You are all very kind.
The impact of excessive second home ownership on rural communities is that it removes demand from GPs’ surgeries, village schools, rural bus services and post offices, and those services often close as a result. Will the Prime Minister agree to allow an increase in the council tax on wealthy second home owners in order to create a ring-fenced fund to support those vital rural services?
The Prime Minister
We have allowed councils to charge more tax on second homes, and many have taken advantage of that. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to build more houses to ensure that the village school, the village post office and the village pub are given the support that they need, and under this Government that is happening.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
Q2. The Jarrow NHS walk-in centre, which sees more than 27,000 patients a year, is due to close. The management tell me that that is because of cuts that they have to make. Will the Prime Minister refute that? Alternatively, will he intervene with the reckless management up in the north-east who are cutting the NHS in his name, and stop this stupid closure now?
The Prime Minister
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what is actually happening in the NHS in south Tyneside. Clinical commissioning group funding is going up by 2%, and is more than £225 million this year. As for the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, according to the figures more than 50,000 patients attended South Tyneside general hospital A and E, of whom 60% did not require treatment. That is why new investment is going into the urgent care hub that is being proposed by the local managers and clinicians in his constituency.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Q3. In Salisbury and south Wiltshire, unemployment has fallen by 60% since the Government took office. Youth unemployment is down by two thirds, and across the county of Wiltshire the number of young people in training and employment is set to exceed pre-recession levels. Does the Prime Minister agree that we are on a clear path to improving living standards further for all, and that the Labour party would put that into reverse?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we have seen in the last year is the biggest fall in unemployment since records began. We have more people in work in our country than ever before in our history. We have seen the first rise in the minimum wage ahead of inflation since Labour’s disastrous recession, and today we are taking further steps by banning exclusivity in zero-hours contracts.
Our plan is working, and the British people are seeing the results. There are still warning signs out there about the global economy, but we need to stick to our plan, and deliver wealth and prosperity for our people.
Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)
Q4. Across the United Kingdom, there are two Governments redistributing wealth from the poorest to the richest. The Labour alternative is to have a 50p tax band and a mansion tax to provide money for our vital public services and a bankers bonus tax to provide a compulsory jobs guarantee for young people—policies opposed by both the Tories and the shouting Scottish nationalists. Does that not tell us that in Scotland we face a clear choice in May: you go to bed with the Scottish National party, you wake up with this man as Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. In this year alone, 500,000 more people are in work. There have been cuts in unemployment and fewer people claiming benefit in his constituency. That is what is happening. I know that it is not convenient for the Labour narrative but the fact is that inequality is down; child poverty is down; the number of people in relative poverty is down. Those are the facts. Labour Members do not like them but they cannot hide from them.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker—I had not spotted the opportunity.
The Prime Minister will know that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was built on the twin pillars of equality and support for marriage. Will he now put a rocket under the Ministry of Justice to ensure that, under this Administration, we can deliver the same rights for those who want to celebrate their marriage as humanists?
The Prime Minister
We said at the time of the debate in the House of Lords that there would be consultation on this issue and that is exactly what is happening.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q5. Northwick Park hospital, which serves my constituency, has seen an unprecedented increase in the numbers going to A and E, given the closure of Central Middlesex A and E department and the continuing weekday closure of Alexandra Avenue polyclinic. Given that the hospital management believe that an extra 120 medical beds are necessary and local people want the clinic to be fully reopened, will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State for Health to address those concerns urgently?
The Prime Minister
Of course I will discuss that matter with the Secretary of State for Health, but I will do that in the context of what the hon. Gentleman knows, which is that, in his constituency, the A and E unit at Northwick Park hospital is getting a £21 million upgrade and is due to open in December. That is because our long-term economic plan is working and we are putting money into the NHS. This goes to a bigger truth: we can only have a strong NHS if we have a strong economy.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Q6. The Prime Minister has gone further than his predecessors in recognising our nuclear test veterans, but actions speak louder than words. Given how poorly they have been treated compared with veterans in other countries and the fact that one in three of their children has a serious medical condition, with 20% of conceptions ending prematurely, and in the hope that this PMQ will be third time lucky, will the Government make an ex gratia payment of £25 million to a charitable fund to help those veterans and descendants in need? After all, we only had to ask them once to do their duty and stand in front of a nuclear bomb.
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been dogged in pursuit of this very important cause. There is a very important ruling out today that has serious implications and it is right that we consider our response carefully. I have asked the Defence Secretary to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the implications for the nuclear test veteran community. I listened very carefully to what he said about the ex gratia fund. This Government have taken the time to deal with some of the difficult issues, such as war widows, which we effectively solved last week, and the long-term injustice of there not being medals for Arctic convoy veterans and the clasp for Bomber Command veterans. I am determined that we deal with this issue. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me while we have further discussions, but I do want us to try to seek a resolution to the issue.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Given the Prime Minister’s observation that red lights are flashing on the dashboard of the world’s economy, does he agree that, in relation to Northern Ireland’s economy, he could take two positive measures very soon: first, to devolve corporation tax powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly; and secondly, to put pressure on energy companies to reduce the price of home heating oil as well as petrol and diesel because of the very high dependence in Northern Ireland on that type of energy? Will he take action on those two fronts immediately?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman makes important points. On off-grid heating oil and the costs, more needs to be done to put pressure on companies not just in Northern Ireland but across the UK. On the issue of corporation tax, I maintain the commitments that I have made before about what we will be saying and when we will be saying it, but as we address this issue we are also going to have to look carefully at the Northern Ireland budget, and to ensure that the budget is working and that the Government of Northern Ireland are working, because that is an important part of the overall picture.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Q7. This week I am launching my latest small business awards in Chester, ahead of small business Saturday on Saturday 6 December. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating small businesses that have helped generate our economic recovery and will he commit to shopping small and shopping local on Small Business Saturday?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly make that commitment and that is what I will be doing on Saturday. Small business Saturday is an excellent initiative, and I urge all hon. Members to get behind it. In terms of helping small businesses, it is worth noting that we are cutting the jobs tax of businesses and charities by up to £2,000, we are abolishing national insurance contributions for under-21-year-olds, we are extending the doubling of small business rate relief and we have cut corporation tax to small business. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, and they know that in this Government they have got a true friend.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Q8. Is the Prime Minister aware that the hateful bedroom tax will be remembered just like the Tory poll tax, which destroyed Margaret Thatcher’s premiership? He should be ashamed that such a notorious tax came in on his watch.
The Prime Minister
What the hon. Gentleman and others on the Labour Benches have to explain is why it is right that people in private rented accommodation who are claiming housing benefit do not get a spare room subsidy but they think people who are living in council housing should get a spare room subsidy. The second question they are going to have to answer is: why did they oppose £83 billion of reductions in welfare which has helped us to maintain spending on health and schools, while taking 3 million of the poorest people out of tax altogether?
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Q9. Earlier this year 20-year-old Hollie Gazzard was one of two girls murdered in my constituency by former partners. Her father, Mr Nick Gazzard, has since set up the Hollie Gazzard Trust, one of the objectives being to promote the teaching of personal, social, health and economic education in schools. That is mentioned in the new national curriculum but the trust feels it needs to be compulsory for all schools and that it needs to be taught by external specialists. Will the Prime Minister help with this?
The Prime Minister
I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says. First, I would like to send my deepest condolences, and those of the whole House, to Hollie’s family, following her brutal murder. I would also like to pay tribute to the Hollie Gazzard Trust, set up by her family, for its high-quality programme of classes aimed at educating young people about domestic abuse. What we have said is that sex education should always include relationship education as well, and that goes for all schools.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Q10. Rents are sky-high and house prices in Brighton rose 13% in the last quarter alone. Nurses’ wages were recommended to go up by 1% yet the Prime Minister’s Government are blocking even this tiny rise. How does he expect hospitals like the Royal Sussex to be able to recruit enough nurses if they simply cannot afford to live in the area?
The Prime Minister
First, we are making a huge investment in the Royal Sussex hospital and that will have its effect, but I have to say to the hon. Lady that she says house prices are rising and are unaffordable, but I have never come across a Green party politician who is in favour of building houses anywhere for anyone.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)
Q11. During his recent visit to Warrington the Prime Minister will have seen at first hand our increasingly severe traffic issues. I thank him for ensuring that the local growth deal will deliver a new crossing near the town centre, but may I say that what we really need is a new high-level crossing, something that has been planned but not delivered for nearly 30 years now?
The Prime Minister
I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says. I enjoyed my visit to his constituency, and he is right: I could see the problems of congestion, but I could also see how the long-term economic plan is working in his constituency in terms of jobs and growth. He is also right about the local growth deal, which for Warrington and Cheshire is worth over £140 million in terms of Government funding, and that does include support for the new swing bridge, which will help to tackle the congestion as well as unlock important building sites.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
Q12. The people of Northern Ireland welcome the success of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, assisted by secret recordings made by the British intelligence services, in bringing seven suspected terrorists, including terrorist godfathers, to court on charges of serious violent republican activity. Customs officials close an illicit fuel plant in Northern Ireland every 10 days. The profits from those operations have bankrolled republican terrorists for years and cost the economy millions, but there is anger that not one person has been jailed for such an offence in the last 12 years. Why are those terrorists and gangsters immune from prosecution? Does the Prime Minister agree that that is an intolerable situation, and will he intervene to enable the immediate full operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
First, no one who commits crimes in Northern Ireland should be immune from prosecution. The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the PSNI, which, over the past few years, has shown just what an extraordinarily capable police force it is. We should remember the conditions in which it was built. He also makes an important point about the National Crime Agency. It is proving itself in operation after operation, not just here in the United Kingdom but right around the world, and it should be playing a part in Northern Ireland. That is a discussion that we need to have with all the parties in Northern Ireland, and I hope that over time we can get everyone to see the sense of having that important organisation there for Ulster.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Q13. Christians and others are being murdered for their faith in Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and many other countries. Elsewhere, it is a crime to believe anything other than what the state sanctions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our United Kingdom stands, above all, for freedom of speech, thought and belief, and that we must do all in our power to protect the persecuted and stand up to the persecutors, whoever they are?
The Prime Minister
I very much agree with my hon. Friend; he is right to make this such a cause, and to pursue it in the House and outside it. Britain has a proud record of political and religious tolerance—and, of course, of freedom of speech. In our dealings with other countries, we should always make it clear that we believe that to be the right approach. There is an appalling amount of persecution of religious minorities around the world, and some now say that Christians are more persecuted than other religions in too many countries, some of which my hon. Friend has named. We should make sure that this key issue of religious tolerance is at the heart of our foreign policy.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Two Ofsted reports released today show that local authorities are not equipped to deal with child sexual exploitation. In addition, South Yorkshire police officers are being investigated for failing victims of abuse. I raised all these issues in April. I have raised them with Ministers and at PMQs. What will it take for this Government to help vulnerable people?
The Prime Minister
First, let me commend the hon. Lady for the work that she has done on this issue. It is important that we learn the lessons from what happened in Rochdale—and, indeed, in the city of Oxford, near to my constituency, and elsewhere. The report released today is important, because the most important lesson that it draws is that we have to get every agency—whether it is the police, social services or schools—working together. That is not happening in enough of our towns and cities, and it needs to. In terms of what this Government are doing, the Home Office is leading this important effort and getting Departments to work together. I am convinced that we will make good progress.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
Q14. On the subject of immigration, Greencore—a large sandwich-making company in my constituency— is already employing 1,100 people. It is now expanding massively, thanks to this Government’s long-term economic plan. However, there were reports last week that it was looking to hire staff from Hungary. Labour wants untrammelled immigration, and that is what it gave this country for 13 years, but is not the message for the people of Northampton—and of Rochester, for that matter—that it is thanks to this Government that there are jobs in this country for the people of Northampton? Would we not be a bacon butty short of a sandwich platter if we forgot that?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The case of Greencore shows that we need not only proper immigration controls within and outside the EU but also welfare reform, so that it is not an option for people to live on welfare when they could work. We also need to implement education reform, as we are doing, so that young people can leave our schools and be able to take on the jobs that are available. It also means sanctioning those people who are on unemployment benefit who will not fill out a CV, will not attend a job interview and will not take a job when it is offered. A proper sanctions regime is actually part of a strong immigration policy.
Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)
In December last year, the Prime Minister visited Bolton and promised that there would be 200 extra seats on key morning commuter trains to Manchester by the end of this year. Last week, I met the train operator, who said that they did not know how many seats there would be or when they would be available, but that they would certainly not be available by the end of the year. Can the Prime Minister explain why his promise has been broken?
The Prime Minister
We are making huge investment in rail services in and around Greater Manchester, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. On the specific case he raises, I will write to him with the details.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Q15. Is the Prime Minister aware that over the past year unemployment in North West Norfolk has fallen by a very welcome 770? Does he agree that one should look behind the statistics and see nearly 800 families who now have a new breadwinner and a brighter future? Is this not yet another vindication of the tough stances he and his Chancellor had to take?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. In North West Norfolk the claimant count is down by 50% since the election and the youth claimant count is coming down by 52% in the last year alone. The figures released today show that people who have been in work for a year or more have seen their wages go up by 4%—more than twice the rate of inflation. And of course that is their wages before the tax reductions this Government have made because we have been a careful steward of the nation’s finances. What we would get with Labour is no growth, no jobs and higher taxes.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister apparently admits that his top-down reorganisation of the national health service and the Act that imposed it were mistakes. My Bill on Friday is an opportunity for him to put right some of those mistakes and repeal the parts of that Act that imposed privatisation on our NHS. The Bill is backed by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, Unison, Unite and the GMB—who represent the workers. Never have so many people been united against the Government about an Act that imposed so much on the national health service. Will he back my Bill on Friday and tell people that the national health service is not for sale—not now, not ever?
The Prime Minister
At least we now know who is paying for the hon. Gentleman’s Bill—that is one thing. Let me make a couple of points to him. Independent providers made up 5% of the NHS under Labour and they now make up just 6% of the NHS. The Government who had the sweetheart deals with the independent sector were the Labour Government, who handed it money in return for contracts. This is what we see in the NHS: 2,500 more nurses; 8,000 more doctors; and more patients being treated. We see an NHS that is succeeding because we made the reforms and we put in the money.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. In 2009, Burnley was classed as an unemployment blackspot. In 2014, unemployment has fallen to 3.5% and we are no longer a blackspot. May I advise my right hon. Friend that the economic plan of the coalition Government of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is working in Burnley?
The Prime Minister
First, I thank my hon. Friend for what he says. May I also commend his leadership on fighting for more apprenticeships, more skills and more training for young people in Burnley? The long-term economic plan is succeeding in Burnley, as it is in the rest of the country.
Points of Order
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, during Cabinet Office questions, I asked what I thought was a reasonable question and I did not even get any answer. What can you do as Speaker to make sure that Ministers come to this House and answer questions properly?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House and he will know that the responsibility of the Chair is to ensure order. The Chair cannot ordinarily intervene in the content of an answer, for to do so would be to evaluate and it is not for the Chair to evaluate the quality of ministerial responses. If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied, others may feel that way or not, as the case may be. The Chair is there to be an umpire but not to offer evaluations of ministerial performance. But I always keep a watch on these matters, and the hon. Gentleman will know that when a Minister chose to go completely off piste, totally inappropriately, and to witter on about matters that were nothing to do with him, I made it clear that he must desist. I am sure that, in the name of leadership, his ministerial boss can be relied upon to do the same. We will leave it there for today.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he was in favour of bringing forward the money resolution for the European Union (Referendum) Bill. The Prime Minister is also in favour of it, so why is that money resolution not on the Order Paper?
Mr Speaker
As I have become aware over the past nine years, when the hon. Gentleman, who is an extraordinarily indefatigable parliamentarian, wishes to be at his most cheeky, he always opts for a very straight face and an expression of great sincerity. But I know the hon. Gentleman, and I am sometimes wise to his admittedly clever games. I think we will have to leave it there for today.
National Health Service and Care Sector Workers (Credit Union and High Cost Credit)
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to promote membership of a credit union for staff employed by the NHS, other care sector workers, and family members who live in the same household; to facilitate payroll deductions for staff employed by the NHS and other care sector workers who are members of credit unions and to report regularly to Parliament on compliance with these requirements; to place a duty on payday lenders to encourage staff employed by the NHS and other care sector workers to take advice on debt management before acquiring high cost credit; to require the Financial Conduct Authority to report annually on payday lenders’ compliance with this requirement; and for connected purposes.
The Bill is designed to ensure that NHS and other care staff have access to low-cost loans and other low-cost financial services and, as a result, are not vulnerable to high-interest payday loan companies or at risk of mounting debt costs from using credit cards or bank overdrafts. I should declare at the outset that I am a member of my local credit union, M for Money, and also the excellent Rainbow Saver credit union.
For those who are in work and on a low income, debt is an ever-constant fear. One major unexpected financial problem—perhaps the cost of a funeral or a relationship breakdown—can push people into financial difficulty and put them at risk of using high-cost sources of credit, such as unauthorised bank overdrafts, the charges on which can be crippling financially, or other high-interest credit, such as that offered by payday loan companies or credit card companies.
According to the debt charity, StepChange, 6 million adults are using credit to see them through to pay day, and 3 million adults are using credit just to keep up to date with existing debt repayments. These debts are overwhelmingly because of financial hardship, and not over-the-top consumption. Indeed, some economists have suggested that this problem debt could be as high as £50 billion in the UK at the moment. It is a huge social and economic issue. Some of those in trouble with debt work for the NHS or other care services. We in this House surely have a responsibility to do what we can to help those looking after our most vulnerable citizens so that they are not going off to work worried about whether they can make ends meet.
The living wage and higher minimum wages are undoubtedly one part of the answer to the low pay crisis in the UK, but expanding credit unions is another part of the solution too. Sarah is a 44 year-old community nurse with a daughter who is now six years old. In 2010, her husband left, which, quite apart from anything else, left her in real financial difficulty. Up until the separation, Sarah’s income paid the rent, food and nursery fees, while her husband paid for the council tax and fuel bills. When he left, Sarah had to try to find an additional several hundred pounds a month to make ends meet. She found herself getting deeper and deeper into debt and had to face bailiffs coming to her door. She could not afford to pay her daughter’s nursery fees and, rather than have her thrown out, she decided to get a payday loan. Soon she found this loan impossible to pay back and subsequently ended up with five loans with different companies, totalling around £6,000. The stress as a result has been considerable. If Sarah had joined a credit union, linked to her employer, the interest on the loans she paid would have been nothing like as high as she had to pay using payday loans.
I have been given similar examples of nurses and care staff who have got into considerable debt as a result of high-cost credit. To indicate the scale of the problem, the Royal College of Nursing Foundation has reported a 20% increase in applications for hardship grants compared with 2012. In 2012, its average grant was £422; by this year, the figure had risen to £600, which is a 30% increase.
A credit union is a financial co-operative. Members save money with their credit unions and those deposits are used to make loans at far cheaper rates than the high-cost credit offered by payday loan firms, for example. Credit unions help to keep money in communities and offer cheap financial services. In short, this is about people in one community—in this case a workplace community—looking out for each other and pooling their money so that everyone can get a better service.
There are already many successful credit unions in the UK, including police credit unions, Plane Saver, the former British Airways credit union, and London Mutual Credit Union, which has more than 15,000 member-owners and which offers, among its crucial financial services, an affordable payday loan service. For a 30-day payday loan, London Mutual typically charges an interest rate of 27% or £19. For the same loan, a commercial payday loan company could charge in excess of 5,000% or £127 —in short, the loan would be £100 more expensive.
Some credit unions already have a relationship with NHS staff in their areas, but there is not one established credit union serving all NHS and care staff. Little publicity is put out in hospitals and care homes, or by other employers of care staff, to encourage staff to join a credit union. An NHS credit union that was recognised by NHS England would provide a central opportunity for NHS staff to access all the benefits that credit union membership can offer.
If Ministers cannot be persuaded at this point to support an NHS credit union, perhaps they could offer clear guidance to all NHS employers and other care providers that they should offer payroll deduction facilities to help staff who want to join a credit union, and that they should encourage advertising by local credit unions to make staff aware of the benefits of credit union membership.
Credit unions themselves need more sympathetic support from mainstream banks. While several banks are giving financial support, and some branches are signposting to credit unions those whom they have turned down for help, that is small beer, frankly, and the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority should be demanding more from the banks. Credit unions that want to earn interest on their holdings in the UK’s mainstream banks often get very poor rates compared with social enterprises and charities. Given the huge amounts that the banks have received through quantitative easing, I hope that the PRA will undertake a quick review of this issue to determine whether credit unions could be given a better deal.
I am grateful to the RCN, Unison, Citizens Advice and the GMB for their interest in the Bill and for supplying me with case studies of real people hit by debt problems in the NHS and the care sector whom they have helped, and for whom a credit union could have made a significant difference. I suspect that debt and low pay are common themes in many of our surgeries, and we undoubtedly need a significant expansion of credit unions. An NHS credit union would represent an especially powerful way of providing debt assistance to those who do such crucial work in our communities for our most vulnerable, so I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr Thomas
A particularly talented and handsome group, Mr Speaker, with the exception to that classification being myself.
Ordered,
That Mr Gareth Thomas, Stella Creasy, Mr Virendra Sharma, Stephen Pound, John Cryer, Barry Gardiner, Seema Malhotra, Rushanara Ali, Mr Andrew Love, Mr Adrian Bailey, Meg Hillier and Lyn Brown present the Bill.
Mr Gareth Thomas accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015 and to be printed (Bill 123).
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 233 / Noes: 301 - Question accordingly negatived.
14:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 235 / Noes: 303 - Question accordingly negatived.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 8, page 134, line 4, at end insert—
‘(6A) The Secretary of State shall provide an annual report to Parliament on the effectiveness of—
(a) enforcement of the national minimum wage;
(b) the level of the financial penalty for underpayment, including but not limited to its impact on compliance; and
(c) changes in provisions relating to the national minimum wage improving other measures of pay in the labour market.”
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 9, in clause 145, page 134, line 27, at end insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State shall make regulations containing provisions and measures enabling and facilitating the enforcement by workers of the rights conferred under this section. Those regulations shall be laid before each House of Parliament in draft before being made, subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
Amendment 10, page 134, line 36, at end insert—
‘(1A) Regulations made under section 27B, subsection (1), shall include provisions—
(a) giving zero hours workers the right to be awarded financial compensation of amounts, and in circumstances, to be determined by the Secretary of State;
(b) giving employment tribunals powers to enforce their adjudications, including the award of any applicable compensation as referred to in section (1A)(a), or imposition of any applicable penalty, in cases involving zero hours workers; and
(c) imposing an obligation on an employer to offer a fixed hours contract when a worker has worked regular hours for a continuous period, or series of continuous periods, of employment, to be determined by the Secretary of State.”
Government amendments 61 to 64.
Ian Murray
It is worth reflecting on the debate yesterday. The Minister for Business and Enterprise, who is not in his place and was not in his place for most of the debate yesterday, said that we would take part 4, which deals with pubs, first yesterday because that was most important. By definition, it seems that the Government do not see the national minimum wage and zero-hours contracts as being important. The programme motion has restricted this debate and that on the important topic of insolvency to just two hours, which shows the Government’s view on these matters.
We have tabled the amendments in the same spirit as we did in Committee, to try to make the Bill a much better Bill than it was when it started its passage through the House. We hear from our constituents throughout the country concerns about pay and insecurity in the workplace. Part 11 is an opportunity missed by the Government to deal with the problems of national minimum wage enforcement and exploitative zero-hours contracts. They need to show that they are on the side of ordinary people who have had their wages cut by more than £1,600 per year since 2010, but again the Government have missed the opportunity to do so.
Fifteen years have passed since the introduction of the minimum wage and the Opposition will keeping saying, time and again, that it is one of the Labour Government’s proudest achievements, despite the significant opposition—I was going to say from the Government Benches, but there does not seem to be anybody on the Government Benches, so it would be unfair to level that charge at the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who supported the national minimum wage. This is another example of the pitfalls of writing one’s speech before one sees who turns up to the Chamber. I apologise for aiming my comments at the hon. Lady. The lack of support from her colleagues on the Conservative Benches this afternoon highlights the seriousness with which they take the issue of national minimum wage enforcement and zero-hours contracts. In the run-up to the May election, their constituents will reflect on the fact that they decided not to participate in today’s serious debate on amendments to part 11.
The introduction of the national minimum wage gave 1 million workers a significant pay rise, and now nearly 2 million workers benefit directly from the minimum wage. For women especially, who are most often susceptible to poor pay, the national minimum wage has had a significant impact for the better on their salaries, their pay and their working lives. It has not affected job retention, despite cries from the Government Benches—although there is no one there today—that it would cost 1 million jobs when it was introduced back in 1998.
However, the problem is that the minimum wage has become the maximum wage for far too many, and has fallen in real terms since 2010. That is why the Labour party is pledging to increase the national minimum wage to a minimum of £8 per hour and significantly to promote the living wage in partnership with employers. Amendment 8 would require the Secretary of State to provide an annual report to Parliament on three crucial aspects of the national minimum wage—first, its enforcement; secondly, the level of the financial payment for underpayment; and thirdly and crucially, the relationship between the national minimum wage and how it reflects pay in the wider labour market, particularly in interaction with the living wage. I shall deal with each of those aspects.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend makes some very good points, but does he not think that we restrict ourselves in our brave attempts to get a good standard of living for everyone in this country, and that the national minimum wage should be a national minimum wage plus? The plus should be a guarantee of skills training and much else that supports the minimum wage. I came into politics to provide the good life for the people in my constituency and the people of this country. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree.
Ian Murray
I am grateful for the intervention from my hon. Friend. Pay is a only a small element in the workplace, and skills, education and progression are key. As I said, the national minimum wage should be the very bottom, not the top, of people’s aspiration for pay in the workplace. My hon. Friend raises some important points for his constituents and those throughout the country.
I am delighted that the Minister for Business and Enterprise has now joined us. Without proper enforcement, the regulations will be rendered ineffective. Under this Government, enforcement of the national minimum wage has been poor. That is why we are asking the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the effectiveness of enforcement overall.
The figures speak for themselves. Reports published earlier this year show that the number of national minimum wage compliance investigations has more than halved since 2010. The response to a parliamentary question tabled earlier this year revealed that the number of investigations had fallen from over 3,500 in 2010 to just under 1,700 by the end of 2013. In addition, the number of cases resulting from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs risk profiling or targeting enforcement action had fallen from 1,500 in 2010 to a mere 431 by the end of 2013.
On top of that, the naming and shaming policy, which the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, announced four times—I am sure she is expecting me to say this—up until recently had been announced more times than it had been used. To be fair, I appreciate that there have been more instances of naming and shaming recently, but it shows why an annual report is necessary to ensure that the regulations are working, the deterrents are robust and all avenues are being explored to prevent exploitation of the national minimum wage.
The Opposition have also been clear that local authorities should be given the power to enforce the national minimum wage alongside HMRC. We know that joint working between HMRC and other enforcement agencies, such as local authorities, is sometimes weak, which limits opportunities to maximise resources across different Government bodies. Local authorities, by their nature, have good knowledge of local employers and already conduct significant enforcement activity through their responsibilities for licensing, planning, health and safety and environmental health inspections. In carrying out those duties, councils sometimes come across cases where they suspect national minimum wage violations, but they have no power to investigate them directly and can merely refer them to HMRC’s enforcement helpline.
Local authorities are perfectly placed to enforce the national minimum wage, given their knowledge on the ground. That move is supported by the report “Settle for Nothing Less: Enhancing National Minimum Wage Compliance and Enforcement”, published last year by the Centre for London, which recommended partially devolving enforcement to local authority level to sit alongside and complement the current central function. It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister has considered having local authorities take an active role in national minimum wage enforcement.
Mr Sheerman
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but will he also mention local enterprise partnerships, which are becoming more mature and powerful at bringing a focus to matters? I have noticed recently that their links to small businesses, in particular, are better than those of some local authorities I know.
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are many agencies dealing directly with businesses, particularly small businesses, that could play a role in national minimum wage enforcement. Poor pay and enforcement should be a job for all of us, whether LEPs, local authorities, the national minimum wage enforcement section, Members of Parliament or whistleblowers. We need a drive towards ensuring that anyone who decides to flout the rules on the national minimum wage knows that there is an organisation out there that can report them and take action against them.
Amendment 8 would also require the Secretary of State to report on the level of financial penalty. Although an increase in the maximum fine to £20,000 per employee is welcome, we are disappointed that the Government did not follow Labour’s lead in Committee by increasing it to £50,000. By setting the penalty at £50,000, Ministers would send a clear message to rogue businesses that they run a real financial risk by not paying the minimum wage. It would also put the fine on a par with other fines, such as those for fly-tipping.
As the Minister might be aware, her colleague and party president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), at the start of the year echoed Labour’s calls for a higher financial penalty, stating:
“A £50,000 fine for fly-tipping versus a £20,000 fine for exploiting a human being is just ludicrous. It tells you all you need to know how we, as a society, have our priorities wrong.”
I suggest that it is not society that has its priorities wrong in that regard, but the Government.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Would these changes have an impact on people working in the informal economy who are not paid the minimum wage?
Ian Murray
Absolutely. We see in the informal economy forced self-employment, bogus self-employment and people not being paid the national minimum wage. It is a big issue in relation to migrant workers and agency workers. It is a huge issue across not only the formal economy, but the informal economy. It is something we must stamp down on, because it undermines people’s wages and the ability to be paid properly. The crucial point is that it is also uncompetitive for business, because the businesses that do the right thing, pay proper wages and abide by all the legislation are undercut by those that do not, and we have to deal with that. These measures are both pro-business and pro-employee.
Finally, amendment 8 is also crucial to ensuring that the Government consider wider improvements in pay in our labour market—namely, the promotion of the living wage. Under this Government, the number of people paid less than the living wage has risen from 3.4 million to just under 5 million in just four years. That not only impacts on low-paid workers, their families and communities, but piles up costs for the country as more people in work have to rely on the social security system, with tax credits topping up their poverty pay.
Labour councils have led the way in paying their workers a living wage, even within tight budget constraints, and getting more workers in the private sector paid a living wage by using their procurement powers and encouraging the creation of local living wage zones. My local council, City of Edinburgh council, has been paying the living wage for some time now. Other organisations in the private sector are now seeing that paying the living wage is something they should be doing. I must declare an interest as a member of the board of Heart of Midlothian football club, which a few weeks ago took the historic decision to become the first football club in Scotland to pay the living wage to not only all its staff, but all its subcontractors.
Mr Sheerman
Before my hon. Friend moves on, may I commiserate with him about last night’s football result? On a serious point, I do not know what his local university is, but the university of Huddersfield, which is the biggest employer in my constituency, pays the living wage. If universities up and down the country could lead the way, that would have a powerful effect, especially if they pressed that on their supply chains.
Ian Murray
I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about what happens in his constituency. Public bodies could really take the lead in promoting the living wage. However, his initial comment about last night’s result means that I will have to demote him from being my hon. Friend to being the hon. Gentleman, but I will not hold it against him for too long.
The Labour party has a proper plan to encourage businesses to pay their employees the living wage. If this Government will not do this, the next Labour Government will launch a national campaign to agree “make work pay” contracts with British businesses, working in partnership with businesses to share in the benefits of the living wage and ensure that people are paid properly for a decent day’s work. The living wage is about bringing employers, employees, campaigners and communities together to build a stronger, fairer economy from the bottom up. The living wage improves the living standards of employees and benefits employers, too. They have found that paying the living wage can make good business sense, generating savings by boosting productivity and increasing staff morale.
I hope that the Government are minded to support amendment 8. It would be a step towards improving the enforcement of the national minimum wage and then improving pay for all working people. If Ministers do not, it will be up to Labour, the party that created the national minimum wage, to strengthen it for all the low-paid. Amendment 8 is about having a report from the Secretary of State to bring forward some of these issues and highlight them through Parliament so that we can ensure that the national minimum wage is being enforced properly, that the level of financial fines is appropriate and that the Government are doing everything they possibly can to promote additional wages through the living wage.
Amendments 9 and 10 to clause 145 relate to zero-hours contracts. The explosion in the use of zero-hours contracts is a trend that should concern Members right across the House. Although a small number of people find that type of contract suitable, too many are at the mercy of unscrupulous employers who exploit it. For many employees, zero-hours contracts present huge drawbacks in comparison with permanent, regular work. The increasing problem of underemployment and zero-hours contracts is highlighted by the recent reports from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs stating that income tax take has been flat over the past year despite the Government predicting a substantial increase. Do the Government not worry that they are creating the kind of economy where unemployment drops but there is no additional income tax take to the Treasury? We must use the opportunity of this Bill to prevent exploitative zero-hours contracts and do something about underemployment. It is not just me who is saying this. The Exchequer Secretary told the Bill Committee’s evidence session that it was the Treasury’s goal to have people on better contracts as it is better for tax receipts. I could not agree more.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that even the Treasury has admitted in statistical analysis that in the case of someone on a fixed-term contract of 20 hours as opposed to someone on a zero-hours contract with potentially 40 hours—although it will fluctuate over time—the person on the zero-hours contract pays more in national insurance contributions than a similar worker doing the same amount of hours annually. The Treasury estimated that they were about £300 a year worse off than a person on a fixed-term contract doing fewer hours.
Ian Murray
That is the way the tax system works. People are allocated their national insurance and tax thresholds on the basis of when they work on a monthly basis. It can be aggregated over the year only if they are in permanent employment through pay-as-you-earn and the national insurance contributions that are made. In Committee, we had the strange scenario of Government Back Benchers saying that it does not matter what the tax take is because the aggregate would be the same if 100,000 people were working on zero-hours contracts than if the same number of hours were being worked by those in permanent employment. That is primary school economics, because the analysis does not work.
The Government have to reflect on the fact that while unemployment is falling, and has fallen by a substantial amount over the past 12 months, tax take, including income tax take, is exactly the same as it was the year before. That means that people are not being paid properly for the work that they are doing, that they are under-employed, or that they are in part-time jobs or on zero-hours contracts. So while they may not be an unemployment statistic, they are certainly not contributing to the economy.
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)
Does the shadow Minister accept that the tax take is possibly down by a lot because of the increased allowances that people now get before they start paying tax? Surely the fact that people are not paying as much and keeping more of their salary would affect tax take.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman misses the point. If he was in his place earlier—I have no reason to doubt that he was not; I just did not notice when he came in—he would have heard me say that HMRC had predicted a significant increase in tax take having already factored in the increase to £10,000 in the taxable allowance. Even taking that into account, it was projecting a significant increase in tax take, yet it has been flat. HMRC had accounted for the change in the personal allowance threshold and for the fact that unemployment is falling. Taking all those things into consideration, it projected that it should be getting substantially higher tax revenues, but it is not. That tells us something about the kind of employment market that this Government want to create.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
This Government have made much of increasing the personal allowance, as some of us advocated many years ago. Now we are at the point where the personal allowance level is not offering any tangible benefit to those who are on the national minimum wage and are in part-time employment, because they are at or below the level to which the personal allowance has been raised. A combination of factors is required rather than merely raising the allowance.
Ian Murray
There is a key balance in terms of raising the allowance. The poorest paid are not affected by any increases in the personal allowance, while everyone else benefits. There is a significant decrease in tax take from every taxpayer, but the lowest paid are not included in that.
Graham Jones
One of the pernicious elements of this situation is what we are starting to see in my constituency with agency work, whereby people on zero-hours contracts are being pushed into self-employment when they take hours through an agency. With reference to the tax take, there is some concern that this practice is pushing people into the informal economy and tax is not being paid at the full rate. It is also pernicious in terms of the hours that are offered to people and the insecurity of being in self-employment as opposed even to agency-paid employment.
Ian Murray
Absolutely. We are creeping into the wider problems with the employment market. There is a huge issue with bogus self-employment and a huge issue for the Treasury as regards the informal economy. That is why the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has said that, particularly with regard to the construction sector, we should deem people to be employed unless it can be proven otherwise.
Graham Jones
It is certainly an issue in the construction sector in my constituency, but it is now spreading into other sectors, including catering.
Ian Murray
It is most prevalent in the construction sector, but it affects other low-paid sectors as well. This goes back to the point I made in response to one of my hon. Friend’s previous interventions about good businesses being hit by the playing field not being level because of people undercutting wages and undermining their responsibilities to society in terms of paying the appropriate tax that they should be paying on the wages that they are generating.
So as not to be too uncharitable to the Minister, let me say that we welcome clause 145, which introduces an exclusivity ban into zero-hour contracts. However, as with yesterday’s pubs debate, the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming into doing anything at all about this issue. They have fallen far short of introducing measures that really tackle the exploitative use of these contracts. They are doing nothing to change the practices of companies that base their entire work force management strategy on zero-hours contracts. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said last week, zero-hours contracts have
“left too many people not knowing how they will make ends meet from one week to the next and unable to plan for the future. And this government won’t do anything to stop it. But we will.”
Our amendments attempt to build on the fact that the Government have tabled an amendment to the law, albeit a minor one, to stop exclusivity by suggesting that they take that one step further. Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations so that workers on zero-hours contracts can enforce their rights. It is completely ludicrous that we have been left in a situation where the Government have introduced legislation to ban exclusivity clauses in zero-hour contracts but have not put in any enforcement action so as to be able to remedy the problem. The Minister for Business and Enterprise was pressed repeatedly on this in Committee but could offer only the option of enforcement through the usual employment tribunal channel. Perhaps he should spend less time apologising to the Prime Minister and more time apologising to the millions of workers he is letting down through this clause.
Ian Murray
I haven’t finished yet—just you wait!
Let me go through why not being able to enforce these rights is a real problem. If, as the Minister suggested, people go through the normal employment tribunal channel, there would be a two-year qualification period for unfair dismissal. They would then have to go through compulsory early conciliation at ACAS. If that failed, they would have to pay a disproportionately high fee to enter the employment tribunal system. If they were found to have been wronged in the workplace, they could receive a compensatory award, but in up to 50% of cases those awards are no longer paid, and the chances of them getting their job back, or any job, would be much diminished.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
When I used to deal with what were then known as industrial tribunals, I understood that someone had to earn a certain wage before they could make any application to a tribunal. In those circumstances, how does someone on a zero-hours contract get into the position of being able to apply?
Ian Murray
That is part of the problem of enforcement, in that we do not know what mechanisms could be used for it. That is why we tabled the amendment to ask the Secretary of State to bring forward proper proposals for enforcing these rights. My hon. Friend is right. If an employer has offered someone a zero-hours contract containing an exclusivity clause, I suspect that most will have done so on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Does that person then have the qualification period needed to enter the employment tribunal system? The answer is clearly no, because they have not worked for two years. Do they have the status of being a worker or an employee? The chances are that the courts would probably deem them not to be in employment at that stage. That is why it is important for the Government to come back with proposals on how they will prevent exclusivity clauses.
Sarah Veale from the Trades Union Congress said in one of the evidence sessions:
“It is actually quite extraordinary to have a breach of employment rights proposed in a Bill without any kind of penalty—or rather, without any compensation for the individual, because that is largely the way it works in employment law.”––[Official Report, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2014; c. 71, Q162.]
The Government need to be clear about how individuals can enforce the provision against exclusivity. We cannot just hope that employees who refuse to work exclusively for an employer will not subsequently be discriminated against in the workplace.
It is very easy to construct a scenario in which that might be the case, and I have already mentioned one to my hon. Friend. In future, if an employer offers a zero-hours contract with an exclusivity clause, the employee might be incredibly knowledgeable about employment rights, and say, “Under section 145 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Act, an exclusivity clause is against the law.” However, the employer could turn round, and ask, “Well, what are you going to do about it? You can either take or refuse the job and the contract, but if you do not abide by its terms, we’ll zero you out,” meaning that the employee would not be offered any hours at all. The employer could in effect have exclusivity by threatening the employee with losing their employment altogether.
That is a very real issue for the economy. I am not talking about businesses or individuals that welcome the use of zero-hours contracts, but mainly about people at the lower end of the employment scale who need to be properly protected. We need to ensure that there is effectively no exclusivity and that people are not zeroed out.
We need the Government to make a proper proposal about how they will enforce the prevention of a practice that is against the law. If someone driving down the motorway at slightly over the speed limit is caught doing 75 or 77 mph in a 70 mph zone, they receive a ticking off and a fine, but if there were no need to pay the fine or if no fine were levied, where would be the deterrent against breaking the law? I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that point.
Amendment 10 is about compensation. People often go to great expense to turn up at work: they arrange child care or pay train or bus fares, and that takes time to organise and costs money from their much-reduced resources. Having been told that they are needed for work, people sometimes get a text a couple of hours beforehand or on arriving at their workplace saying that they are not needed that day. In a modern workplace, that is completely and utterly unacceptable.
The CBI has recognised that point and has expressed its support for it. In its March 2014 zero-hours briefing, it stated:
“a ban on offering short notice for work…is not in the interests of the workers on zero hours contracts, whose interests are best served by always being offered work opportunities with the freedom to decline them. An intervention which creates a simple formula for compensation due to zero hours employees when a shift is cancelled at short notice—two hours’ pay for example—would be better targeted.”
I think that everyone in the House would agree that there should be some kind of compensation if people are unable to do their shift at short notice because the employer has changed the particular shift pattern.
The House needs to look seriously at this matter. It is quite clear that the vast majority of employers in this country are respected for looking after their employees as their business’s No. 1 asset. Many businesses that do the right thing spend an inordinate amount of time—I did when I ran my own small business—making sure that all employees get the hours they want and are contracted to do, so that they can gain the salary they are contracted to earn and can pay their rent or mortgage and maintain their standard of living.
Most reasonable people would say that it was unacceptable for such businesses to be undercut by companies that decide to take on a vast number of workers on zero-hours contracts without offering them regular hours and regular pay. That is why I think that the Government have really missed an opportunity by not going slightly further on zero-hours contracts.
I now move on to the right to fixed hours. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said last week:
“We are going to change…the zero-zero economy…Under Labour, if you work regular hours you will have a legal right to a regular contract.”
Iain Birrell, a partner at Thompsons Solicitors, said in his evidence in Committee:
“The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development research of last November noted that 83% of staff on zero-hours contracts have been engaged for longer than six months and 65% have been engaged for two years or more. We have a situation, then, in which 65% of staff on zero-hours contracts have been there for two years or more. That is not short-term need”.––[Official Report, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2014; c. 27-28, Q54.]
We appreciate that there are situations in which employers require workers on a zero-hours basis. However, employers should be able to refuse an employee’s request not to be on a zero-hours contract only if they can demonstrate that their business needs cannot be met by any other form of flexible contract. For example, seasonal work may be a legitimate exemption. In the United Kingdom, someone who makes ice cream might require people on zero-hours contracts to deal with seasonal needs.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
I shall speak to the amendments, but this debate is about zero-hours contracts, and it is interesting that we have even got to the point at which there is a Bill addressing this issue. That is a good thing, because as this became an ever bigger issue for many people over the past two or three years, there was a lot of resistance from the Government. Initially, they said, “It isn’t really a problem. There aren’t more zero-hours contracts than ever before. People have the choice to work as they want, and we really don’t need to legislate.” The campaigns and the substantial criticisms have now got us to a place where the Bill includes a provision on zero-hours contracts.
The problem is that the provision is very narrow. Outlawing exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts deals with only one part of a much larger problem. The Government must have thought, “Well, we’ve come under sustained criticism about zero-hours contracts, so we’ll show that we’ve done something. What’s the least we could do? We will ban exclusivity clauses.” Many people realise that that is a minimal response.
For me, the major factor is the degree of choice that people really have in their workplace. I have heard several Members say on Second Reading and in Committee, where the issue was also debated, “It’s all right. People choose to work in this way. It gives them flexibility as well. It allows them to plan their lives.” Reference was made to people with child care responsibilities, for example. However, it is precisely those people who often find it hardest to cope with being in such a situation. Far from giving them the ability to juggle their various responsibilities, a zero-hours contract may well be the one thing that makes it very difficult to continue in their job while sustaining those responsibilities. People with child care or any other caring responsibilities need to know, day to day and week to week, when they will be working.
Most people cannot arrange child care at the drop of a hat. When my children were young, I used to say that my parents were the only people in the world whom I could phone at 8 o’clock in the morning and say, “My child’s ill. Could you come, please, now?” Not everyone has parents who can drop everything on that sort of warning. I would not want to do that for anything other than a real emergency—the school’s boiler is bust and there is no school, or a child is ill—because if people have to keep doing it, they will quickly lose the support of their friends and family. To fulfil their caring responsibilities, people have to know what is happening. A lot of part-time jobs fit that bill well. It is not a great deal of help if part-time jobs are turned into jobs where people are told, “We’re not really sure which days it will be this week—we’ll let you know.”
Amendment 10 says that there should be compensation if people are called out to work but are not given work. We must understand that there are costs involved in that. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) mentioned transport. People might also incur child care costs to cover the hours they think they are being given, only to find that they are not there.
For many of the jobs where I have seen people on zero-hours contracts, there seems to be no compelling reason why there cannot be a much more organised set of working arrangements and why the arrangements have to be quite so flexible for the employer. In most businesses—even retail businesses—where there are ups and downs in the week, and indeed in the day, the patterns are knowable: they do not suddenly differ from one day to the next.
That is similarly true of caring. The point when I really began to lose patience with zero-hours contracts was when constituents of mine who work as carers found themselves getting texts early in the week telling them which days they would be working. The people they care for are there all the time. The number of people on the books who need care is well known. It should not be beyond the possibilities of management to work out fairly well in advance what the need will be and to allocate the staff accordingly.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most grotesque manifestations of the way in which such regimes impact on those in the caring profession is that they are paid only for the time when they are in attendance on the person who is receiving the care and do not receive the hourly rate while they are logging in, logging out and travelling to the next appointment? That exposes them to great risk on the roads, because they move quickly between appointments. Does she agree that we really must address that in these provisions?
Sheila Gilmore
I absolutely agree that such methods are used to manage the process, and they might make it look as though the service can be procured more cheaply. I assure anyone who thinks that we in Scotland somehow do not have a problem with social care because some elements of it are supposedly free that that is not the case—we see all the same things happening.
The insecurity for the worker is huge. I see no reason why that should be the case when the work is there. It might take a bit more juggling, but firms have been trying for years to work out how best to spread the work force over the week.
In the care industry, there may well be a need for some form of emergency cover, but that is different from regular work. I have heard the argument that it is all very well to say that the people who need to be cared for are known about, but if somebody goes off sick or is on holiday, somebody else is needed so that urgent arrangements can be made. That may well be the case, as it is in teaching. There are long-standing arrangements involving supply teachers. We are back to the issue of choice. If people choose to work in that way and it is limited to situations where cover is needed, clearly it has a place. However, the firms that are using such arrangements are not using them just for emergency cover; they are using them for the predictable times, too.
If people end up doing longish periods of regular hours, they should be offered a proper permanent contract. By that stage, people are tried and tested, by definition. There is no reason for the employer to think that they are not capable of doing the job. In many fields of work, the practice would encourage retention, which is a problem in some of the fields that we are discussing. In a job as important as caring for other people, but not just in that job, it is crucial to deal with issues such as turnover—people not staying the course—because they affect the quality of care. This is not just an issue for the people who are employed in these fields; it is hugely important for those who receive the services—they want certainty about the person who is coming into their home.
Gordon Birtwistle
The hon. Lady is making a passionate speech. I agree that there are a lot of anomalies in the care industry that need to be resolved. However, such contracts have been available for years and nothing has been done about them. Why did the previous Government, who were in office for 13 years, not resolve these problems? I share her passion on this issue, and some of the things that she is saying are right, but it is a bit late to come to this debate and complain about what this Government are doing. Why did the Labour Government not sort it out years ago when they brought the zero-hours contracts in?
Sheila Gilmore
That allegation is made frequently. In the years up to 2007 when I was a local councillor, I did not see these things happening in the care industry. I really did not see huge numbers of zero-hours contracts being used in my area. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman said was a factual statement.
Mr Donohoe
In my constituency—I am sure the same is true of my hon. Friend’s constituency—the words “zero-hours contract” did not exist until very recently. In the past two or three years, I have heard more and more of my constituents talk about these contracts. It is because of the policies of this Government that we are in that position, is it not?
Sheila Gilmore
I agree with my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) seems to believe that the last Government did nothing on this issue. I do not agree, but even if that were true, it would not be a reason for not dealing with the issue now. On that basis, we would never do anything different or new because a previous Government had not done so. That would be a very strange way of doing politics.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is quite right. This has become a huge problem in the past four and a half years, so much so that people in this country are, on average, £1,600 a year worse off since 2010. That is a direct result of the failures of the Government who are now in power. That is the reality for people up and down the country.
Tom Blenkinsop
Does my hon. Friend know whether the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in March 2012, when the Government froze the national minimum wage for under-21s?
Sheila Gilmore
I do not think that there is any need to add to that observation.
When people work on a regular basis, that has to be accepted and provided for. That is what amendment 10 would do. If somebody genuinely does not want a permanent contract, nobody is saying that it should be forced on them. Amendment 10 says that people should be offered such a contract. If there really are all those people out there who would not want a permanent contract instead—I have to say that I doubt it—they would, of course, be free to turn it down.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady accept that there could be circumstances in which amendment 10 would affect an employer unfairly? For example, there is a requirement that if someone has had so many hours of continuous work in previous weeks, they can insist on the same number of hours in the future. What will that mean for people who work in the entertainment industry and those who work in a job that is seasonal, such as a job at the seaside, where there is a demand for continuous weeks for a certain period, but that comes to an end?
Sheila Gilmore
I cannot see any reason why somebody should not have a seasonal, fixed-term contract for a particular period. We are talking about people working week after week without knowing what work they will be given. That means that they cannot plan for their caring responsibilities and so on, and as they do not know what money is coming in, they find financial planning, such as budgeting for paying their bills, difficult. This is not about somebody working on Brighton pier over the summer season, and I do not think that the situation is comparable with a zero-hours contract. Using such jobs as reasons for continuing a harmful system is not a good idea.
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend is making an important point about the retention of skills and the need to develop people to improve the economy. If there is a dislocation or distance between an employer and an employee, or if their relationship is fragmented, it is hardly conducive to building up people’s skills and the capacity of the economy.
Sheila Gilmore
That is an important point, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South said, one reason why we are not getting in the tax take we should is the huge amount of insecure short-hours employment. That is not helpful to the economy and the community. It is not just the people on those contracts who are affected.
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend is making the important point that Britain’s productivity is poor and is not helped by zero-hours or part-time contracts, which dislocate people from the workplace and from opportunities to acquire better skills.
Sheila Gilmore
And of course that feeds directly into the fact that the Government’s deficit is rising again in this financial year. That is primarily because the tax take has not been as expected, which is a serious problem. A lot of people have been told that they have to make great sacrifices so that the Government can close the deficit, but now they are told that nothing is really improving, or at least it is certainly not improving as fast as they were promised.
It is also disappointing that, when the law on zero-hours contracts is to be changed, a clear enforcement mechanism is not being built into the Bill. A lot of people do not know much about their contract of employment—and that is if they even see one, because many people do not get much chance to see a contract even when they have started a job. People need to get good information about the content of their contract and the rights that they have. We all have people coming to our surgeries for assistance and saying, “I didn’t realise that these were my terms and conditions of employment.” They might only realise when something goes wrong.
To think that people will understand that a certain clause in their contract is unlawful assumes a degree of understanding and information that a lot of people do not have, especially when they are just glad to get any job at all. They think, “That’s great, I’ve got the job”, but they do not necessarily inquire at that stage about all the problems they might face. It seems strange not to make it easier for people at least to enforce the small change that the Government are offering.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I understand and appreciate the hon. Lady’s argument, which she is making with passion, as she regularly does. Does she not recall that in one of the evidence sessions of the Public Bill Committee, the TUC, which rightly represents workers’ rights, was clear that a good number of its members are on zero-hours contracts by choice and said that it was opposed to their abolition?
Sheila Gilmore
I am sure that some people would like the Opposition to table amendments to abolish zero-hours contracts, but our position has never been to say that they should be abolished totally. The question is whether people have a genuine choice. Just as an employer can say, “I need you on Friday evening, Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning,” the employee should be able to say, “I can’t do Sunday morning. I want Monday or Tuesday instead.” The question is whether there is a genuine two-way relationship, and in a lot of circumstances there clearly is not. That shows that we have to give people protection.
Tom Blenkinsop
This is not just about zero-hours contracts. Under the amendments, an employee would be entitled to see their contract within six months of starting their employment. Often, people are not given any view of their contract, and their agreement to the terms and conditions is implied by the fact that they turn up to work. The amendments are about all contract work, not just zero-hours contracts. An employee should have the right to see their contract, and the Government should enforce that right.
Sheila Gilmore
That is an important comment, and it illustrates again the importance of giving people protection that they do not necessarily have at the moment. In a lot of situations, the employee is perforce in a much weaker position than the employer.
I fully accept that there can be circumstances in which people can find contracts such as we are discussing a useful way to live their lives, provided that they have equal bargaining power. I remain slightly unclear, however, about why people who want choice would not on the whole be better operating on a self-employed basis. There are a lot of people who have been doing regular work and who everybody knows are employees, but who cannot easily get permanent work. Some employers might find it difficult to rearrange their planning to let them have a permanent arrangement, but things seemed to operate on that basis for many years. I cannot understand why it has suddenly become so difficult for employers to manage.
Andy McDonald
The fundamental point is about choice, which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) touched on. Does my hon. Friend agree that the power has shifted enormously over the past several years? There has been an explosion in the incidence of zero-hours contracts, and the employee does not have the choice of whether they want one. It is a case of “take it or leave it”, because that is all that is available to them.
Sheila Gilmore
My hon. Friend echoes the point that I was seeking to make. If there were equality of arms and people were negotiating on an equal basis, that would be different from a situation of “take it or leave it, and be grateful for what you’re getting. Arrange your life around all the constraints.”
In many ways, the Opposition’s amendments are modest. They are not asking for huge changes, but they go beyond the miserly reforms to zero-hours contracts that the Government are offering. I think the Government want to get brownie points by saying that they are now dealing with the problem of zero-hours contracts—the Prime Minister mentioned them today—but the Bill’s provisions simply do not go far enough. I urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to consider supporting the Opposition’s amendments and strengthening the Bill’s provisions so that the Government can say that they are making a proper effort to deal with the problem.
Bill Esterson
In evidence to the Committee, Sarah Veale from the TUC said that there is a significant difference between what she called the higher end of the employment market, which is often where trade unions are organised and staff are well paid, and other areas. She stated:
“Our worry is with the unscrupulous employers who use these contracts deliberately as a means of cutting wages and having people available, the flexibility being to their advantage and not so much to the advantage of the worker”.
When talking about provisions in the Bill she said:
“A lot of work will need to be done with the regulations for this to ensure that there are no easy avoidance tactics used by unscrupulous employers.”
That is what the TUC said about what the Bill sets out to do, where the gaps are, and how much more work is needed to make it effective for staff who otherwise would be exploited.
Yesterday we talked about the impact that uncertainty has on people—whether tenants in pubs or small business owners and managers more generally—and on their communities and staff. Today we are considering people in employment, and my hon. Friend’s amendments set out how important it is to look after people who otherwise face uncertainty and difficulty as a result of low pay and everything that follows from it.
Andy McDonald
Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact of people being subjected to zero-hours contracts inhibits their ability to economically engage? It is bad for our communities and economy if people do not have that regularity of income and cannot plan for their future and families.
Bill Esterson
That is exactly my point, and I will be developing it during my speech. The lack of certainty leads to difficulties for a large number of people in our society. Whether caused by zero-hours contracts, part-time employment, general low pay, undercutting, a lack of payment or the minimum wage, bogus self-employment or, indeed, a combination of those factors, it all leads to a situation where the reality of the economic recovery is no recovery at all. I mentioned earlier that on average people are £1,600 a year worse off, and although apparently we have an economic recovery, that is not what is happening for the majority of people and their families in everyday life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) mentioned the care sector, which is important in the context of the amendments. Before she died earlier this year, my mum was looked after by some wonderful women. Two of them came at weekends to look after her, and they visited four times a day. They told me that their working weekend was, on average, 25 hours long, yet they were paid for only 10 hours. Far from getting the minimum wage, they were being paid less than half that for their work, because they did not get money for their travel time and were paid only for the 15-minute slot when they were with the vulnerable elderly or disabled person they were caring for. In addition, a draconian system was about to be introduced in which they had to phone on arrival and when they left, to ensure that their employer knew they had carried out the visit. Whose phone they were supposed to use was a matter of conjecture, and whether they were supposed to ask the householder or vulnerable person, or use their own mobile—presumably at their own cost—was not made clear. The reality was a low-paid existence for people doing one of the most important jobs that anybody can do, which is look after the most vulnerable people in our society.
Tom Blenkinsop
Proposed new section 6A(c) in amendment 8 states
“changes in provisions relating to the national minimum wage improving other measures of pay in the labour market.”
That obviously means that Labour wants better collective bargaining in workplaces. The best way of ensuring any minimum standard is to have collective bargaining on site as that would reduce the costs of enforcing the national minimum wage at a later stage. Does my hon. Friend agree that one good measure for the care sector and other small SMEs is more collective bargaining in the workplace?
Bill Esterson
That is absolutely right, and as evidence from the TUC that I mentioned earlier made clear, where we have organised workplaces, we have a better system of pay, conditions and support, and as a result better services in sectors such as the care sector.
Tom Blenkinsop
Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to have collective bargaining on site is to pay subscriptions to a trade union? Traditionally, of course, that has been done through check-off. Does he agree that the Government’s current position on check-off, as an employer of their own employees in the civil service, is a demonstration of their lack of commitment on this issue?
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point and is absolutely right to raise it in the context of this debate. It is extremely relevant to the points I have been raising, as I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker.
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend referred to the Government policy of name and shame, which I understand has been announced four times. Only 25 firms have been named, despite evidence that as many as 300,000 people in the UK earn less than the national minimum wage.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend must have been reading my speech, because I was about to make exactly that point. He has made it for me. The reality of the naming and shaming policy is that it has not worked: it has not delivered an improvement in the enforcement of the national minimum wage. If 300,000 people are being paid less than the national minimum wage, Government Members should be ashamed of that.
Mr Donohoe
Even if they were paid the minimum wage, working for three hours a week does not, in any shape or form, allow them to live, does it?
Bill Esterson
We should undoubtedly do everything we can to encourage employers to pay a much higher rate. The real level of the national minimum wage has fallen year on year. I agree that we should push employers to pay the living wage, too.
Mr Donohoe
I am talking not so much about the living wage or the minimum wage as the number of hours people work a week. People cannot pay their keep if they are not working a particular number of hours a week. Regardless of what they are being paid an hour, they need the hours. The introduction of zero-hours contracts has surely been the biggest mistake.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend rightly brings me back to zero-hours contracts and the problems and difficulties they create for people. Working a very low number of hours causes enormous hardship and difficulties: the difficulty of working an uncertain number of hours that can go up or down; the difficulty of claiming benefits to cover some of the gaps when going on and off benefits; and the difficulty in trying to navigate a system deliberately put in place by the Government to restrict what people, who are in work mostly, are paid in social security. I am glad he has made that point.
The use of agency workers, typically from eastern Europe, by companies in this country to undercut local staff is wholly unfair on the migrant workers who work for very low rates of pay and wholly unfair on local staff who are pushed out of the picture by being undercut. That is disastrous both for them and for the workers who are brought in. The knock-on effect is very damaging to the local economy too, because often any money earned, even in such low amounts, is sent back home and not spent locally and circulated around the local economy. The agencies have to be stopped. I am glad that it is Labour policy to take action to reduce the abuse perpetrated by such agencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made the point very well: good businesses want to pay decent wages, but they are undercut in so many ways that they find it difficult to do so when unscrupulous employers exploit the system. Agencies’ use of overseas staff on low rates of pay is just one of the ways in which that happens.
The Bill introduces a penalty for employers who do not pay the national minimum wage. The problem is that there will be no improvement in enforcement. I mentioned the cuts in the number of staff at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)
indicated dissent.
Bill Esterson
The Minister shakes her head. Is she telling me that I am wrong when I say that the people who used to work in this sector for HMRC in my borough and have told me they have lost their jobs and that they are not telling me the truth?
Jo Swinson
I am not telling him that his constituents are not being truthful in relation to their circumstances, but I am saying that the Government have invested more money in the enforcement of the national minimum wage. HMRC has employed more compliance officers in this area of work. I am sure that on behalf of his constituents he would wish to take up his concerns with the Treasury, but national minimum wage enforcement work has received additional investment from the Government.
Bill Esterson
I am glad the Minister has made that point. The reality is that those who used to work for HMRC would be very puzzled to hear it. Many staff working at HMRC, whose numbers have fallen in the past four-and-a-half years, would be puzzled by it, too.
The lack of improvement in enforcement is a worry, which is why our proposal to give the responsibility and power to local councils is so important. We propose the real deterrent of a £50,000 fine—the Government have not come forward with anything on that scale—and the aspiration of £8 an hour for the national minimum wage. That would move things forward significantly, while at the same time encourage the payment of a living wage.
All these low pay issues—the people who have to put up with low hours on zero-hours contracts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) pointed out; the part-time nature of many of the jobs created in recent years, which the Government are so keen to trumpet; the way in which the minimum wage is undercut; the lack of a living wage; and the fact that people are £1,600 a year worse off—show why it is so important for proper action to be taken. The national average for the number of people in work on low pay is one in five. In my constituency, two in five are paid less than a living wage. For my constituents, the issue of low pay is absolutely crucial. They are crying out for an improvement in the way the economy is balanced, so that far more people benefit from economic recovery and we see a reversal in the year-on-year fall in living standards they have suffered under this Government.
There are very high numbers of people on low pay, which—the point was made in an earlier exchange—has led to low tax receipts. That explains why the apparent improvement in the number of those in employment has not been linked to a reduction in the deficit. The deficit is now going up again, despite the draconian cuts in public spending.
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. As he will agree, the fact that unemployment is falling but tax take is flat tells us a little about employment in this country. On that basis, it is little wonder that the deficit is rising, not falling.
Bill Esterson
The economic indicators tell the story. Whatever the Government are doing and whatever is happening in the economy, for the majority of people it is not working, but it is certainly hurting. That is the reality for many of my constituents: two in five earn less than the living wage. They are hurting and finding it difficult to make ends meet—to pay their mortgages, their rent, their food bills—and many people in work are going to food banks because they cannot survive otherwise.
I was talking to a nurse the other week on the picket line outside Ashworth hospital. He felt he had no alternative, because of the dire situation he was in, but to strike for four hours over the 1% pay rise he had been denied by the Government. One per cent.—how mean can you get? When it gets to the end of the month, he has to choose between putting fuel in his car to get to work and buying food. That is how precarious an existence he and many in the country are living because of low pay.
As others have mentioned, more and more people are entering self-employment, and their position is incredibly insecure. As anyone who, like me, has run their own small business will know, there are times when money is not coming in and there is no guarantee of a wage. It is a difficult situation and one facing a growing number of people. For some, it is a choice, but many more are forced into self-employment for a variety of reasons, and it is a very insecure way of life.
With all these different forms of low pay, I am afraid that the prospects for prosperity or a recovery in living standards will not be good for many people unless we significantly change how our economy operates and the way we deal with issues such as low pay. For that reason, interventions of the kind proposed by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are important; they give support and encouragement by ensuring that the rules are enforced, that people are paid according to the law and that action is taken to improve pay.
Amendments 8 to 10 are designed to help raise the pay of the lowest paid in the country and those most affected by our low pay economy and to boost the economy in parts of the country, such as my constituency, where there is a big problem. They are designed to protect workers, enforce the law and support businesses that are being undercut and trying to do their bit. The point my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South made about his own experience in business was a great example of what a good employer should be doing—making absolutely sure they pay their staff decently. My granddad used to run a corner shop, and he said, “If you can’t afford to pay people a decent salary, you should not employ anyone.” If that was good enough for him back in the 1940s and ’50s, it should be good enough for us now. That is how good employers operate. Sadly, however, there are unscrupulous people around who will seek to take advantage where they can, so we need to take action to help the lowest-paid in our society. I hope the House will support amendments 8 to 10.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise for arriving halfway through the Front-Bench spokesman’s introduction and for having to leave soon to chair another meeting.
If the Government cannot support the amendments, perhaps they could consider the spirit in which they have been tabled. I refer in particular to amendment 8 and the annual report into the effectiveness of enforcement. I have raised this issue in the House before, and while the Minister was on maternity leave I met the Minister who stood in for her to discuss the failure to pay the minimum wage in the shipping industry, particularly on ferries to the Channel Islands. Condor Ferries is still paying £2.65 an hour. Its ships sail around the Channel Islands, so they are close to, and come to, our shores, but we still cannot get around the current legislation to ensure enforcement. An annual report could give us shared knowledge of where the minimum wage is not being paid and how we can work together to overcome the difficulties. Problems continue, and even if the amendment cannot be accepted, at least the Government could provide us with a regular report into the enforcement challenges.
On amendment 9, in January I helped to launch the fast food campaign, with the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, to lift living standards, pay and the quality of employment within the fast food sector. It covers all fast food joints operating in this country, such as McDonald’s, KFC and Costa, most of which pay the minimum wage and virtually all of which operate zero-hours contracts. I have not met a fast food worker yet who has voluntarily moved to a zero-hours contract. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who is not in his place, mentioned end-of-the-pier shows, but the entertainment sector uses fixed-term contracts, rather than just zero-hours contracts, because the latter are so capable of exploitation, victimisation and bullying, as we have found in the fast food sector in particular.
We have stood outside McDonald’s and we have tried to meet the management of McDonald’s, Costa and others to arrange discussions between the trade union, which is recruiting members in that sector, and management, but they have refused to meet and get involved in those negotiations. Recruitment has gone on and there has been some direct action. The fast food campaign will be demonstrating outside this place on Friday lunchtime to expose what is happening in the sector.
I welcome the exclusivity clauses in the Bill—they are really helpful—but even with their introduction, as amendment 9 points out, without the capability to enforce them, they will be almost meaningless. At the moment, the cost and other restrictions over who is entitled to go to an employment tribunal mean that many fast food workers and others on zero-hours contracts will never get their day in court. The amendment is not particularly challenging; it would simply require regulations making it open and transparent how people can enforce their rights. At the moment, it is almost inexplicable to people how they can be enforced.
I think that amendment 10(c), which refers to
“imposing an obligation on an employer to offer a fixed hours contract when a worker has worked regular hours for a continuous period”,
would be welcomed within the sector. Over the past year, I have been working on the fast food sector and have found people being employed on the most exploitative zero-hours contracts. We heard examples of individuals being phoned up and told to race to work to get the hours. My dad was a Liverpool docker in the 1930s. We are going back to the days when the ganger could select individual workers for the day. It means that although some will be selected, others will not, perhaps because of their trade union involvement.
One Costa worker who turned up at a public meeting I arranged had been told that he could not have hours the following week because he had not smiled enough that week. We raised that with Costa, but it was denied; the worker and his colleagues confirmed that it was true. That is the sort of exploitation that goes on. Unless we can get to a situation where we can be completely confident that a person has entered into a zero-hours contract completely voluntarily, people will be open to exploitation.
There is a sliding scale of what people want. Most people want permanent employment; others want to plan their lives over a limited period of time and would want some fixed-contract employment; and others—I think it will be a tiny minority, and not on the present scale—will want zero-hours contracts. The proposed new subsection (1A)(c) in amendment 10 therefore refers to regular employment for a continuous period. The proposed regulations could define that period of time; we could debate the practicality of that. The person should then have the opportunity of having a proper contract rather than a zero-hours contract.
I believe that the amendments are acceptable and advise everyone to vote for them, but even if they are not acceptable to the Minister, the Government need to take it into account the spirit of them. We should first ensure that we are open and transparent about the effect of the enforcement and share the problems of enforcement, so we know what the future agenda will be. Secondly, we must be completely clear that there are practical rights of enforcement. At the moment, I cannot explain to people how under the legislation as drafted we will be able to enforce their exclusivity. Thirdly, there is the issue of continuous employment, which I think needs to be tackled.
Again, all that is being suggested is that regulations should be brought forward to deal with these issues. If the Government are unwilling to accept the amendments, they could at least accept that there is an issue and that draft regulations could be brought forward, enabling the possibility of working on a cross-party basis to make some practical arrangements to protect workers from such forms of exploitation. Let me say finally that I would welcome people to join us on the fast-food demonstration at 12 o’clock on Friday.
Jo Swinson
I shall focus most of my remarks on the debate about the national minimum wage and zero-hours contracts, but I would like briefly to set out the effects of Government amendments 61 to 64, relating to the public sector exit payment measures. The measures are designed to enable the proportionate recovery of exit payments when a high-earning individual returns to the same part of the public sector shortly after their exit. The amendments are technical in nature and simply seek to clarify that the obligations can be placed on individuals who received exit payments when it is likely that they will swiftly return to the same part of the public sector.
David Rutley
I wanted the Minister to pause for a second on this issue, because it is important to recognise that this Government are taking action on something that has been going on for far too many years. Does she agree that taxpayers across the country who are concerned about these matters will understand that we have taken action so that high earners will not be taking an exit payment and then going off to another job in a few weeks’ time?
Jo Swinson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is a basic issue of fairness as well as value for money for the taxpayer. That is why this important measure is part of the Bill. The measure will allow the Government, for instance, to require a high earner who received an exit payment to make arrangements to repay the compensation before they are allowed to take up new employment in the same sub-sector of the public sector. In addition, the amendments clarify that obligations can be placed on the public sector body responsible for the exit payment and the subsequent authority that re-engages the individual as an employee, contractor, or office holder. The amendments are in line with the Government response to the consultation on these measures, which was published on 28 October. I am sure all hon. Members will agree that these amendments are an important clarification, and I look forward to support for them.
Turning to the more substantive issues, I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments in this group and for the constructive and positive debate we have had. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was unable to stay, but I thought his contribution was particularly good when he said that if we could not accept the amendments we could respond to their spirit. I very much hope to be able to do so. I shall set out why I do not think the amendments should be accepted as drafted, but I recognise the genuine concern expressed by hon. Members and we share the commitment to tackling the issues. The debate is really about the best way of doing that. It may not be through legislation, but I will explain how the Government intend to tackle the genuine issues raised.
Ian Murray
The Minister is always incredibly generous in giving way. She has explained how the reports go to the Low Pay Commission and are then reported back to this House, but our amendment asks that to be extended and to be linked to enforcement. It asks the Government to extend the living wage and to look at whether the financial penalties act as an effective deterrent. It thus goes much wider than the Low Pay Commission.
Jo Swinson
The evidence submitted in the reports is pretty comprehensive, so I think it does meet the requirements set out, particularly when combined with the assessment of the latest hourly earnings and the impact of the minimum wage and what it does to living standards and hourly earning. I think that the existing reporting requirements are adequate and that the amendment would bring about a duplication. I welcome the interest in the issue, however, and I welcome the fact that as well as those formal reporting requirements, we have had various debates—sometimes in Westminster Hall, sometimes here in the Chamber—on these issues. Furthermore, these topics are returned to frequently at BIS oral questions, and I expect that to happen tomorrow. It is right that we have these opportunities to discuss these issues because they are important.
Let me deal with some of the specifics that came up in the debate about enforcement of the national minimum wage. In particular, we heard the charge that the number of investigations had gone down and that this was some sign of failure, but I believe the picture is more nuanced than that. Since the national minimum wage was introduced and HMRC has been the enforcement body, that body has continually assessed how it undertakes enforcement activity and how it can be improved. It is true that the number of individual investigations has gone down, but that has been coupled with a much more efficient undertaking of investigations. In particular, HMRC often now has larger and more complex investigations as part of the risk assessment work being undertaken. Sometimes those cases take longer to complete, so there will be fewer overall cases. The number of people covered by each case, however, has been increasing.
In addition, when someone makes a complaint to HMRC about the national minimum wage, rather than just going in to investigate the particular worker, Joe Bloggs, and their circumstances, HMRC has the power to widen the investigation—not only to ensure that the anonymity of the complainant is preserved, but to recognise that if there are anomalies in one particular worker’s payment, it might well be the case for other workers within the organisation. It has the power to expand the investigation more widely. Although that has reduced the number of cases that have been completed, the number of workers helped and the amount of arrears recovered has increased, so that is a good thing.
The number of workers helped, for example, has risen between 2009-10 and 2013-14 by more than 17%. The average number of workers per case has nearly tripled, and the average amount of arrears per case has increased by 260%. I think that is a good news story on enforcement, particularly concerning the resources available for enforcement, about which the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) was concerned. Some 144 officers have been involved in HMRC. As a result of the additional resource dedicated by BIS—the budget has increased by £1 million to £9.2 million—a further 26 individuals have just been hired. A team of 170 is now working to ensure that there is compliance with the enforcement of the national minimum wage. It is clear from the figures that that significant increase in resources has already been delivering, and it will continue to deliver.
Bill Esterson
I am pleased that the Minister has given us those figures, but if so many people are involved, why have so few employers been named and shamed under the Government’s policy? The numbers do not seem to stack up.
Jo Swinson
So far 30 employers have been named and shamed, and, as I said in Committee, there will be a further tranche of naming and shaming shortly.
The previous system was much more permissive in terms of the number of cases in which naming could operate. Until the new rules were introduced, only one employer had been named over a period of many years. We introduced those rules on 1 October 2013, but they did not operate retrospectively, and hence applied only to investigations that began on or after that date. The previous criteria apply to the many current investigations that began before 1 October 2013, and in those cases employers are much less likely to be named. Many other investigations began on or after 1 October 2013 and are still ongoing, so the final stage of the issuing of a notice of underpayment and the consequent ability to name and shame has not been reached.
As I think has been recognised, the numbers are already increasing, but given that this is a new scheme, it is inevitable that they will start small and become larger as cases work their way through the system.
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Minister will recall that, in Committee, I raised the issue of umbrella companies, in which people who may be receiving relatively high wages are, for a variety of reasons, subject to spurious deductions that take their earnings below the national minimum wage. Does the Minister think that the HMRC enforcement team could look into that as well?
Jo Swinson
The enforcement team can look into any breach of the national minimum wage, and it can enforce notices of underpayment in the case of spurious deductions. That applies even to deductions that would not be problematic if someone were being paid significantly above the national minimum wage. Some contracts suggest that employees pay for their own uniforms if they are paid significantly more than the national minimum wage; that does not necessarily get employers into trouble with the law, but in some cases it does. Obviously it is necessary to ensure that HMRC’s calculations are right, and that it has all the necessary evidence. Sometimes it takes a little time to ensure that the whole process is followed correctly, which is why cases are still working through the system.
Bill Esterson
I do not remember whether the Minister gave these figures in Committee, but she said a few moments ago that 30 companies had been named and shamed. Does she accept that up to 300,000 staff are affected, and if she does, can she tell us how many of them are employed by those 30 companies?
Jo Swinson
I think that the hon. Gentleman is comparing apples with oranges. According to the most recent estimate, the number of employees who are paid less than the national minimum wage is lower than 300,000—about 236,000, I believe. I stress that that is an estimate. Obviously we do not have data on every single person in the country; such estimates are based on surveys. The figure of 30 companies is not an annual figure; those are cases that have been completed since the new rules came into force.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of cases in which the national minimum wage law has been found to have been breached are being named and shamed once the notices of underpayment have been issued. Obviously there is still a job to be done: people must be informed about how they can ensure that their rights are being properly enforced. Let me say yet again that if people fear that they are not being paid the national minimum wage when they should be, they should ring the pay and work rights helpline, which is a free service and totally confidential. The number is 0800 917 2368, and I shall continue to take every opportunity to publicise it, because it is important for people to know that they can receive advice on a confidential basis and then make a complaint if they decide to do so.
Local authorities have been mentioned. I think it right that HMRC works in partnership with authorities—with some success—to ensure that enforcement happens, but I also think it right for there to be a national enforcement body. The issue of social care has been raised, along with the issue of travel time, which is well documented. Travel time, other than the times involved in travel to and from work at the beginning and end of the day, needs to be included in the national minimum wage. We are well aware of that, and HMRC is enforcing it.
We know that there are issues in the care sector. That is why targeted enforcement was carried out, and why my colleagues at the Department of Health have been working closely with local authorities to produce guidance to ensure that they contract providers who can provide quality care, along with fair terms and conditions for their work force. Authorities should not be pricing contracts at a level that prevents their basic national minimum wage obligations from being met.
Amendments 9 and 10 concern zero-hours contracts. We have already discussed the question of whether or not they are sometimes a good thing. It was the former Member of Parliament for Sedgefield, Tony Blair, who said, on 3 October 1995,
“There will be an end to zero-hours contracts.”
However, the Labour Government did not deliver that, perhaps because there are people for whom such arrangements work well, as we heard from the TUC during the evidence session in Committee.
While there are undoubtedly problems with zero-hours contracts, and I do not wish to dismiss them, I think it important to introduce some perspective to the debate. Last year the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development conducted a survey to establish what was happening on the ground, and produced a report. It found that zero-hours contract workers were just as satisfied with their jobs as the average United Kingdom employee, that they were happier with their work-life balance, and that they were less likely to feel that they were being treated unfairly by their organisations.
Mr Iain Wright
Does the Minister think that the significant increase in the number of zero-hours contracts over the last four years is a positive or a negative development—or is it just a sign of a flexible employment market?
Jo Swinson
It certainly is a sign of a flexible employment market, which is good for the UK economy. It ensures that we are able to have a stronger economy and increased prosperity. As for whether a zero-hours contract is a good thing, that depends on individual circumstances. There are plenty of people for whom such contracts work well and plenty of people who are happy with them, but I entirely recognise that there are plenty of people who are not happy, and that there are employers who are not behaving as they should.
Some of those issues arose in the consultation on exclusivity, which is why we inserted the clauses that we are discussing. Other issues arose from it as well, and we agree that those too need to be addressed. The Opposition tabled amendments 9 and 10, and I welcome their contribution to the debate. We have argued that it is better to ensure that we can work with industry, sector by sector, in producing guidance on what constitutes responsible use of zero-hours contracts, so that employers are clearer about how they should be using them and employees can know what it is reasonable for them to expect.
Ian Murray
If the Minister thinks that there is no problem with zero-hours contracts, can she explain why the tax take from income is flat but unemployment has fallen by 500,000?
Jo Swinson
Various issues affect the tax take and employment, not least the amounts that people are earning, For instance, if people are working for fewer hours, they will pay less income tax, because there will be more people within the tax threshold. That said, we are proud of the fact that we have raised the threshold. I campaigned hard for that in the last Parliament, and I am delighted that we have delivered it.
The hon. Gentleman accused me of saying that there was no problem with zero-hours contracts. Of course we accept that there is a problem with them. That is why we have produced legislative proposals, which, despite the promises of the former Labour party leader Tony Blair, his party did not manage to do when it was in government.
Amendment 9 is intended to ensure that zero-hours contract workers have a route to redress to enforce the rights in clause 145. I recognise the serious point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but, as I reassured him in Committee, that is already possible through the order-making power in new section 27B. His amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Ian Murray
I am grateful to the Minister for answering some of the questions but, on amendment 8, it is not clear that the Low Pay Commission has the remit to look at enforcement of the national minimum wage to ensure that that is working properly; to ensure that the financial penalties are a deterrent; and to ensure that there is a greater link with the living wage. Therefore, I would like to test the will of the House on amendment 8.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I would like to start by thanking all hon. Members who have contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill, both in Committee and on Report. There has been considerable consensus and agreement on many of the measures, and I welcome the support from Members on both sides of the House for our doing everything we can to improve the environment for small businesses. It is a clear goal of this Government to make Britain the best place in the world to start and grow a business, and this Bill, the first of its kind, will make a significant contribution to that. Small businesses make a huge contribution to the UK, accounting for around half of UK jobs and a third of private sector turnover, and they are vital to our prosperity and to the UK economy.
The Bill strengthens and improves the way in which regulation is dealt with in government. We have introduced the one-in, one-out and the one-in, two-out approaches to regulatory management, and these have delivered over £1.5 billion of savings per year to businesses since January 2011. I am delighted that there has been support for enshrining the principles of transparent regulatory management in legislation through the regulatory reform measures.
The Bill makes significant inroads into improving the business environment for small businesses even further while also, crucially, providing new protections for the employees who lie at the heart of our recovery. For the first time, we have addressed the abuses of zero-hours contracts. Despite Labour’s promises going back 20 years, no action was taken. Now, however, we have passed legislation to address exclusivity in zero-hours contracts.
Ian Murray
Will the Minister tell the House how he can enforce the provisions on exclusivity clauses?
Matthew Hancock
Thanks to the Bill, exclusivity clauses will no longer be valid; they will be null and void. The Opposition promised to do this in opposition last time around, they did nothing about it for 13 years and now they witter on about impractical solutions, whereas this Government are interested in making changes that will improve the labour market. I am proud that we are doing this at the same time as increasing the number of jobs in this economy to record levels.
Andy McDonald
The Minister has not said how he is going to enforce this. How will it be enforced—will he answer, please?
Matthew Hancock
As I said, not only will any exclusivity clause be null and void, but we are consulting on those powers. If the hon. Gentleman actually wanted to get into the detail of trying to sort this out, he would know that that consultation was happening—perhaps he will even respond to it. One thing that happened during the passage of this Bill was that it became clear that the Labour party had not been engaged in any of the consultations about any of the improvements we are making. Instead of making partisan points, we are making it easier to do business and to employ people, and we are strengthening people’s rights where their employment contracts are abused, but doing so in a way that can allow small businesses to continue to grow, employ and take people on.
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
The Minister is trumpeting getting rid of the exclusivity clauses as a marvellous thing, but how does it help workers if, instead of having one zero-hours contract with one employer, they end up with several zero-hours contracts with several employers? That does not get to the heart of the problem, which is the abuse of workers on zero-hours contracts.
Matthew Hancock
The heart of the problem is that for 13 years the Labour party, having promised to do something about this issue, did absolutely nothing about it. Tackling this issue is about making sure we remove the abusive practices while also supporting the flexible labour market to ensure that people can get jobs altogether. Our reforms demonstrate that we can both deal with the abusive practices—for example, by tackling people who do not pay the national minimum wage and tackling the abuse of zero-hours contracts—and have a jobs recovery. The best way to help people is to make sure they have access to a job.
I am glad that on Second Reading the Bill had all-party support and that, throughout, we have had more than enough time to consider the issues—indeed, we have had time to spare. The fairness and transparency agenda that is also a crucial part of the Bill is all about making sure that businesses that do the right thing are not undercut by those that do not.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I recognise the importance of the initiatives set out in part 8. Does the Minister recognise that, consistent with his observation about making sure there is proportionality, before any regulations relating to part 8 are drawn up, careful consultation should take place with those directly affected in the financial sectors and, in particular, great attention should be given to the security risks that might arise if a register is held online?
Matthew Hancock
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Improving transparency internationally is important in ensuring that we tackle crime and have a system that people trust, but we have to introduce things in a way that supports legitimate business, does not put undue burdens on business and is secure in terms of the data held. The points he makes are important.
We have increased parliamentary scrutiny of the business impact target—the target for regulatory reduction. We heard in Committee that the Labour party would make no commitment to tackle the burden of regulation on business, whereas we have our one-in, two-out rule. We are ensuring that the targets and the associated metrics will have to be laid before Parliament when they are set or amended. We have also changed the Secretary of State’s powers on administration sales to connected parties and certain elements of the register of people with significant control, so that they are now subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, not the negative one.
We have also introduced new topics during the Bill’s passage, making it easier for small businesses to access finance. Research suggests that 71% of small businesses approach only one finance provider. Our change will ensure that those who want to do so, having been rejected by their bank, can have their details passed on, to encourage greater competition among finance providers. One problem was that there were few different finance providers—the number of banks had shrunk over the past couple of decades—but now, thankfully, the competition is very successfully coming back into the market for finance.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister has covered this before, but it is worth saying again that one big problem for small businesses comes when the larger companies do not pay up on time and they then get a cash-flow problem.
Matthew Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is dead right about that and he anticipates my next paragraph. We have also strengthened measures to support prompt payment, acting both to increase transparency, so that when companies do not pay on time that is made clear, and to strengthen public sector prompt payment so that the sector can lead by example. I am grateful for that intervention.
We have also included a new clause on home businesses to remove the incentive, dating from a very old Act of Parliament, for landlords to prohibit tenants from operating a business from home. Home businesses are the hotbed of enterprise; 70% of new businesses are started at home, and we want to make it easier for that to happen. We have also strengthened support for the early-years pupil premium to help three and four-year-olds from less well-off backgrounds by amending the Bill to enable Departments to disclose to local authorities information on eligibility, while ensuring that unlawful disclosure of such data continues to be an offence.
Questions were raised in Committee about the scrutiny of complaints handling procedures in the financial services sector, so we have introduced a measure to require the independent complaints commissioners to produce an annual assessment of complaints handling. That will ensure that processes are fair and accessible to all complainants, including small business.
Finally, on pubs, the Government have listened and responded to the concerns about the burdens the measures would place on family brewers and removed these smaller companies from the scope of the code during the passage of the Bill. Yesterday, we saw the House express its will, and we will reflect on that vote during the Bill’s further passage.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Is the Minister not being a little disingenuous to suggest that the Government have listened to what the Committee said, because they voted against the Committee on the family brewers issue and indeed yesterday they tabled another amendment to try to defeat the will of the House on that matter? Is not the truth that the Government have realised this is a battle they cannot win and they have given in?
Matthew Hancock
No. As the hon. Gentleman knows, no amendments were moved yesterday on family brewers. We will reflect on the vote on the larger pubcos and the mandatory free-of-tie option as the Bill continues its passage in the other place.
Bill Esterson
The Minister says he is going to reflect on the vote, with the will of the House being the market rent only option. I know he has spent his time apologising to the Prime Minister for losing that vote, but perhaps I may press him on the point. This will be taken to the House of Lords. Is he going to try to overturn the will of the elected House or not?
Matthew Hancock
As I have said, the House has made its position clear and we will reflect on that vote ahead of consideration in the other place. That is a very clear exposition of the position.
On the question of how we can ensure that Britain can compete in the future, that we can support businesses and the jobs and prosperity that they bring, that this country is the best place in the world in which to start and grow a business, and that we make things as easy as possible for all those who have the spark of an idea and want to turn it into commercial reality, I say that there have been few Governments in history that have done more for small businesses than this one. For the first time in modern history, we are on track to reduce the burden of domestic regulation—something that was never achieved by the Labour party. With these measures in the Bill adding to a multitude of others that have already been taken, we are doing all we can to support the British people and to ensure that we have a long-term economic plan that can secure for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and for families across the country, the prosperity that we all want to see.
Toby Perkins
I echo the Minister’s thanks to everyone who has contributed to the surprising and interesting passage of this Bill. I thank my shadow ministerial colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), and all the other members on our team who have contributed to the valuable scrutiny of some very important measures. The Bill posed a number of questions and challenges for the Government, and I look forward to investigating and exploring the extent to which they have been delivered.
I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), for her work—the Minister did not get the opportunity to thank her in his contribution—and all the other Members who contributed to an interesting Committee stage.
When we first saw this Bill, it was our strong belief that it was jammed full of missed opportunities. It confronted many of the big questions that people in our constituencies raise. I am talking here about late payments, zero-hours contracts, the minimum wage, insolvency and how our insolvency regimes works, and how we can provide more support to parents in the form of child care. It also addressed this key question of the relationship between pub companies and their tenants, and the Government’s role in all that.
On Second Reading, I said that this House had the chance to pass a small business Bill that did not miss out on many of those key opportunities, and I must say now that we did rather better than I expected, especially on the subject of pub companies. We can be satisfied that, as a Committee, we made progress in some of those areas. What we need is not soundbites on a long-term economic plan, but a Government who deliver on that plan and support a skills-based economy in which people go to work knowing that they can afford to pay their bills at the end of the working week. We want real investment in high-quality apprenticeships and good relationships between businesses in which we can all have confidence. I am talking there about the thorny subject of late payments and the relationship between pub companies and their tenants. This Bill leaves this House having missed out on a whole score of opportunities, but it is none the less stronger than it was at the outset, so the Committee and indeed the whole House must take great credit for that.
Labour has demonstrated real leadership in supporting small businesses through the course of this Bill. The fact that the Government agreed with the spirit behind many of our amendments, but not the specific wording, suggests that we were indeed on the right lines. I am glad that we managed to secure some concessions from the Government in a few of those areas, and the Bill is much the stronger for it.
Mr Jim Cunningham
I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the test of this Bill will be in its implementation. We want to see what happens with things such as low pay and zero-hours contracts. We hear fine words in the House, but it is what happens out there that is important, because there is a great deal of insecurity at the moment.
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right. Let me take this opportunity to say that he is a fine MP, and I know that because he is my father’s MP. My father speaks very warmly about his contribution. The last point my hon. Friend made was typical of him. He is speaking up for a city, with a varied post-industrial economy and a proud manufacturing history. Its university is one of the most important in the country, and a massive employer in his constituency.
Mr Cunningham
I thank my hon. Friend for paying such a compliment to Coventry. In the last recession, during the Thatcher years, we lost thousands of jobs in the motor car trade. We learned a lesson from that, because we diversified. More importantly though, we still have the development centre for Jaguar Land Rover and the university technical college, which is due to take off any day now.
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to trumpet the manufacturing excellence of his city and Jaguar Land Rover. We are delighted that Mike Wright from JLR is producing a review for the Labour party, as he is a much-respected figure. For our economy to work in the long term, it is incredibly important that we have a real skill base. I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point. I am also pleased that he talked about the lessons that we learned from the industrial vandalism of the 1970s which that had appalling consequences for his city. None of us will forget the song “Ghost Town” that was written by the Coventry band The Specials. It reflected precisely that sense of desolation when industries disappeared. He is right to say that the city has learned lessons from that. To repay the debt, we must ensure that we never make the same mistakes again, which is why Labour is coming forward with an economic strategy that is based on skill and on competing with high-wage and successful world economies. We are not even attempting to be part of this race to the bottom or to scrap with the developing world on who can be the cheapest employer. What we are saying is that we need to look again at the way that our economy works.
Mr Cunningham
Interestingly, when Coventry city council joined with the university of Warwick to set up a business park, we were heavily criticised by the then Conservative Government. Two years down the road, it is clear that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Creating business parks was the way to go, and we did it in Coventry.
Toby Perkins
I could not agree more. That is an example of how Government and industry can work together to build the high-skill, high-wage economy that we want, which is in stark contrast to the kind of economy that has developed under this Government. My parents worked at Warwick university, and if we compare the size of that university in the ’70s, when I first came to the area, with its size today, we see the real difference that investment can make.
Gordon Birtwistle
Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that the advances in apprenticeships and high-tech skills that the coalition Government are delivering represent progress from the previous 15 or 20 years. The number of apprentices is approaching 2 million, and many companies in the aerospace, automotive and oil sectors have jumped on the fact that we need such skills to be delivered. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that progress has been made, or is he still thinking back to the days of Thatcher 30 years ago?
Toby Perkins
I accept that some progress has been made. There was a real rebirth in apprenticeships over the second half of the previous Government’s time in office and the current Government have said a lot about apprenticeships. However, I was disappointed that they did not support our amendments on apprenticeships, and people will feel short-changed because the Bill represented a real opportunity for the Government to take substantive steps on apprenticeships.
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that many employers recognise the importance and value of apprenticeships. However, the number of under-19 apprenticeships is falling, and there has been a big increase in the rebadging of programmes that were previously known as back-to-work schemes as apprenticeships. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind me saying that he was the oldest new Member of the 2010 generation. Older workers are incredibly important, as is demonstrated by the vigour with which he performs his tasks, and no one would describe him as an apprentice, but many older workers with a huge amount to offer our economy are being classified as though they are apprentices.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman talked about the need to tackle the problem of low-wage jobs. Today’s report by the Office for National Statistics indicates that workers in Wales earn an average of £473.40 a week, whereas the UK average is £518 and the London average is £660.50. How would a future Labour Government tackle that wage inequality?
Toby Perkins
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am glad that Members can cite important statistics by the ONS in the Chamber, given the importance of our having statistical accuracy which we have heard about.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, we have a commitment on the living wage for businesses involved in major Government contracts, as well as to increasing the minimum wage to £8 by 2020. We also have a broader commitment to a skills-based economy in which we can create jobs that deliver wages that people can live on, as ultimately that is what will make the biggest difference to increasing wages, rather than the use of Government regulation as a silver bullet.
The small business community took pleasure from the arrival of a small business Bill. We give the Government credit for bringing forward a Bill with the words “Small Business” in its title, as such businesses have been overlooked in recent years. However, sadly, the opportunity to include in the Bill many of the measures that we proposed to benefit small business has passed us by. Provision on late payments is a classic example, as the Government had a real opportunity to support a late payment plan that would ensure that the onus to pursue payment—eventually through the courts, but initially through invoicing—was removed from small businesses that are owed money. Despite the sensible evidence that the Committee heard from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), among others, about why small businesses do not pursue their big business customers, the Government did not support our measure, which was backed by the Forum of Private Business and the Federation of Small Businesses, and would have been a significant step forward. However, on a more positive note, the Government talked yesterday about how they could strengthen the prompt payment code and ensure that businesses with payment terms of longer than 60 days would not be considered to be prompt payers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) considers giving way, I must point out to him that this is an extremely short debate, that he has had plenty of time to speak over the past two days, that many Members in the Chamber have not spoken on the Bill at all in those two days, and that he has spoken for longer than the Minister. However, I leave it up to the hon. Gentleman; he has the floor.
Toby Perkins
Of course I take your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall attempt to crack on but, as we said yesterday, the programme order gives us a pathetically short period of time to debate the Bill.
Toby Perkins
I shall give way in a moment.
Indeed, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) tabled amendments, but he did not even have the opportunity—
Toby Perkins
I can see you, but I am saying something at the moment. The hon. Member for Huntingdon wished to move an amendment—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. This is not the moment for discussing the programme order. We have very little time left in which to consider this important Bill, and the hon. Gentleman must stick to his Third Reading points—briefly.
Toby Perkins
I think that that rather makes my point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
At the start of the Bill’s passage, our objectives were clear—[Interruption.] The Minister for Business and Enterprise is getting angry now. I appreciate that he has had a pretty difficult couple of days, but he should have been apologising last night not to the Prime Minister, but to all the publicans he was trying to get in the way of and all the people he has let down. He turned up late to the start of the Bill’s proceedings in Committee and its passage has been a shambles. If this is his Churchillian way of taking measures through Parliament, he should have spent a little more time at the knee of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he might have learned a little more.
Toby Perkins
Frankly, the right hon. Gentleman is the one who ought to be a bit embarrassed.
Let me continue by talking about pub companies. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber for much of yesterday’s debate, but had he been, he would have realised why we were able to convince people that the Government’s proposals on pub companies did not go nearly far enough and that real change was needed. It is a matter of tremendous pride that we were able to convince hon. Members on both sides of the House to express their will in support of the market rent only option. The Minister’s attitude and the approach that he is taking demonstrate how the Government have lost all the arguments on that. I am glad to see that they are not going to try to bring the family brewers back into the scope of the measure, even though he is wrong to say that no amendment was withdrawn yesterday. A series of amendments were withdrawn yesterday that would have attempted to bring the family brewers back in. I hope he reflects carefully before attempting to change in another place something that was the will of this House.
Tom Blenkinsop
On a slightly different note, I wanted to raise one factor that was highlighted to me. There has not been one speech or one single contribution from a Scottish nationalist during the entire—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. That is not a point for Third Reading. I asked the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) to be brief because there are people who have had no chance to speak in this debate. I trust that what the Chair says will be listened to.
Toby Perkins
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) was making an important point, but I accept your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We have come to the end of the Bill. We look forward to it coming back here. It has been strengthened in respect of prompt payment and includes the market rent only option and a pubs code that the industry has demanded for many years, but we have not seen serious action on zero hours. We have seen a Government at the fag-end of their time in power doing the least they could on the question of zero hours, which shows their lack of commitment to dealing with the issue. None the less, the Bill leaves Report stronger than it arrived, and the House should be very proud of that.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I declare my interests as they appear in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
On Second Reading I raised my concerns about the provisions in clause 75 and part 7, and related issues in part 8 and schedule 3, to set up a register of people with significant control—in effect, a register of beneficial ownership. I questioned whether they would have benefit in terms of countering illegal activity or investigating tax evasion, even if this was at the triple cost of loss of privacy, increasing the regulatory burden on companies and threatening investment in British companies. Since that time, my concerns that we are doing the wrong thing have increased, not reduced.
I am sorry not to have been given time to speak to my tabled amendments. It is of concern also that the issue of privacy was not raised by any amendments tabled in Committee, with the honourable exception of the wise remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) in the stand part debate. He raised the key question: how many of the 22.5 million English companies is it actually suspected may be subject to some wrongdoing that could be tackled by these proposals? This question has yet to be answered by the Minister or anyone else. I respectfully suggest that this is not the proper process for encouraging investment or portraying this Government as business-friendly.
The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), replied in Committee that the impact assessments undertaken indicated that
“our proposed measures are lawful, necessary and proportionate”––[Official Report, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Bill Committee, 30 October 2014; c. 423.]
So I went through the impact assessment, and I cannot find such justification at all. In fact, it is by some way the weakest case I have ever read in an impact assessment. For instance, the impact assessment makes it clear that there exists little or no data or academic literature quantifying the proposition that a reduction in crime will follow as a result of a register of people with significant control.
My prediction is that these part 7, clause 75 and schedule 3 provisions will not work. In many instances there will be confusion as to who or what is a shareholder with significant control—for instance, in terms of family holdings, let alone complicated trusts, with expensive advice then required. The proposed data collection method is based on self-reporting, with no verification mechanism, which could make it easy, especially for non-resident shareholders, to misreport or simply to give the shares to someone else to hold.
For the purpose of this debate, let us take as our starting point the G8 agreement that companies should know who their shareholders are. I repeat: companies—not commercial competitors, NGOs, direct marketers, spammers or providers of financial services looking for clients, let alone criminals, fraudsters and all the others who could use or misuse information provided under these provisions.
Now we have the further G20 communiqué proposing a crackdown on secret shell companies. However, this was not accompanied by a call for share registers to be made public. So how did we get from the narrow G8 and G20 proposals to what we have in the Bill?
Robert Neill
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case and I very much agree with him. Is it not significant that on the back of the G7 discussions these proposals might be extended to the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies, many of which are already well in advance of most other jurisdictions on transparency on an international scale?
Mr Djanogly
That may be the case, but it has not been said in public.
There is a hint in the impact assessment that, amazingly, provides only two alternatives—do nothing and rely on voluntary campaigns, or jump all the way to the Bill provisions and propose company registers, with companies reporting annually to Companies House. But why does the impact assessment not review more focused registration regimes? That will now need to be addressed in the other place.
This is not an academic issue. In particular, there seems to have been a wholesale disregard for the material impact that these provisions will have on privacy. People can buy assets privately unless the asset is public, such as a listed stock. They may not want other people to know what they own; they may have cultural, security or even religious-based concerns about people knowing that they own part of a company. What evidence do the Government offer in the impact assessment to justify destroying this right of privacy? Very little.
As for the increase in the regulatory burden, the impact assessment talks of implementation costs on companies and ongoing costs. It also says that the costs to people who need to register their interests cannot be ascertained, and those are the same people who may have to take expensive advice.
Investment in British companies is also threatened. The impact assessment methodology is again flawed, because it looks at the quantity of companies affected, not the quality. In other words, one lost huge Chinese investor deciding not to use or invest in an English company could be very damaging to UK plc, even if a thousand single-owner tiny companies say that this measure will not impact upon them. Again, the impact assessment does not support the Government’s contention that they remain convinced that this reform will be good for business and the UK business environment. What the IA actually says is:
“There is a risk that we have not accurately accounted for this potential impact on overseas investment in the UK and UK competitiveness . . . particularly since the UK will likely be a ‘first mover.’”
One has to ask why we should be the first mover, with associated risks as we claw ourselves away from recession.
And here’s the rub: foreign companies will not have to keep this register, which means that British people who legitimately wish to retain their privacy will be forced not to use English companies, but to use, say, Irish or British Virgin Islands ones instead. As always, it will be the relatively small, unsophisticated businessman who bears the weight of regulation aimed at catching drug smugglers, which I suggest these proposals will fail to do anyway.
Looking at this Bill as it goes to the other place, I would consider abolishing the need for companies to file annual returns of their PSCs—that is, returns that will be outdated within five minutes of being filed. Accepting that the company PSC register is instigated to comply with the G8 and G20 requirements, if the company does not wish to release the PSC register voluntarily, the applicant should have to ask the court for access. I suggest that the proper purpose grounds for access should be restricted to national security, personal safety issues and tax investigations.
In this way Government crime and tax agencies would be able to make their inquiries, but the registers would still protect privacy for those companies that wished to respect this right. At the same time, the unjustified costs and regulation of keeping the central register would be abolished and foreign investors would not be put off investing in the UK. Finally, investors, especially British investors, would be saved the irrationality of having to trade through UK branches of foreign companies in order to retain their privacy rights. There is time for the other place to review these provisions, and I hope it does so.
Matthew Hancock
Given that there will be no winding-up speeches in this debate, I would like to say for the record that many of the points that my hon. Friend has made, and made eloquently, will be considered in the consultation and, no doubt, in the other place. The key is to deliver on the agreements we have made internationally, and to do so in a business-friendly way. There are reassurances we can give on some of those points, and I know that he is meeting the Minister responsible in due course. I hope that gives him some satisfaction.
Mr Djanogly
I am very pleased indeed to hear that confirmation from the Minister. I look forward to having further meetings and seeing progress, because I can assure the House that there is a lot of concern about these provisions out there in the country, and it needs to be listened to.
Bill Esterson
The Bill has the words “Small Business” firmly in the title, but the measures it introduces also cover employment. We did not discuss what the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) talked about at all, but a strong theme running through much of what we did talk about was the insecurity that is endemic in our society today, whether for small businesses or in employment. The question that I do not think has been answered in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading is whether the measures in the Bill will address that insecurity.
We had some very good debates on pub companies, and an amendment that will help family brewers was made in Committee. That will go a long way towards helping that sector. Then we had yesterday’s fantastic decision by the House to support the market rent only option, which Members across the House and many outside have long campaigned for. I know that Elaine Lynch of the Weld Blundell in Lydiate will be one of many publicans in my constituency who will welcome that decision.
Another issue we debated long and hard, including on Report, was late payment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said, we will have to wait and see whether the Bill makes a difference in practice. One in five business failures are the result of late payment. Some £39.4 billion in late payments, or £38,000 on average, is overdue to small businesses. The Government have missed an opportunity by not supporting our amendment on an automatic 8% charge on late payments. As the Forum of Private Business has stated, that would have made a significant difference and gone a long way towards reducing the time and cost that small firms spend chasing late payments, allowing them to concentrate on growing their business and creating jobs.
I think that opportunities have been missed with regard to employment, zero-hours contracts, the exploitation of workers and abuse of the national minimum wage. The Government have promised to do things without actually putting measures in the Bill. We will have to wait and see whether they make a difference or not. In my constituency, 40% of workers are paid less than the living wage. Across the country that is a huge problem for many people and their families, whether as the result of the growth in part-time work, zero-hours contracts or bogus forms of self-employment. The reality is that the change in the nature of employment and the growth in low pay are fundamental reasons why the deficit has gone up, despite the Government’s claim that they would get it down, because tax receipts are not being collected. That is the reality of what life is like—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman to be brief. I trust that he will listen to the Chair.
Bill Esterson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I made that point because the Bill was an opportunity to tackle some of the problems at the heart of our economy, to build an economy that works for small businesses and for ordinary people, and I do not think that the Government have come anywhere near that. That is why we need a Labour Government to support small business and people on low pay. This Bill is a missed opportunity. I hope that the Government can deliver on some of the things they said in Committee and on Report, but we will have to wait and see.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
In the short time remaining I will make only a few points and post the rest of my speech online. This is an ambitious Bill. The Government have, for the first time, legislated specifically for small business, which will strengthen the recovery and see further support directed to Stratford’s job creators.
On procurement, the Labour party left office with only 6.5% of public procurement going to small and medium-sized businesses. Not only were smaller firms denied a chance to compete on a level playing field, but the taxpayer was denied value for money. The Bill will put that right.
Next, and crucially for businesses in my constituency, the Bill contains important measures on access to finance. Everyone agrees on the need for more competition in the business lending market. The Bill will open that market. Banks will be required to refer businesses to other providers and, crucially, business lending data will be available for new challengers. This is about making sure that finance keeps up with the economic recovery.
Alongside access to capital, the Bill addresses cash flow through, in particular, measures to create a more responsible payment culture. The payment practices of all large companies will now be published, the prompt payment code will be strengthened, and the public sector will lead by example.
Opposition Day
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 421 / Noes: 29 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House endorses the Government’s formal application to rejoin 35 European Union Justice and Home Affairs measures, including the European Arrest Warrant.
This is a very clear motion. In fact, it is a bit of a Ronseal motion—it does what it says on the tin. It means that today we can support 35 measures, not just 11, and it includes the three words that we were promised: “European Arrest Warrant”. It includes other measures, too: football banning orders, confiscation orders, joint investigation teams, criminal records sharing, and border information sharing so that we can secure our borders. Those are important measures, because crime does not stop at our borders—criminals do not stop when they get to the channel. I had hoped that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary would be able to sign the motion, but the Home Secretary has written to me to say that she will vote for it. I am glad that she has decided to support our motion, although it would of course have been so much easier if she had just been straightforward in the first place.
This motion is almost exactly the same as the one tabled in the House of Lords. While we got to vote on only 11 measures, the other place was offered a vote on all 35. Here is the revealing statement by the Minister in the Lords:
“the Government have amended the Motion to put beyond doubt that we see tonight’s debate and decision…as on the whole package of 35 measures that the Government will seek to rejoin in the national interest.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 328.]
While we were denied our chance to vote in the elected Commons on the European arrest warrant, the Government decided to assuage the doubts of the House of Lords. They decided to do that last Tuesday. Just 24 hours after the mess in the House of Commons, they decided to change the motion in the Lords—so why not do it for us?
I will give way to the Home Secretary if she can give us any good reason why she did not come back to this House last week and table a new motion, as she had in the other place. She was prepared to do it there, so why not come and do it here? No reason is being given. We were happy to do it for her, however, because she promised us a vote on the European arrest warrant. She said that the vote will be
“on the whole package of 35 measures—including the Arrest Warrant”.
The Prime Minister promised us a vote on the European arrest warrant. He said that
“we are going to have a vote…before the Rochester by-election”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 301.]
We understand that the Home Secretary has a rather contemptuous view of the Prime Minister’s promises. He promised democracy in policing; she delivered 13% turnouts. He promised, “no ifs, no buts”, that he would meet his net migration target. The net migration target is going right back up, and the Home Secretary said that it was not a promise, but a “comment”. Labour Members are glad to be able to help the Prime Minister to meet his promises to the British Parliament. It looks as though we are doing a rather better job than the Home Secretary of helping him to meet his promises.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
Look, some of us kind of lost the will to live on all this last week, and I think if we go through all this procedural stuff again today we will seriously lose the will to live. I think we have all had our fun. Will the shadow Home Secretary now move on to the substance of the European arrest warrant so that we can sort it once and for all, have a vote, and go home? I think we would all be grateful if we could just do that.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Home Secretary has deprived him of his will to live, so I feel sorry for him, but he is right that we need to get on to the huge amount of substance in this debate.
I must say that the most startling thing of all in the chaos of last week’s debate was not the betrayal of promises or even the contempt for Parliament, but seeing the Chief Whip and the Home Secretary having to sit next to each other on the Government Front Bench and having to talk to each other for a change.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise that the intervention by the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) was not to thank her for giving the House the opportunity to demonstrate the good faith of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister said—quite clearly, I think—that there would be a vote on a specific measure, so I look forward to interventions by Conservative Members thanking her for giving them such an opportunity, not passing that over as if it had never been said.
Yvette Cooper
I am sure that Conservative Members are all deeply grateful to us, which is why they have come to the Chamber to join the debate today.
We still do not know whether it was the Chief Whip or the Home Secretary who made so much of a mess of last week. In June, the Chief Whip said of the Home Secretary that she
“lacked intellectual firepower and quick wit”.
He said that “she has no friends”, and with amazing prescience, he said that
“she can’t even gain the support of her colleagues”.
That makes two of them, because the Chief Whip is on a roll. He nearly lost a vote—he came within 10 votes of doing so—last week. The man who is supposed to be working the bars of Westminster lost a vote on pubs this week. The man who is supposed to be holding the parliamentary Conservative party together has managed to mislay two MPs. When he was appointed, he said that his new job was
“to ensure the right people are in the right place”.
It is just a shame that they were in the wrong Lobby.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I appreciate that the right hon. Lady is making some very important and interesting points, but I should remind her, lest she stray too far, that the motion is about the Government’s formal application to rejoin 35 European justice and home affairs measures. I am sure that she will address her remarks to the motion.
Yvette Cooper
You are exactly right, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is in fact the debate that we should have had last week. It is a debate about 35 different measures, including the European arrest warrant. It covers the 11 measures that we voted for last time, but also the 24 measures on which we did not have the chance to vote last time.
Those measures include a series of different things. We need the supervision order, under which a UK national could spend time in the UK pending trial, rather than in a foreign jail, to rectify the rare cases in which that happens. Joint investigation teams are needed to tackle cross-border crime, as was shown by Operation Golf, in which co-operation between the Met and Europol and data sharing stopped child-trafficking rings that were bringing teenagers to London to be raped and forced into prostitution. We need co-ordination on the freezing and seizing of the assets of organised criminals and terrorists. We support continued co-operation on confiscation orders and freezing orders. We need to exchange criminal records. Pilots in London have shown that a significant proportion of foreign nationals arrested already have convictions abroad.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Operation Golf was conducted in my constituency, and I hope to talk about it if I get the chance to speak. It would not have been possible without co-operation between the British and Romanian authorities, including on the Romanians’ subsequent use of an extradition warrant. Is it not wrong—in fact, disgraceful—that we did not have an opportunity to discuss the joint investigation teams during the previous debate?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. It would have been so simple to cover those measures in the initial debate on a straightforward motion tabled by the Government. I think that it is unprecedented that the Opposition table what should be a Government motion and ask the Government to vote with us on the very measures that they supported in the first place.
The 24 measures include football banning orders, which we welcome, to stop hooligans travelling to matches in Europe. We need to participate in Eurojust to gather evidence on cross-border crime. We need Europol to support and co-ordinate cross-border investigations. We need co-operation to prevent drug trafficking, and we need the European Police College to share best practice.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and hope that she will excuse me for interrupting her. She is clearly on a roll, because I cannot remember a time on which the Home Secretary has written to my right hon. Friend to say that she will support one of her measures. When the Select Committee on Home Affairs considered the matter, we suggested that the vote should have happened much earlier and that the House should have voted to give the Government a mandate to negotiate, rather than it being left to the last moment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should really have discussed these matters a long time before?
Yvette Cooper
My right hon. Friend is right. The truth is that the Home Secretary’s handling of the whole thing has been chaotic from start to finish. We have had no proper opportunity to debate the subject and have a vote at the right time and we have had confusion about when we were going to have the votes at the wrong time. We had parliamentary confusion, votes in chaos, Tory MPs scuttling back from their dinners, champagne banquets abandoned and a humiliated Prime Minister returning to the House of Commons with his tails between his legs.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
I think I heard the right hon. Lady say just a few moments ago that one of the measures she wanted to debate was the European Police College. Perhaps she has not noticed that CEPOL is not in the list of 35 measures that the Government are rejoining, because it has been “Lisbon-ised” and does not need to be in the list. It falls out of the opt-out altogether.
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary knows that an awful lot of the measures she has removed from the 35 are in fact measures that she plans to continue to co-operate with. There is a whole series of different aspects of guidance and pledges for co-operation across the policing and Eurojust world that she plans to continue to co-operate with. However, she has told her Back Benchers that she will not co-operate with them at all so that she can promise them a grand repatriation, when in fact it is the equivalent of repatriating the “Yellow Pages”.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend knows that this is really about co-operation across Europe to bring thousands of villains to account. How can we have faith in the Government if they cannot even co-operate with their colleagues in the House of Lords so that we can have the same debate, or give us enough time to consider the right thing to do, instead of this complete farce built on a hoax?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I heard somebody on the Government Front Bench muttering that there are different procedures in the House of Lords—different procedures that mean that they are allowed to vote on 35 measures, but we are allowed to vote on only 11? I have never heard anything so ludicrous.
The Home Secretary has been ducking and diving on this issue from the start. There are important measures in the 35 that we should be supporting and debating, and too many times the Home Secretary has tried to duck having a vote on them. The Schengen Information System II is vital and necessary. The recent Public Accounts Committee report that set out that there had been a 70% increase in delays in asylum claims also pointed out that the British Government have less information about criminals crossing our borders than other countries, and that is because we are not part of SIS II. The Home Secretary has not been able to join SIS II because she has been so busy renegotiating her opt-in, opt-out hokey-cokey for the sake of pandering to her Eurosceptic Back Benchers. We should be part of SIS II and we should be voting for it today.
The Association of Chief Police Officers has described the European arrest warrant as “an essential weapon”. Distinguished legal figures, including the former president of the Supreme Court, have argued that Britain also risks becoming a safe haven for fugitives from justice, a handful of them British citizens but the vast majority foreign nationals wanted for crimes elsewhere in Europe. They are right. For example, Zakaria Chadili from France was alleged to have travelled to Syria in late 2013 and undergone a month of training with a proscribed organisation. Instead of returning to France, he came to the UK and the French police wanted to arrest him. Between his first court appearance on 9 May and the orders for extradition on 13 June were just a few days, and he was surrendered on 25 June. In a similar case from 1995, before the European arrest warrant, Rachid Ramda, an Algerian national, was arrested in the UK in connection with a terrorist attack on the Paris transport system and it took 10 years to extradite him back to France.
The statistics are clear: the European arrest warrant helps us to deport foreign criminals and terrorists. More than 1,000 people were removed because of an arrest warrant last year. Of those people, 43 were UK nationals, eight of whom were connected to child sex offences. Since 2009, 500 people have been brought back to the UK to face British justice, including suspected child sex offenders and those suspected of murder, rape and drug trafficking, and more than 4,000 people have been removed, including more than 100 for murder, more than 300 for serious violence, more than 400 for drug trafficking and more than 500 for robbery. The arrest warrant helps us to bring to justice people who have committed heinous crimes in the UK and who should be facing British justice, and people who have committed crimes abroad, whom we want to deport from this country to face justice at home.
Geraint Davies
My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Swansea has the most overcrowded prison in Britain. Does she agree that this measure is very important because, over the past five years, it has meant that 5,000 people have been removed from Britain to face justice abroad, with only 5% of the total moving in the other direction? Unless we continue using it, we will have an even greater crisis in our prisons because they will be full of foreign criminals.
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. We do not want people to be stuck in British prisons when they should be facing trial and justice abroad. It would not be fair on victims of crime if we denied them justice because we did not have the procedures in place to ensure that people faced the courts. We do not want British families to be left without justice. We do not want the UK to be a safe haven for dangerous criminals.
It was right that the arrest warrant should have been reformed. We have supported the reforms that have been passed by this Government and have backed further reforms in Europe. The European Commission has concluded that
“it is essential that all Member States apply a proportionality test, including those jurisdictions where prosecution is mandatory.”
The Polish Parliament has taken through legislation that follows those principles.
Crime does not stop at the channel. That is why it is right that we should have the chance to show our support, right across the House, for the measures today.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Will the right hon. Lady concede that the European Union is not a sufficient basis on which to make such judgments? What about countries such as Turkey, Canada, Australia and the United States? What is so special about the European Union that the arrest warrant should apply specifically to it, rather than to the rest of the world?
Yvette Cooper
The point is that the European Union provides us with opportunities to be able better to fight crime and get justice for British citizens and citizens right across Europe. It is good that we can ensure that our police forces can co-operate more effectively with other police forces across Europe, whether they are dealing with trafficking, drug smuggling or child protection. There are so many crimes that cross borders and so many criminals who cross borders that we think it is a good thing to be part of Europe and to have the opportunity to work more closely with other European countries to deliver that.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to set out the benefits of cross-border co-operation with other crime-fighting agencies across Europe, but is not the real issue one of democracy, in that elected Members of the House of Commons, whichever side of the debate they are on, have not been given the opportunity to have a say on these issues? Is not the reason behind that that it will show the deep schism on the Conservative Benches on the issue of Europe?
Yvette Cooper
That, in the end, is what it comes down to. Sadly, too many Conservative Members do not want to vote for something just because it has the word “Europe” in the title. That is what Conservative Front Benchers have been running scared of. It is why they have ducked and dived around to avoid having the debates that the Select Committees have called for, to avoid having the votes that they promised, and to avoid having an honest discussion about what the measures are. The ridiculous thing about it is that the vast majority of Members of this House supported the 11 measures the Government allowed us to vote on last week. There is strong support and consent for the measures. There should be an opportunity for us to send a strong signal to the courts and everybody across Europe that this House is strongly in favour of the measures, including the European arrest warrant.
Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)
I just want to place on record the fact that the Select Committee on Justice, although it was severely critical of the Government’s handling of the matter from the beginning, has supported the five measures that the Government wish to opt into. I am pleased that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government have been firm in their determination to opt in.
Yvette Cooper
That is the bizarre thing about this whole situation. We had the opportunity to demonstrate the House’s support for these measures to everyone, particularly the courts—we know that Eurosceptics have made challenges in the courts to any aspect of legislation that they can challenge. Why do we allow them to do that without having a vote that shows the House’s strong support for the measures? The right hon. Gentleman is right that Select Committees have supported them, and the debate in the other place also showed support. Many Lords who strongly objected to the process that had been followed, even in that House, said that they supported the measures and wanted the opportunity to signal that support. We need to send that important signal, whether on football banning orders, the European arrest warrant or the other co-operation measures, and we now have the opportunity to do that.
We need co-operation to stop international crimes such as human trafficking and online child pornography, and to protect people and get justice for victims. So last week, I told the Home Secretary that I would support her motion. Today, I am glad she has said that she will support mine. These are unusual circumstances, and there were many other issues that we would have been keen to debate this afternoon, from the bedroom tax to the national health service. However, we thought it was right to ensure that the House had the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister’s promises and demonstrate its support for these crucial international crime-fighting measures. We need to demonstrate the strong support throughout the House for co-operation with Europe. We have the opportunity today to have a straightforward vote on the European arrest warrant and European co-operation measures, and to do what it says on the tin, even though the word “Europe” is in the title. I hope that the whole House will support the motion.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
We return to an issue that has been much debated in the House. Last Monday was the sixth time that it was debated on the Floor of the House since the Government announced that they were minded to exercise the opt-out in October 2012. We had debates that month, in June and July 2013, and in April, July and November this year. The Government have published two Command Papers providing the House with the provisional and final lists of measures that we are seeking to rejoin, and with full impact assessments on the final list. We have responded to four parliamentary inquiries on the matter and to the joint report of the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees in April. I am grateful for the scrutiny that those Committees and other hon. Members have given to this important matter, and I am happy to return to it today.
This is an issue that the shadow Home Secretary judges so important that she curtailed debate about it last week; so urgent that she strung it along for another week; and such an issue of principle that she is determined to try to score political points about it even though we agree on the substance of it.
As the Justice Secretary and I made clear to the House last week, and as I made clear to the right hon. Lady in an open letter the day before, the Government saw last Monday’s debate and vote as being about the whole package of 35 measures, including the arrest warrant, that we want the UK to remain part of in the national interest.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary clear up for the benefit of the House the simple fact that there was no reference to the European arrest warrant in the Government’s motion in the House of Commons last week, but there was in the motion in the House of Lords? Will she please explain why that was the case?
Mrs May
What I have just said about our view of the debate—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to be a little patient and wait for my answer to his question. As I have made clear, we felt that the debate was on the 35 measures, and Mr Speaker made clear that hon. Members could speak about all those measures in the debate. In the House of Lords it is open to the Government to amend an affirmative motion—something not open to the Government in the House of Commons—so when the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), said that there were different procedures, she was absolutely right.
Last week we had the opportunity for a full day’s debate. The hon. Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) complained about a lack of debate last Monday, but that was because the shadow Home Secretary moved a motion that cut short the whole debate. We are now able to debate today’s motion, and as the right hon. Lady has made clear, there is nothing in it for the Government to disagree with, so we will support it.
Huw Irranca-Davies
Does the Home Secretary think that the wording of the motion last week was in the spirit of what her Back Benchers understood when the Prime Minister offered a debate and vote on the European arrest warrant? Did it reflect what he said to the House of Commons, and does she think her Back Benchers believed that?
Mrs May
I am clear that there was no requirement on the Government to bring the measures, other than those in the regulations, to the House, or to hold a debate on the Floor of the House on those regulations. There would normally have been an hour and a half debate upstairs in Committee, but we chose to bring it to the Floor of the House and to use a business motion to extend the debate. We chose to say to the House that we were clear that because the debate was about only those measures in the regulations that required a legislative instrument, we would nevertheless be bound by the vote on the whole package of measures, including the European arrest warrant.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
Is the Home Secretary surprised, as I am, that the shadow Home Secretary’s speech was all about procedure, not the policy area? She did not mention the fact that one major concern of a number of us on the Government Benches is that we are ceding powers to the European Court of Justice for the first time, and therefore taking away some parliamentary supremacy. I would like to hear the Home Secretary’s views on that.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am well aware that for a number of right hon. and hon. Friends the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is key. I have been clear—as I was in previous debates—that the issue of our relationship with the European Court of Justice should be in the work that we will do as a Conservative Government after next May’s election to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union. That, of course, is not in the motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) today, and there is no reference to it or to the overall opt-out issue.
I think I am right in quoting the right hon. Lady as saying that the opt-out was an opt-in, opt-out “hokey cokey”. I remind her that that opt-in, opt-out hokey cokey was negotiated by the previous Labour Government. I am not sure from her comments whether she now supports our decision to exercise the opt-out, which, as I have said, the Labour Government negotiated, voted against last year, and have never said whether or not they would use. Is she congratulating the Government on successful negotiations in Europe and bringing back a deal that is good for the UK? Does support for our package mean that she supports the return of around 100 powers from Brussels and the largest repatriation of powers since this country joined the EU?
I am pleased that today’s motion supports all 35 measures, because last time the Opposition called a debate on this matter in June last year they highlighted only seven measures that they wanted us to rejoin. The list did not include Eurojust, which the right hon. Lady has now said that she supports, or the prisoner transfer framework decision, which allows us to send foreign criminals home to serve their sentences. It also left off the asset recovery office, which allows law enforcement to pursue the criminal proceeds of crime.
Yvette Cooper
Can the Home Secretary give a single example of a moment when she has put to Parliament the opportunity to vote on any of those measures?
Mrs May
I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. We were very clear that the only measures that needed legislative motions in this House were those in the regulations. We would be bound by the vote on those regulations as a vote on all the other measures in the package of 35. As I have said, this is the sixth debate we have had on this matter.
Sir William Cash
As my right hon. Friend knows, I accused her and the Government last week of chicanery, which, put another way, means relying on legal quibbles to try to achieve an objective. The fact is—I am sure she will accept it—that these issues involve the application of the European charter of fundamental rights. In that context, is she now going to tell us that the charter of fundamental rights does apply to the United Kingdom?
Mrs May
I am tempted to say to my hon. Friend that I suspect he knows more about legal quibbles, and has more experience of them, than I do. I have to say to him that the view the Government take on the charter of fundamental rights is the same view. We are consistent in that view: we consider it to be declaratory only and we do not consider that it applies to the United Kingdom. I know he has a different view on this, but that is the consistent view the Government have taken on this matter.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Yvette Cooper
The Home Secretary now says that her position is that she does not actually have to offer the House of Commons a vote on anything and therefore we should be grateful for the 11 measures we got to vote on last week. When did she say that to Parliament? Is it not the truth that she said repeatedly, over many months, that she would give the House a vote on the measures? She did not say that she would not give the House a vote because she did not have to; she said she would give the House a vote. If she has changed her position, why did she not say that before?
Mrs May
The right hon. Lady really needs to understand the difference between a requirement on the Government to bring a vote to this House and a decision by the Government to bring a vote to this House, which we did last Monday. I also say to her that for most people looking at these measures, the issues are whether they are important measures for the Government to opt back into and whether they are important measures for law enforcement. It sounds as though we have absolutely the same opinion on that and I would be happy to be able to get on to questions about the measures themselves.
Mr Raab
On the opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights, this is not a matter of political opinion anymore, because Justice Mostyn has made it very clear that our opt-out does not apply. Whatever one’s view on the implications of that, it leads to the argument, at least in this House, that we should be sceptical about opt-ins and the relationship with the EU on these matters. There is a constant salami slicing of both our opt-outs and our democratic control.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has made a considerable study of these matters, as the House is aware, but I have to say to him the same thing I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash): the Government’s position on the charter of fundamental rights has not changed. We have maintained a consistent position and our position is not changing.
Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)
I must say that many of my constituents who take a great interest in this issue will be very frustrated that the Labour party seems only to want to discuss process and not talk about the really important issues. My right hon. Friend will recall that recently I raised with her the concern of my constituents who found themselves living alongside a convicted murderer from Latvia, about whom they had no idea and nor did the local police. Does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituents that it would be absurd not to opt back into the system for sharing information on criminal records? Does she also agree that, if anything, the system needs to be more rigorous and comprehensive to be more useful?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Opting back into the European criminal records information system, which is one of the 35 measures we wish to opt back into, and to the exchange of criminal records is very important. We need to enhance our ability to exchange criminal records with other member states. Going back into Schengen information system II will also enable us to have more information of this sort at the border. We are doing a project with the Latvians and one or two other member states to improve our ability to deal with these issues, but there are challenges. For example, some countries have a different attitude from us to criminal records—in some countries, as soon as somebody is out of prison, effectively there is no criminal record—and as part of our discussions, we have to deal with those differences if we are to do what we all want to do, which is keep people safe.
I welcome the fact that the Opposition agree with the Government’s position on opting back into the 35 measures. It is a pleasure to agree with the right hon. Lady so often in one week: I understand the Labour party thinks that immigration was too high and out of control under the last Government; that it was a mistake not to have the full transitional controls to stop significant migration from the new member states; and that we must take action to reform European free movement rules. As a final step, perhaps she could ensure that her party agrees with the Conservative party’s commitment to an in/out referendum so that we can get on with the good work of negotiating a better deal for the British people.
Yvette Cooper
Will the right hon. Lady tell us the level of net migration now and how it compares with her target—her “no ifs, no buts” promise?
Yvette Cooper
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that it came down by a quarter under the last Labour Government and that net migration is at exactly the same level now as it was when she became Home Secretary?
Mrs May
The fact I quoted is absolutely correct: net migration is down by a quarter from its peak under the last Labour Government. Furthermore, net migration from outside the EU is down to the levels of the late 1990s—something that never happened under the last Labour Government and has only happened because of the action taken by this Government to control immigration.
I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s support for the package of 35 measures, including the arrest warrant, which help us to tackle serious crime and keep this country safe. I think that the right hon. Lady’s commitment to the arrest warrant would carry more weight if, when in government, she and her party had taken action to address the concern that many people raised about how it was being operated—concerns that were eroding the public’s trust in this important measure.
Since 2010, we have made the important reforms that the Opposition failed to make in the previous eight years, and our law enforcement and prosecution agencies, the devolved Administrations, the Extradition Law Committee in the House of Lords and other experts, including the Lord Chief Justice, all wish us to continue to use the arrest warrant to bring offenders to justice and keep our country safe. That is not the arrest warrant bequeathed to us by Labour, but the arrest warrant that now has proper protection for those wanted for extradition, including British citizens. We have taken positive action to address the issues that have caused people such concern.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
How confident is my right hon. Friend that after 1 December, when the Court of Justice of the European Union will decide whether an arrest warrant issued by another member state is valid, the protections brought into domestic British law will prove to be robust?
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Home Secretary has mentioned the importance of contact with the devolved Administrations and police services in other parts of the UK. What contact has she had on these issues with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland?
Mrs May
There has been considerable contact with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland; there has been contact with all the devolved Administrations on this matter. I have personally had a discussion with the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland about it. If the hon. Gentleman will be a little patient, I will refer to the difference that the EAW makes to extradition as between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. That is an important issue, and if we were to come out of the EAW, it would be a matter of concern both to the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and to the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland.
Mr Clarke
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the valuable improvements she has made to the arrest warrant were achieved by negotiations with other member states—they were Europe-wide—and that we were strongly supported by, for example, the German Government who also had concerns about the proportionality of the arrest warrant and by many member states regarding the problem of the Polish constitutional position, which did not fit in with everybody else’s. All this was sorted out in a perfectly friendly negotiation, led very much by my right hon. Friend, and its enforcement would be guaranteed by the jurisdiction of the European Court of law if that were ever called upon, which is very unlikely. Better that, however, than 28 separate Supreme Courts putting their interpretation on the rules that we have now sorted out.
Mrs May
My right hon. and learned Friend is right that we have had discussions with other member states on the European arrest warrant. Indeed, some other member states, notably Poland, will take steps themselves to change the way in which they approach this particular issue in their legislation. That would mean fewer trivial or smaller cases resulting from the European arrest warrant. The changes we have made are, of course, changes we have made in domestic legislation here in the United Kingdom. The House has had the opportunity to vote on them and to put them through.
Sir Gerald Howarth
Further to the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), I do not think that he and I have quite the same touching faith as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) in the European Court of Justice. Is it not the case that however we see the ECJ interpreting things now, by opting into this European arrest warrant now, we do so in perpetuity and we will for ever be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ—unless we leave the European Community? What upsets and concerns so many Conservative Members, and indeed people across the country, is that we are surrendering a power to the ECJ over which we have no control whatever. It is a surrender of sovereignty that many of us just feel unable to accommodate, even though we understand the forceful argument on security that the Home Secretary makes.
Mrs May
Let me say to my hon. Friend, as I did to a previous intervention, that I fully accept the concerns that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but this is not an issue confined to the measures we are considering today. As part of the opt-out/opt-in decisions we take for measures brought forward in the justice and home affairs area post-the Lisbon treaty, we look at the question of jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the ECJ applies to those measures as well. We have opted in to a number of measures on the basis that a balanced judgment of the importance of those measures and the benefits they bring outweighs the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised. He uses the term “in perpetuity”, but as I said, if we have a Conservative Government after May 2015, we will have the opportunity to renegotiate a relationship with the European Union and a number of issues can be dealt with within that. Both the Prime Minister and I have indicated that we think free movement should be included within it, and I believe that our relationship with the European Court of Justice is another candidate for consideration in those negotiations.
Sir Alan Beith
I want to point out that the Government were right not to opt in to a series of standards measures where we are already well above the standards precisely, because it unnecessarily imported European Court of Justice jurisdiction into our own system.
Geraint Davies
The Home Secretary—who has not given way to me until now—has just said that she is in favour of opting back into the 35 measures. A moment earlier, she said “If you vote Conservative, we may end up with a renegotiation”, which implied that she would reconsider whether to support those 35 measures. Which is it?
Mrs May
I have made clear my view that our relationship with the European Court of Justice could well be one of the measures that should be part of the renegotiation and part of the process of looking again at our relationship with the European Union, which would happen after the election of a Conservative Government in May 2015, leading to an in-out referendum by the end of 2017. I hope that that is now clear to the hon. Gentleman.
I want to discuss some of the issues surrounding the European arrest warrant, given the degree of concern that it has raised among Members in the past. One such issue is that of lengthy pre-trial detention, which was highlighted by the case of Andrew Symeou—a case that has been championed relentlessly by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) in the interests of his constituent and his constituent’s family. Our reforms of the arrest warrant mean that, when the requesting country is not trial-ready, we will not extradite people. Had the measures that we have now passed been in place at the time, they would have allowed Mr Symeou to raise, in his extradition hearing, the question of whether a decision to charge him and a decision to try him had been made. It is very likely that they would have prevented his extradition at the stage at which he was due to be surrendered, and could have prevented it altogether.
We have reformed the arrest warrant to make it possible for cases to be heard in the requesting country before an extradition hearing, either by video conference or by temporary transfer, with the consent of the person concerned. That may lead to a withdrawal of the arrest warrant in some cases. We have also reformed it so that British citizens, and others, can no longer be extradited for minor offences. The reform came into effect in July, and has already resulted in the turning down of 21 arrest warrants. That has freed police and court time so that more serious matters can be dealt with, and, crucially, has protected individuals from the sledgehammer of extradition for minor offences.
The Government have reformed the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a criminal offence in this country. The National Crime Agency is now refusing arrest warrants when it is obvious that the dual criminality test has not been met. It has done so 59 times since our reforms came into force in July.
Our reforms have been implemented, and they are already making a difference. I believe that the arrest warrant is operating more fairly, and it is British judges who have the final say on whether or not to extradite people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot)—whose wife is an extradition judge—said last week,
“The suggestion that there is no judicial oversight of European arrest warrants in this country is nonsense.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 1228.]
That is absolutely right, and, thanks to our reforms, British judges are now better able to protect the interests of British citizens.
I am also pleased to have the opportunity to remind the House of a few of the problems involved in the alternative system of extradition that we would have to fall back on if we were not part of the arrest warrant, namely the 1957 Council of Europe convention on extradition. First, returning to that convention would require changes to domestic legislation in a number of member states. While we would be able to control our own legislative urgency, we would not be able to control what other member states did. For some, it would take months or even years to make the necessary legislative changes. The Netherlands, for example, has made it clear to us that it would take at least 18 months for it to change its domestic legislation, which would mean that UK criminals could travel to Holland with impunity and vice versa. That would have made the UK a virtual “safe haven” for some of Europe’s most dangerous criminals, and would have allowed UK criminals to hide from the law, which is certainly not an option that appeals to me.
Secondly, using the convention would mean a return to the days when extradition requests were sent to Ireland, perhaps more in hope than in expectation. Before the introduction of the arrest warrant, fewer than 10% of our requests to Ireland for individuals connected with terrorism resulted in their being returned to this country. Members should compare that with the present situation. We are not aware of a single request to Ireland for terrorism-related offences that has been refused. That is surely why—as I said earlier—the authorities in both Dublin and Belfast are such strong supporters of the arrest warrant and our continued participation in it.
Sammy Wilson
Does the Home Secretary accept that the comparison she is making is not a fair one, given that many of the extradition requests that were made to the Irish Republic were turned down often on political grounds? Of course, those grounds have now been removed because of the constitutional changes that have been made recently.
Mrs May
I understand that the political scenario has changed over the years, but the Justice Minister in Belfast and the Justice Minister in Dublin in the Republic of Ireland have been keen to impress on the Government their concern to ensure that the UK remained in the European arrest warrant, precisely because it now provides a much smoother and easier process to enable extraditions to take place successfully.
Mike Gapes
The Home Secretary is making an excellent case for the European arrest warrant. Why did she not put that forward two weeks ago? She could have made the case then.
Mrs May
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman but I cannot remember whether he was in the Chamber for the debate a week ago on Monday. However, I made exactly these sorts of argument in that debate. Other right hon. and hon. Members would have been able to express their concerns about or support for the European arrest warrant had that debate not been curtailed by his Front-Bench team.
Mrs May
We have not yet notified the European Union. [Interruption.] Someone says, “Why?” It is partly because the timetable has not required us to notify the European Union by that point.
Thirdly, under the convention, we would return to a system where 22 other member states would not extradite their own nationals to the UK and where, owing to constitutional bars, there would be no hope of that situation changing for some countries. In the last five years alone, those 22 states have extradited 105 of their own nationals to us to stand trial. That would end if we returned to the 1957 convention, and victims, and their families, would suffer as a result.
The convention would also mean that, if there is a long delay between the offence occurring and the extradition request being made, extradition can be refused because of the length of time that has passed under a state’s statute of limitations.
Mrs May
May I first give a concrete example of that? Last month, Philip Gordon Knowles was jailed for eight years after being found guilty of four counts of gross indecency with a boy under the age of 14 and eight counts of indecent assault on a girl under the age of 16 in the St Helens area in the 1970s. His conviction followed his extradition from Spain using the arrest warrant. In an earlier age, Knowles would have escaped justice. Under the 1957 European convention on extradition, the length of time that had passed between his offences and his extradition being requested would have rendered him immune to prosecution by the Spanish authorities, and he could not have been extradited. It is thanks to the arrest warrant that Knowles is now behind bars.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way to me a second time. She has made two cases—the reason for opting in and what would happen if we went back to the 1957 protocols—but there were other choices. A couple of years ago, there was the chance to try to have a bilateral treaty with the EU, or indeed individual member states within it. Equally, as the treaties stand, there are transitional arrangements under which the current arrangements could continue. Could she comment on those? I know that the commonly held view in her Department was that the transitional arrangements would be quite short, but I have gathered from the European Commission that they could go on for quite some time. I would appreciate her view on that.
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has raised two important points. I will address both of them. He refers to the temporary transitional extension. The option that is proposed to extend that transitional period for a significant time would require secondary legislation to override the primary treaty right of the UK to opt out of measures and would effectively override the opt-out itself. That is a precedent that no one would want to set. A transitional decision is proposed by the European Commission. We have no vote on its adoption. We would have no power to amend the drafting of the decision and it could extend to all 135 measures and make them subject to ECJ jurisdiction to boot. That would effectively hand over our power on this matter to Brussels, which would determine it for us. I think that that would run entirely counter to our aim of bringing powers back from Brussels.
The other point is that it has been clear in discussions we have been having with the European Commission that the purpose of the transition arrangement was, for a very limited period, potentially to ensure that while the process of opting in was taking place there was no operational gap, so that we would make sure there was no point at which it was possible for somebody to claim that an arrest warrant, for example, was no longer operational as a result of the decisions we had taken.
In relation to the suggestion that we could have negotiated a separate treaty with the European Commission, reference is often made to the Danish position on that, but in fact that is different as the Danes have no alternative option for participating in the JHA measures. Protocol 36, the opting-out decision protocol, sets out our ability to opt out and to rejoin these JHA measures, so it puts us in a different position. The EC argues that that provides us with an adequate ability to go into these measures, and therefore renders a third-country agreement unnecessary.
Given my hon. Friend’s interest in European Court of Justice jurisdiction, the other point I would make is that in all the measures Denmark has negotiated separate arrangements on with the EC, it has been required to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the ECJ. That has been the price of getting the negotiated agreement with the European Commission, so I really do not think it is an option that resolves the issues my hon. Friend and others have concerns about.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend’s speech is taking a long time because it is so interesting and important. Following on from the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), I wanted to say that there are three points the Home Secretary has just mentioned where Her Majesty’s Government have negotiated with the Commission and have accepted the Commission’s no as authoritative without really pushing. This does not bode particularly well for an attempt to renegotiate the treaties after the next election.
Mrs May
The fact is that we have been able to go into the negotiation with the European Commission and other member states, wanting to rejoin 35 measures, and the package we have brought back is rejoining 35 measures and not more measures. Many people said to us, “You will not be able to negotiate 35 measures. The European Commission and other member states will require you to join more measures.” They have not done so. The negotiation in that sense was successful, and contrary to what my hon. Friend says, I think that bodes well for the future.
I want to say a little more about some of the other 35 measures. I have mentioned already that they include important tools such as SIS II, the second generation Schengen information system. We are scheduled to join it shortly. It further strengthens our ability to detect foreign criminals at the border, including individuals wanted in their own countries for serious crimes such as rape and murder.
When the UK connects to the system, we will gain access to 51 million alerts, including on individuals who pose a very real security risk, such as foreign fighters who have travelled to Syria and Iraq and who could pose a serious risk to this country on their return. It is a tool that I am sure the whole House will want us to have at our disposal.
The package of measures also includes the Council decision on child pornography, which ensures that international co-operation to tackle this abhorrent crime is prioritised and that collective pressure is put on internet companies to tackle the disgusting crime of online child sex abuse wherever it takes place.
The package also includes Europol, which does excellent work to tackle cross-border crimes—under its British director, Rob Wainwright—and Eurojust, which often operates hand and glove with Europol, such as during the horsemeat scandal early last year. As I have already said, the package includes the European criminal record information system—ECRIS—as well, which has dramatically increased the number of criminal record checks on foreign nationals, and also the prisoner transfer framework decision, which helps us to remove foreign criminals from British jails.
The package also includes joint investigation teams, which allow our police and their European counterparts to co-operate in cross-border operations, such as Operation Birkhill which saw five criminals sentenced to a total of 36 years’ imprisonment this summer for their involvement in the degrading trafficking of over 120 women from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland into the UK.
These are all vital measures which the Government were clear we should remain part of in the national interest. We have exercised the opt-out, which the Labour party negotiated but voted against using. We have brought back some 100 powers from Brussels which the Labour party gave away. We have negotiated a good deal to remain part of a much smaller package of 35 measures in the national interest, despite being told by the Labour party that we should have sought “guarantees” that they did not bother to negotiate into the Lisbon treaty.
It is this Government who are providing leadership on European issues. We have cut the EU’s budget, secured an exemption from the new EU bank bail-out fund, vetoed a new treaty and secured a position of real influence in the Commission. That is leadership—an issue I know the Labour party might not want to discuss at the moment. Where this Government are leading, I am happy to see the Opposition follow, so I am glad to have the support of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford today, but given her party’s failure to reform the arrest warrant, her opposition to our exercising the opt-out, her refusal to back the repatriation of powers and her continued efforts to deny the British people their say through an in/out referendum, it is clear that the Labour party can never provide the leadership that this country needs on Europe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. There will be a seven-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches in today’s debate. We will start with seven minutes, but it might be necessary to reduce the time.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I thank the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), for giving the House this opportunity to discuss the European arrest warrant. I know that others claim we discussed it last week, but frankly the proceedings then were totally shambolic. Bearing in mind the fact that the Home Affairs Committee published its report on this matter on 29 October last year, in which it called on the Government to ensure that Parliament had as much say in this process as possible, it is a huge disappointment that it is only now—12 days before 1 December, the date on which we have to opt in—that Parliament has a real opportunity to discuss these matters.
I am an admirer of the Home Secretary and of her work on the landscape of policing. When she leaves her office when Parliament ends on 30 March, she will be able to point to the real changes she has made in that area. I have to say to her, however, that this has not been the Home Office’s finest hour. We had a real opportunity last week to give Members the chance to discuss the European arrest warrant, but that was not possible because of the shenanigans surrounding the motion and the vote.
Sir William Cash
The Home Affairs Select Committee has done a splendid job, but will the right hon. Gentleman also acknowledge the fact that the Justice Committee—not to mention the European Scrutiny Committee—has played a pivotal role in ensuring that we have at least examined these matters?
Keith Vaz
I was just about to say that. I do not want this to sound like self-congratulation—[Hon. Members: “Oh yes you do!”] Oh, all right—I do! I concede that point. To have united the three Chairs of the Select Committees and all their members, given their different politics and personalities, is a unique achievement for any Government. I am minded to join those on the two Front Benches in the Division Lobby to support the motion, if only to see the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary in the same Lobby at the same time—I am not sure who will get there first—but I shall not be voting tonight. I am sure that my extra vote would not count for much anyway, given that the motion will be passed, but this is the only way I have of expressing my exasperation at the insufficient time we have had to discuss these matters or to look in real detail at the European arrest warrant.
The Home Secretary is right to say that there have been changes since we started last year, but those changes do not go far enough to deal with the kinds of issues that were raised in the Select Committee by several Members, including the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and the hon. Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax), all of whom came and talked about specific examples.
I am not against the principle of the European arrest warrant. The Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have made a powerful case in support of that principle. The problem lies in the practicalities involved and the difficulty in exercising any control—we have none—over jurisdictions in other countries. Poland has been mentioned. We have had more European arrest warrant requests from Poland—2,400—than from any other country in Europe. The Home Secretary says that Poland is changing its legislation.
Sir Tony Baldry
The fact is that these are mostly for Poles going back to Poland—they want their own Poles back—and they are not for our citizens.
Keith Vaz
Of course if the Poles want the Poles back, they should have them back. The problem is that Poland is issuing these arrest warrants because it does not do so when it is prosecution-ready; a judge has no jurisdiction in these matters and these things are just issued, no matter what the case is. We cannot intervene in Polish legislation to try to change that position. The right hon. Gentleman talks about Poland having the Poles back. There are 1,000 Polish people in our prisons as foreign national prisoners and if Poland wanted them back I am sure the Home Secretary would be delighted to send them back to Poland. However, they are still in our prisons.
The fact is that these practicalities do stand in the way of justice. As Lady Hale said in the case of PH, HH and FK, this rests, in the end, with the other national countries of the European Union; it does not rest with us. So no matter what we do in the House today, those practical difficulties remain. I know that successive Governments have tried hard to change the situation, but we cannot intervene in the legislation of other countries. That is why we get these absurd cases where European arrest warrants are issued for people without the need to hand them out. The figures show that 28% of people arrested in our country are foreign nationals, half of whom are from the European Union. The cost of executing a European arrest warrant is £20,000—it costs that each time. The figures for arrests and surrenders show 5,184 arrests and 4,005 surrenders, so we are talking about 1,179 more arrests than surrenders.
That is why we needed an early debate on this matter. We do not need to go right up to the wire, with 12 days to go before the end of these discussions. Parliament, especially constituency MPs, who have real issues to raise, should have had the opportunity to raise this matter before. I am sorry that the Government did not listen to what my Committee said clearly a year ago, in paragraphs 85 and 87 of its report. Paragraph 87 stated:
“To date”—
this was a year ago—
“we have been disappointed with the extent and timeliness of the Government’s involvement of Parliament in scrutinising the 2014 opt-out and proposed opt-in. We hope that it will engage more constructively with Parliament for the remainder of this process.”
Now, with 12 days to go, we have our first real debate on this issue, thanks to the shadow Home Secretary tabling this motion.
We have just been told by the Home Secretary that she has not even notified the European Union that we are going to opt in. Bearing in mind the paperwork involved and the way in which the Home Office deals with its paperwork, I have a suggestion to make to the right hon. Lady: when she signs her letter, she should give it to the hon. Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), who are sitting behind her, and make sure that they take it straight to the European Union headquarters in Brussels. Otherwise, given the history of the Home Office, this deadline will be missed, like so many others.
I hope the Home Secretary will, in her wind-up, further reassure the House that the points made by Members of this House in their evidence to my Select Committee and the reports the three Select Committees have issued will be taken even more seriously than they have been in the past.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
It is always a privilege to follow the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). It is an unusual experience for me to be able wholeheartedly to support a Labour party Opposition day motion and a unique opportunity to support such a motion that entirely and in every detail endorses Government policy. It thereby makes two things clear: the success of the Home Secretary’s negotiating skills in arriving at the right package of measures into which we need to opt back to keep Britain’s streets safer; and the success of the Government’s policy of maintaining a pragmatic and sensible use of European Union institutions and powers to help the people of this country. The overarching issue before us today is why we are opting back into these 35 measures, particularly the European arrest warrant.
I am conscious that many of my hon. Friends have detailed objections to the way in which the warrant has worked in the past, and to the alternatives. But it is worth starting with the overriding point that if we set the word “European” aside for a moment—I know that that is difficult—this is an international arrest warrant. As such, what it does is simply speed up the work of the police and the courts. It means that criminals and terrorists, once they are caught, can either be brought back to Britain for crimes committed abroad or be removed from this country to face justice elsewhere in Europe, so saving time and money in our prison system.
Damian Green
I will give way in a second. Expressed in those terms, it is impossible to imagine that anyone would disagree with it, and we would not be debating this—
Damian Green
Let me pick and choose. I give way to the former Solicitor-General.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Of course it is not a perfect agreement, but does he agree that it is a lot better than what went before, whereby it used to take 10 years in some cases to extradite criminals who had left our shores and whom we wanted back. Equally, if we have criminals from overseas who are on our territory, then of course we should send them back quickly to their own countries.
Damian Green
I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Indeed, it is the speed of operation of the European arrest warrant that is one of the most significant improvements over what was there before. I simply invite the House to consider this for a second or two not as a European issue but as a public safety issue. We live in an increasingly dangerous world in which criminals operate on an international scale and in which this country is a particular target not just for international terrorists but for serious criminals of all types. The three biggest and fastest growing international crimes are the trafficking of guns, drugs and people across frontiers, which is precisely why we need international measures such as the European arrest warrant to make us safe.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
For me, the crucial factor in deciding to support the European arrest warrant was precisely that the police and security services wanted it so that they can do their job better. That was pivotal in my decision to support it.
Damian Green
My hon. Friend is wise in his decision. We have had some facts and figures that back up both his judgment and the judgment of the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary. Over the past five years, slightly more than 5,000 people have been extradited from the UK to Europe after an arrest warrant was issued. They include suspects wanted for 124 murders, more than 100 rapes, nearly 500 serious assaults, and in connection with seven terrorism cases. For those who rightly worry about the fate of British citizens, only 217 of those 5,000 were British—just 4.3% of the total.
Since 2009, the arrest warrant has also seen 647 people returned to this country to face justice, including 51 suspected killers, 80 suspected paedophiles, 46 suspected violent thugs and one wanted terrorist. The warrant works both ways and it works effectively. Without the arrest warrant, there are 22 EU member states that could refuse to extradite their own nationals to the UK, including Spain, France and Germany, so it does act in the safety of our country and our citizens as well. The question for those who oppose the European arrest warrant is: can it be worth putting the safety of our fellow citizens at risk a bit more than it is now for the genuine constitutional concerns that they have? I hope that even those who are against our opting back into the European arrest warrant will admit that not opting in would put the safety of our fellow citizens in this country at greater risk. They might well say that that would be worth while, but I hope that they acknowledge that fact, given the surprising unanimity about it among experts in law enforcement and criminal justice.
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman says that, but the job of police officers and criminal justice agencies around the world is to keep citizens safe. When they recommend that something is keeping us safe, we should take them seriously.
Mr Raab
We can all agree that looking out for our security is the job of the police and the intelligence agencies but, as my right hon. Friend demonstrated so valuably in his campaign against identity cards and 90 days’ detention without charge, it is our job to scrutinise what goes on.
Damian Green
I absolutely agree. As my hon. Friend knows, I am not an uncritical admirer of everything that the police do, and nor do I take on board what they say as a matter of course, but I am struck by the words of some of the best police officers throughout Europe. Keith Bristow, the head of the National Crime Agency, says:
“The European Arrest Warrant is by far the best way”
of bringing criminals back to the UK to face justice. As we have heard, Rob Wainwright, the director of Europol—a Brit—has said that
“the European Arrest Warrant has resulted in one of the most dramatic improvements of international law enforcement in recent times”.
We should take such views seriously.
The best objection to the EAW has always been the cases of British citizens who have been extradited—perhaps wrongly—and held for long periods. I accept that such cases have been the subject of many effective campaigns, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). However, the context of the debate has changed, as we now have reform under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. One of the biggest changes since the measures came into effect in July is that there have been a significant number of judicial refusals of arrest warrants, which represents a significant step forward for preserving the safety of our constituents who might have fallen victim to judicial or policing mistakes made in other European jurisdictions.
Given such progress, I urge those who oppose our opting back into the EAW to acknowledge that their essential objection is the fact that this is the “European” arrest warrant. There is a danger that the debate gets taken away from law and order. We need extradition treaties with other countries, and the alternatives to the warrant are much slower and less effective. Some treaties do not work satisfactorily, such as that we signed with the US, a democracy with a perfectly good judicial system, so it is clearly not true that the European Union and the European arrest warrant cause unique problems.
Crime fighting is an aspect of life in which instinctive, habitual, institutional co-operation among European countries makes life better for everyone who lives in them. We all agree that that is true for free trade and protecting the environment, and it is also true for crime fighting. The measure improves British citizens’ safety and quality of life, which is why I support the motion and the Government’s policy.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I congratulate the shadow Home Secretary on putting before the House a simple and straightforward motion. This difficult and complicated issue involves sovereignty, international crime and the future of the European Union, so it is right that elected Members—even those of us who do not agree with the shadow Home Secretary—can vote on such a straightforward motion.
If the debate was just about the improvements that the Government have made to the European arrest warrant, it might be possible to vote for it, although as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) pointed out, many of those improvements do not go as far as they should. If this was simply a matter of the speed of getting through the judicial process, it would be easy to vote for it, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). But it goes much deeper than that. There are justices and injustices involved.
I do not know how to balance the injustices suffered by some people against the undoubted benefits derived from the European arrest warrant. How do we say to Symeou, Dark, Hainsworth, the Kings, Dines and other people who have suffered injustices, “Your injustice under the European arrest warrant is worth going through because it enables us to bring other criminals to court more quickly”? We cannot balance things that way. If we could, I would be interested to know what metric could be used.
The basic issue is not the speed of justice or improvements to the EAW. It is the fact that by entering the European arrest warrant system, we are giving recognition to courts throughout the European Union and passing sovereignty over to the European Court of Justice. To anybody who has read the accession documents just on Croatia—the same comments could be applied to Romania, Bulgaria and a number of other European countries—it is almost beyond dispute that those countries do not have a criminal justice system like ours. Theirs is subject to corruption and political interference, yet we are saying that the European arrest warrant procedure agreed in those countries will be recognised and followed through in this country.
I do not see how we can honour what has been honoured in this country for nearly 800 years—habeas corpus—when we allow British citizens to be taken by foreign courts that are subject to political interference and corruption, and locked up without the evidence being produced.
Sir Oliver Heald
It is not as though nothing is being done about that. The group of states against corruption, of which the UK is a very strong member, is doing work on these very issues—on corruption in courts and in Parliaments. It is going through the countries that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, reporting on these issues, highlighting them and pressing the Governments.
Graham Stringer
That is a fair point, but anyone who had been locked up in Romania or Croatia would not be pleased to hear that the situation will improve at some time in the future. The debate is among British politicians who are pragmatic; the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary were powerful, pragmatic arguments about how there would be immediate benefit, but that is not the argument going on in the rest of the European Union.
Like many of the changes in the European Union, acceptance of the European arrest warrant is seen as a way of furthering integration. We are not entering into arrangements for the European prosecutor’s role, but I can almost guarantee—as much as one can guarantee anything in future—that in four, five, six or seven years’ time we will have adopted the European arrest warrant, this country will be in Eurojust and it will not look right if we are not in the European prosecutor system. We may well get a decision from the European Court of Justice that says, in effect, that we have to be in the European prosecutor system.
Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, through the use of the European arrest warrant, British citizens could be extradited to face charges under the European public prosecutor’s office anyway if prosecuted for those charges?
Graham Stringer
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that might be one of the arguments used to drag us into the process. The European Union is a thin-end-of-the-wedge organisation; once it has started, it will move on to further integration.
The right hon. Member for Ashford made a powerful case, as have many Members, for dealing with international crime and keeping terrorism out of the country, which we all want—there is nobody in the House who does not want to deal with international terrorism—but what we have with the European arrest warrant is Hobson’s choice: we must either take what is put before us or have a poorer system, in pragmatic terms, in the short term. If the Government are serious about renegotiating our position in Europe, they should not be giving up negotiating positions like this. We should be asking for a better position, rather than saying, “Yes, we’ll go along with that because there is nothing else available.”
The right hon. Member for Ashford also made the point that many of our crime-fighting agencies, such as the police and the security services, like the European arrest warrant. They do not always follow the rules themselves, but our security services have for some time preferred to have terrorists in London, rather than elsewhere, so that they can watch them. I think that is a bad policy, but I mention it because I do not think that we should always take at face value what is said by police forces and the security services.
I will finish with a powerful point made by the shadow Home Secretary in the previous debate that I think is worthy of an answer. She said that the fact that there have been miscarriages of justice under the European arrest warrant does not mean that we should get rid of it. We do not remove the police’s power of arrest just because they sometimes abuse it. That is absolutely right, but it does not mean that, when opting into something, we should not look for something better than what we are getting from the European arrest warrant.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and, I must say, rather refreshing, because I agreed with every word he said—it was common sense from start to finish.
Earlier this month I visited my constituent Colin Dines, a retired recorder and a man of impeccable character. He was issued a European arrest warrant in 2010 after being accused of a tendentious, tenuous involvement in a telecoms fraud in Italy. He has never been interviewed by the Italian authorities, which would at least have given him a chance to clear his name, and he has never been given the opportunity to present evidence showing his innocence. The key Italian suspects were all acquitted a long time ago.
Despite the incompetence of the Italians and the manifest innocence of my constituent, he has languished under the threat of prison for four and a half years. The case limps on with no resolution in sight, with Colin stuck in legal limbo. It has cost his family an enormous sum of money. Colin suffered a stroke just days before he was due to be surrendered to face either an Italian jail or possibly house arrest, and that was the only reason why the warrant was temporarily suspended.
That case brings shame on British justice, but it is not an isolated case—they are all too frequent. Do not take the word of a politician on that; listen to this country’s most senior criminal judge, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas. He has stated publicly that the problems are systemic because fast-track European arrest warrant extradition assumes common standards of justice across Europe. We all know that is a sham, whether it is the Greek or Italian systems, let alone the post-Soviet systems in place in central and eastern Europe.
We all agree in this House that EU extradition is vital to fight crime, so a rather false choice is being put up—the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton summed that up rather well. The truth is that what we object to is the scattergun approach under the European arrest warrant, which devastates the lives of too many innocent people. Let us remember what this House was set up to do: defend innocent people from bullying by arbitrary rulers. If we believe in British justice, we cannot allow that to continue—not for the price of returning a few criminals, or even many criminals. I would like to hear from all those who have been making that very utilitarian argument how many innocent people should be sacrificed for the return of 10 or 20 criminals, because that is the false choice that they are putting up.
Sir William Cash
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that, basically, the reason the Government are giving in to these proposals is that they have an inclination towards, if not an obsession with, making sure that we stay within the framework of European law as it is prescribed rather than looking at the fundamental changes that are needed?
Mr Raab
I thank the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, who makes a valid point that I will come on to address. There is certainly an element of truth in what he describes.
I want to pay tribute to the changes that the Government have made. I recognise that some additional checks have been introduced. However, as Fair Trials International—we should bear in mind that it has handled these cases—and, today, Liberty have made clear, those checks are wholly and woefully inadequate to stop the flow of injustices. The proportionality test is too skewed in favour of extradition; the safeguard to prevent “hit and hope” warrants is too flimsy; there is nothing to deal with mistaken identity; and, perversely, appeal rights were weakened, not strengthened. We never got a chance to scrutinise those measures on the Floor of the House, because they were slipped through in Committee. That is a shame, because I, and colleagues, would have wanted to be able to try to strengthen the safeguards. It should have been debated on the Floor of the House on Report. I twice tried to table amendments, but we were given no time.
It is crystal clear from the rising volume of EAWs that Britain receives that we will have more problems ahead. This year the number of EAWs we received reached almost 8,000—a record number. With this broad net, it is almost inevitable that more and more innocent Britons will face rough justice and be caught within it, and, as a result, be subject to Kafkaesque courts and gruesome prison conditions.
I do not think that the checks are inadequate: I know that they are, because since July, when they came into force, I have been contacted directly by another victim, Keith Hainsworth, a 64-year-old tutor of ancient Greek. In July, with his wife, he visited the Peloponnese region of Greece, where they pottered around ruins and old churches, at the time of a local forest fire. The couple’s hire car was spotted in the vicinity—by a well-known local mischief-maker, as it subsequently turned out when they got to court—and on the strength of that alone, out of the blue, he was arrested in October in France under an EAW on his way back from a weekend away in Paris. He was apprehended by British customs officials who took his passport. He was denied basic rights. He spent a month under house arrest in France. He was surrendered to the Greeks to be held in awful conditions for 30 hours. He was charged for a bottle of water. That is what you get as a Brit abroad in some of these jails. When he finally faced a Greek judge, the court was in almost comic disarray at the farce that had come before it and dropped the case immediately, but not without Keith Hainsworth and his family having been traumatised and subjected to a legal bill of £40,000. Let us ask ourselves how many of our constituents could afford to pay that. If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone, and nothing in the new legislation will stop it.
I want to pick up on a point made by the former Justice Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is no longer in his place. Ministers have been very candid in saying that there has been no renegotiation of the EU framework decision because there is no renegotiation to be had. It is clear that there is no possibility of revising the framework decision. I might take a different view if there were, but that is not on the cards. That tells us that we have a stark choice: either we opt out and negotiate a bespoke extradition treaty with the EU, as one member not 27, that allows streamlined extradition—no one wants to go back to the bureaucracy of the past—but with proper safeguards, or, mark my words, we will continue to hang our constituents and British citizens out to dry. The Home Secretary made it very clear today that there is a legal basis on which to do that; the issue is political will, on our side and on the EU side.
We have heard a string of scare stories about the operational cliff edge that police would face if we opt out, but no one is suggesting that we opt out and do nothing. That is not a serious suggestion by anyone in this House, so we do not need to dwell on it for too long. If someone wants to intervene on me, I would be happy to take a question on that. We cannot have it both ways. It cannot be suggested that Britain would somehow become a safe haven for the worst criminals if we are outside the EAW, when that is precisely why all our EU partners have a strong mutual interest in agreeing a new extradition relationship, as long as we had made our position clear.
This debate is not just about extradition; it is about something far bigger. Everyone wants strong operational co-operation with our EU partners, but we are a global nation and we should be able to do that, as we do with many partners from around the world, without sacrificing democratic control. Why is it only with our EU partners that giving up democratic control, whether to the ECJ or to harmonise laws, is the strict red-line condition on co-operation, when it is not such a condition with the Australians, the Canadians or the Americans?
The long-term direction of travel is very clear, as Viviane Reding set out in a speech for the Commission last year.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. When the three Front Benches agree on a law, is it not normally a bad one?
Mr Raab
I take my hon. Friend’s point, but it does not matter how many people agree—or how many law enforcement people stand up and do the bidding of whoever—because our job is to scrutinise the proposals. I must tell him that very few people who support opting in have given me examples of victims to whom they have spoken. When I sat on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I spoke to a range of victims, and others now approach me regularly. What has been lost in this debate is not only their voice, which is why it is so important that we are having the debate, but the systemic nature of the problems.
In the time available, I want briefly to make it clear that the direction of travel is very obvious. The Commission makes no secret of the fact that we are heading towards a pan-European code and an EU public prosecutor, with the ECJ presiding and ultimate accountability being to an EU Justice Minister. We see such stepping stones being paved in the package of measures that we are opting in to. We see it with the new EU public prosecutor, and Jonathan Fisher QC has made it clear that our opt-out from it is in tatters and is already ineffective. If we do not take this opportunity to step back, when will we get a better moment to renegotiate our relationship in this vital area?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The House will be aware that a great many Members are seeking to catch my eye and that very little time is available. I must therefore reduce the time limit for Back-Bench speeches to six minutes.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that certainly was some night last week, wasn’t it? It was the great European arrest warrant debate that never was, and the night we apparently passed something as important as the European arrest warrant by proxy. In my 14 years as a Member of Parliament, there are certain things I thought I would say in the House of Commons, but I thought that asking Mr Speaker that “the Question, That the Question be not now put, be now put” was something belonging to a Monty Python sketch, not to a Hansard report of the House of Commons. I wondered how all that would appear to my constituents, but they loved it. They thought that it was surreal comedy at its finest, to the extent that one of them asked, “Is it like that every night, Pete? If it is, I would never have voted to leave this place.” Here we are: we are all back in our seats—like déjà vu—all over again, only this time we have an actual vote on the European arrest warrant to accompany the debate.
The Tory obsession with European exit has taken us to the very point of withdrawing from a process that ensures the effective transfer of foreign criminals to face justice. Listening to some Conservative Members—I have a great deal of fondness and respect for some of them—it seems to me that anything prefixed with the word “European” is viewed with maximum suspicion, and that anything involving European co-operation and EU nations working together is to be resisted at all costs. Let us be clear that that is what this is all about. This has absolutely nothing to do with the most effective and convenient way of ensuring that criminals are brought to justice, but everything to do with keeping Europe out of any role in the institutional affairs of the United Kingdom.
Nick de Bois
May I ask the hon. Gentleman to look through the other end of the telescope? Is not his thirst and love for the EU encouraging him to put the expediency of a process over justice for innocents?
Pete Wishart
I want to come on to that point, and I will mention a particular case about the use of the European arrest warrant that concerns me.
What are the Government doing about this growing Euroscepticism? They are in and out of the home affairs chapter as though they were doing the hokey cokey at the UKIP Christmas party—first we are in, then we are out, then we shake it all about like a “kipper” in a Kent by-election. This may or may not be a really good day for the Government to have a debate about the European arrest warrant. We have the Rochester and Strood by-election soon, and, as it looks like the Tories will be overwhelmingly defeated, the rebellion this evening will be minimised. However, this debate will also suggest to Farage, the rest of UKIP and the Euro-exiters that the Government are still in thrall to the European Union.
The Government are doing the right thing tonight in not opposing the motion, and I support them, but I encourage them to take on the “kippers” a bit more than they do, rather than pandering to them. See what pandering to UKIP has done: the Government’s opinion rating has gone down faster than a UKIP comment at an equalities convention. Now this monstrous race to the bottom on EU exit has been joined by the Labour party. It is getting stuck in, too, but all it needs to do is have a look at what has happened to the Conservative party. Do not pander to UKIP; take it on. It is the only way to do it. Our stock is rising in Scotland because we are prepared to take on the anti-European agenda and this nonsense about immigration. Is it not time that the Conservative Government and the Labour party started to take on UKIP rather than pandering to its members?
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he, as someone who wants Scottish independence and to be completely independent of the United Kingdom Government, wants to put himself completely under the government of the European Union?
Pete Wishart
That is a ridiculous point. We want what all other member states of the European Union have, which is equal membership of the European Union. We want the same as Denmark, Ireland, Austria and Finland. It is very simple.
The UK is now heading towards the European exit door like a stumbling drunk, cursing incomprehensibly. A bemused Europe watches, not knowing whether to sing “Please Don’t Go” or breathe a sigh of relief because it will soon be relieved of the surly, semi-detached, self-obsessed member. This is a UK with one foot already out of Europe and it looks like it will take my nation with it.
Pete Wishart
I cannot give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as I have no more time in which to do so.
We were supposed to be a family of nations—that is what we were told in the independence referendum—and to be equal partners within the United Kingdom, yet big brother England will drag my nation out of Europe against its will. We are like a small brother, to be scolded and told what is good for us.
Pete Wishart
I have no more time to take interventions.
That is the reality for Scotland in Europe. We value our place in Europe and see support for Europe way beyond what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom. The European arrest warrant is critical for Scotland and we value it. We do not have the ridiculous and absurd examples that are given of insignificant and inappropriate cases. The European arrest warrant has worked for us in 600 cases involving Scotland and fellow member states of the European Union. We have our own distinct legal jurisdiction. We have our own Procurator Fiscal Service and our own Faculty of Advocates, as well as our own Law Society of Scotland. They all support the European arrest warrant. Is it not appalling that the Government could not even be bothered to lift the phone to tell the Scottish Government that they would be withdrawing from the home affairs chapter of the European Union? There were hardly any conversations with Scottish Ministers or even Scottish officials about the renegotiation for opting back into some of these measures—
Pete Wishart
I cannot give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have already said to him that I have no more time.
This is what we see again and again: disrespect for all the Assemblies across the United Kingdom. There is no consultation and no discussion; we are just expected to fall in line.
Pete Wishart
I am not going to give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not know how I can, as I have no more time—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to give way.
Pete Wishart
I cannot give way as I have no more time.
I want to address a point about one important case in Scotland. A Polish national, Grzegorz Gamla, was convicted last December of the murder of Maciej Ciania in Leith. He was arrested by the Polish authorities within five hours of a European arrest warrant being issued. We do not have any of the silly, insignificant and unsubstantial cases that others have cited, and I think that is because we have our own jurisdiction in Scotland and because of how we look at these matters. This is not the European arrest warrant’s fault, but it might be the fault of how the Ministry of Justice looks at such matters. Perhaps it should be looking at its own procedures to see whether they can be addressed properly.
In Scotland, we do not share the Euro-hostility that seems to pervade this House and the UKIPification of the UK in which Master Farage pulls all the strings and those on the Tory Front Bench dance along. The UKIPification of the UK is almost complete. The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) is in his place. He will be joined by his friend on Thursday. I do not know how many other Conservative Members will resign, but I suspect it will be quite a few.
My country is going to be dragged out of the European Union against its will because of the Euro-hostility in this place. We observe these things, but we want no part in them. We are being dragged out against our will. I just wish that the Conservatives would take on UKIP, stop pandering to it and stand up for their own values, rather than for the values of the hon. Member for Clacton and his party.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Of course we want law and order and security—that goes without saying. The question that we are faced with at last, despite the shambles of last week, is whether we are effectively bending the knee to European dogma, the charter of fundamental rights and the European Court of Justice.
The reason I shall vote against the motion is simple: I put the issue of miscarriages of justice ahead of the other issues that have been addressed. I ask the Government the following questions. What about fair trials? What about political and judicial corruption in some European countries? What about habeas corpus? What would hon. Members think if they or their families were subjected to the miscarriages of justice that we have heard about today? I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for his tenacity and to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for what they have said.
As I said earlier, what is so special about the EU in respect of these questions, when Turkey may well become a hotbed of terrorism? What about the rest of the world?
This issue smacks to me of the case of Liversidge v. Anderson in the 1940s, which related to emergency regulation 18B. It became clear that what was really at stake was the question of the state versus the individual. Eventually, after four years of agonising, the courts accepted that there had been a massive miscarriage of justice. I believe that such cases will become increasingly common when we accept the irreversible—other than through the repeal or amendment of the European Communities Act 1972—commitment to these procedures.
If we were confronted with a Bill containing these measures, it would go through all the stages of consideration and could be amended. We are denied that because the measures are contained in European regulations. We are conceding sovereignty over a significant area of criminal law to European institutions. The key role of interpretation will pass from the UK Supreme Court to the European Court of Justice. The Spanish discovered recently in the Melloni case that the European arrest warrant can undermine the human rights protections in their own constitution.
I raised the question of the EU charter of fundamental rights with the Home Secretary. I remind her that the matter has already been adjudicated on by the courts. It is implemented under section 3 of the 1972 Act. That section must be amended to adjust that imposition on the UK, its Parliament and its courts.
There is the question of this being a pan-European system. Law and order and public safety have been the common themes put forward by the Government, as though they should override all other considerations, such as the sovereignty of Parliament and the protection of the rights and civil liberties of the individual. Under the enactments that we have made on behalf of the voters who send us here, we do not send our Members of Parliament to Brussels.
The EAW is a mutual recognition measure. It relies on a parity of standards of justice that does not exist universally. The lack of that parity of standards would become even more pronounced if the EU expanded to include countries such as Albania. The EU itself reported on the unacceptable levels of corruption in the Albanian justice system as part of its pre-candidature due diligence.
The changes that were made to the European arrest warrant in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 have yet to be proven. We do not know what would happen in cases such as those of Turner, Symeou, Dark and Mann, and the case of Ashya King came after the reforms. That was the case I referred to the other day, in which a poor child suffering from a brain tumour was separated from its parents, who were put in handcuffs under this outrageous miscarriage of justice.
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
I have a great deal of respect for the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, but surely the point about the Ashya King arrest warrant is that it was issued by the British authorities. If my hon. Friend is going to complain about the issuing of an arrest warrant by a British authority, he has to look at the whole British justice system. That mistake surely had little to do with the European arrest warrant and was due to the British authorities.
Sir William Cash
I also respect my hon. Friend, who sits on the European Scrutiny Committee, but my point is simple: the British authorities, in line with a continuing stream of human rights consciousness such as the Human Rights Act, the charter and the rest of it, were insufficiently vigilant. The case should have been rejected. That is the problem—the pervasive atmosphere of compliance with those things, and the European arrest warrant is part of that attitude.
I will go further and say that in their handling of this process, the Government have completely failed to honour their repeated undertakings that they would enable Parliament to vote on the entire package of measures that they propose to rejoin. So much has been said so well by so many Members, but I wish finally to say this. Rejoining the measures in question without proper and explicit parliamentary consent would be lawful, just as it would be possible to go to war, for instance, without explicit parliamentary consent. However, the Government should reflect on the fact that we are standing up for the individual who is affected and victimised by this miscarriage of justice. The vote is going to go against us today, we know that, but in taking this course of action the Government will have exercised their prerogative Executive powers by merely sending a letter. As I said to the Home Secretary last week, that undermines the democratic legitimacy of their decision.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is of course a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), on whose Committee I serve but whose views I do not share. He is a great champion of sovereignty and a sceptic of Europe, but we need to balance the issue of where decisions are made against the protection of our citizens. Let us think about the numbers: under the European arrest warrant over the past five years, 5,000 criminals who would otherwise be cluttering up our own justice system and prisons have been removed from the UK to face justice. At worst, in a world of disconnection from Europe, we would not have the information we needed to know that our citizens were at risk from foreign criminals, who might be rapists, terrorists or murderers. In the balance, despite what he says about individual cases, it is clearly right for Britain to protect itself from such criminals and not to allow his obsession to endanger British citizens.
Sir William Cash
The hon. Gentleman may know that I was in a debate the other day on, I think, Radio 5 Live. One of the people representing the police on these matters said that the European arrest warrant would “save us the bother” of having to go through an extended extradition procedure. Those were the words he used—it would “save us the bother”. That is what worries me.
Geraint Davies
My understanding is that the statistics show that extradition now takes an average of 49 days, but it took a year before we were in the European arrest warrant system. The hon. Gentleman has to bear in mind the fact that each criminal would spend an extra 45 weeks in Britain without that system. There would be no transfer of information, so we would be a safe haven for criminals and have more and more foreign criminals. We are already at risk, and that in turn would put British people at greater risk. These enormous risks to life and limb should not be tolerated because of people’s particular political angst over Europe, and particularly those who—I do not include the hon. Gentleman in this—are driven by fear, prejudice and concern about UKIP breathing down their political necks. We should put the safety of people in Britain first.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has already gone through the farcical pantomime that we experienced last Monday when the Home Secretary—who has now endorsed today’s motion, which is similar to that in the Lords—would not allow a wider debate. I know that the hon. Member for Stone would ideally like to have gone through all 35 measures, but we should at least have had a debate in the round. Only the generosity of Mr Speaker, who pointed out that we were considering specifically 11 measures and not 35, although he would allow discussion of the European arrest warrant, would have enabled us to talk about it had the debate gone ahead.
It is extremely important to talk about the European arrest warrant and all the other measures. Somebody might own a house in the UK and be charged in Spain, and we might want their assets to be confiscated here; or we might want a list of convictions to be passed on so that sentences can be carried out properly in other countries in the light of previous convictions. We might want a supervision order so that UK citizens can be bailed in the UK rather than having to stay abroad, or a prisoner transfer so that people can serve custody at home. All those things are good for Britain. People from UKIP might not think that such measures are good for Britain, but they protect British people by enabling them to serve their custody in Britain, and ensuring that our jails are not clogged up with foreign criminals.
I am concerned about some of the politics of this, and that the fear and cowardice of the Home Secretary in not confronting the House of Commons with the 35 measures directly was born out of fear of UKIP. We basically have a party born of the austerity created by the Conservatives, which then blames immigration for the economic poverty inflicted on people by the Tories. The Government give UKIP credibility by saying that we will have a referendum, making out that Britain could survive outside Europe, and then they say, “Oh, we’ll reform it first”, which implies that Europe as it stands is not worth being part of. The Government are feeding the monster of UKIP and it will be the tiger that devours them.
Mr Grieve
I shall support the Government’s position on the European arrest warrant, which I believe to be desirable and necessary pragmatically. However, this debate would not have been necessary if we had not made what in my view was the grave error of merging the justice and home affairs third pillar into the main architecture of the European Union treaties. There is no doubt that doing that locks us into something that might cause us difficulties if in future we find it is not working properly. I have always had great sympathy with my hon. Friends on the Government Benches and elsewhere who have concerns about that. Logically they are right to do so, even though I will disagree with them tonight. Simply to gloss over that issue is not satisfactory.
Geraint Davies
That is a point well made. Everybody knows that the European Union is not perfect, that mistakes have been made and that we need reform. That is about co-operative engagement to do things that are sensible not just for the citizens of Britain but for those of Europe.
Geraint Davies
To leave would be to expose us to criminals, terrorists, rapists and child abusers, and that appears to be a cost that those from UKIP and elsewhere think worth paying. I do not think we could look at the mothers and fathers of people who had been killed by villains if those crimes could have been prevented by co-operation—and all in the name of prejudice from UKIP and others.
Across Europe there are something like 3,600 organised groups involved in drugs, trafficking children or terror, and they need to be confronted. There is no point pretending that we exist in some sort of fish and chip shop Britain, floating away in splendid isolation where villains cannot jump on board. If we pull ourselves out of the European arrest warrant, we could be a safe haven for them. People have made much of individual cases. We know from individual cases—Hussein Osman, the 21/7 bomber who was brought to justice from Italy thanks to the European arrest warrant; Jeremy Forrestt, the teacher who abducted a schoolgirl and took her to France and was brought back; and Jason McKay who murdered his girlfriend and went to Poland—that there is an endless list of villains who have been brought to justice by the co-operation of our emerging civilisation in Europe.
This matter is enormously important to people across the UK. I think we all agree with subsidiarity and with taking decisions at the most local level possible. However, decisions should not be taken at the cost of deaths, molestation, abuse, trafficking or terror threats—that would be completely ridiculous. I have no hesitation in supporting the motion.
Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)
I want to make a few brief points. In July, significant reforms were introduced to procedures in respect of the European arrest warrant. There is now clearly a test for proportionality, so that UK police forces are not going to execute European arrest warrants for trivial or minor crimes that would not receive a custodial sentence here. It is also necessary to be able to demonstrate dual criminality; in other words, the European arrest warrant will not be executed if the offence is not also a crime in the United Kingdom. The judge being requested to issue the European arrest warrant also has to be satisfied as to the readiness of the case or, in other words, that the case is ready to go to trial and that the European arrest warrant is not simply being used as a means of detaining people indefinitely or going on some sort of fishing expedition. People are therefore only going to be extradited if the offences are serious, if the authorities elsewhere are ready to proceed and if the matters in question are also crimes here in the UK.
Since 2009, 221 people have been extradited by Thames Valley police under a European arrest warrant. This year, Thames Valley police have extradited five high-risk offenders from the United Kingdom. They are people wanted for the most serious offences, including murder, terrorism offences, armed robbery, serious assault and firearms offences. Significant extraditions in 2014 by Thames Valley police include a Polish individual wanted for grievous bodily harm and aggravated burglary in Poland. This individual had numerous convictions for violent offences. Because he was assessed as high risk, the warrant was received, processed and executed within 24 hours, thus removing a potential offender and providing reassurance to the community. Indeed, our local community in the Thames Valley has clearly been safeguarded by this person’s removal from the UK.
An individual wanted for taking part in the murder of two youths in Milton Keynes was arrested in Holland under the provisions of a European arrest warrant. He was extradited back to the UK, where he now awaits trial. Since July, Thames Valley police have also collected one suspect under the provision of a European arrest warrant for fraud offences that had a criminal benefit of some £150,000. The European arrest warrant is being used to help to keep us safe by removing foreign criminals from our communities. That is an important point. The House has to remember that, of those extradited from the UK under the European arrest warrant, the overall majority are foreign nationals.
The Metropolitan police show that 95% of the nearly 1,500 criminal suspects, including murderers and rapists, who fled to London to avoid facing justice overseas but have been extradited over the past five years under the European arrest warrant, were foreign nationals. Some 95% of the warrants applied to foreign nationals. Of the 1,500 criminal suspects in the Met police area—including 45 alleged killers, 35 men wanted for rape, 25 accused of child sex offences, 30 suspected armed robbers, two alleged terrorists, 130 people wanted for drug trafficking and 252 people accused of fraud—only 67, or less than 5% of the total, were Britons. This is largely about ensuring that criminals cannot flee to the UK and use it is a safe haven.
As Lord Howard of Lympne, a former Home Secretary and no great supporter of the EU, observed:
“I hope that Parliament will endorse the Government’s sensible approach… Justice delayed, too often, is justice denied… I have seen the benefits of the Arrest Warrant, and expressed concerns about its shortcomings. Now that this Government has acted to address those shortcomings, it should continue to be a tool at the disposal of our law enforcement agencies.”
The arrest warrant meant that Hussain Osman, one of the failed July 2005 London bombers, who fled to Italy, could be brought back to Britain for trial in just 56 days. By contrast, the man who masterminded the Paris metro attack in 1995, which killed eight people, was able to shelter in London for 10 years before he could be extradited, because the warrant was not in force at the time. I do not think that any Member wants any part of the UK to be a safe haven for foreign criminals.
Prior to the EAW, I can remember spending hours at Horseferry Road magistrates court and elsewhere arguing the case, while defendants were able to delay extradition because we needed individual extradition treaties with individual countries. We now have a working proportionality filter: a UK judge is required to consider whether extradition would be disproportionate; and if a person is wanted for prosecution, a judge has to take into account the seriousness of the conduct, the likely penalty and the possibility of the relevant foreign authorities taking less coercive measures than extradition. Furthermore, the Government sought to curb any lengthy pre-trial detentions, so in cases where someone is wanted for trial abroad, extradition can go ahead only where the issuing state has made a decision to charge and try that person.
I think that the Government are right to push ahead with the EAW. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has rightly warned that abandoning it would undermine the fight against crime and risk turning Britain into a haven for fugitives, and I hope that the whole House will vote on the pragmatic grounds of public safety, rather than playing politics. The well-being and safety of our constituents are too important.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Such is the heat of the debate and the number and length of interventions, which have caused speeches to be much longer—in order, but much longer—than the limit I set, that I am afraid I now must reduce the time limit to four minutes.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the pro-European views of the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). I agree with everything he said and wish to reiterate one of the points he made: of the 4,000 criminals arrested in this country under the EAW, 95% were foreign nationals. We need to make that point. The EAW is a mechanism to get bad people out of our country to be put on trial and then, I hope, convicted for crimes carried out usually in other countries. By contrast, under the “reckless” position put forward yesterday, good people—Polish plumbers and their families—would be deported to other European countries, while, presumably, the criminals, after we have left the EU, would not be, because we would not be part of the EAW. That is the position of the party that claims to be speaking in the national interest; in fact, it is doing the exact opposite.
We benefit from immigration. EU migrants have made a great contribution to our country over many years. Our prosperity has been increased by the higher economic growth that resulted from nationals of the A8 accession countries coming here to work on our bus and transport systems, our health service, our shops and retail establishments, as architects and teachers and in all kinds of other occupations—even as priests. I have an excellent Catholic priest in my constituency who now runs morning services for the English-speaking community and afternoon services for the Poles and Lithuanians. We are benefiting from the migration of Europeans to our country, but at the same time we have to work with other Europeans in the interests of our country.
In my remaining time, let me say a few brief words about Operation Golf, which I mentioned in an intervention on the Home Secretary. The Europol website has a section called “Operational Successes”. Operation Golf is the first of a list of many dealing with different countries. Operation Golf was a joint investigation team operation by the Metropolitan police and the Romanian national police. It targeted Romanian organised crime; it led to the arrest of 126 individuals and the searching of 16 addresses in Ilford, most of them in my constituency; and it led to the freeing of a large number of children who were being used in organised begging gangs.
This operation went on between 2007 and 2010. In 2011, the Romanian authorities used the European arrest warrants to get the extradition of a man described as a “real life Fagin”. This man, Nelu Stoian, was extradited to Romania along with others to be prosecuted for their crimes. That would not have been possible without the external arrangements we have and the European arrest warrant. We should be proud of the fact that we are part of that, and we should recognise that it benefits our country.
Sir Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I want to bring the House’s attention back to the excellent speech from the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). He touched on the central issue—the most difficult issue for me—which is the mutual recognition of other legal systems. I am puzzled about why the Opposition should be so devoted to sweeping aside any consideration of something so important for our liberty and our due processes.
The problem is mutual recognition, so let me draw attention to the dire events taking place in Perugia. This is uncomfortable for me because I am an admirer of Italy. An English girl was murdered there. The question of guilt ran through three trials, and the return to Italy of the American involved is being sought again. This is not a judicial system with which we are familiar. It is one that, painfully, did not come to a resolution. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton was right that mutual recognition is not equal standards, so people such as me feel it to be a degradation of our own legal system to be placed in such a position where we have no control over the liberty and freedoms of our own citizens. That is the key point for me.
The Labour party had a Prime Minister who was absolutely convinced that without 90 days of pre-trial detention the state would fall. It was the Labour party that put an end to that nonsense, and the Labour party not going along with 90 days of pre-trial detention, which resulted from the hysteria of Ministers and a Prime Minister, was one of the most exhilarating moments I have seen in this House. I commend the Labour party for that. Why, then, does it not stand up for our own legal system, which protects the liberty of each one of us who enjoys either the jurisdiction of Scotland or our own common law. That is what I am worried about—that the Labour party, which has used the law creatively to advance our liberties, is now prepared to cast away that essential control over the liberty and freedoms of the citizens of the United Kingdom.
Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
The motion proposes “That this House endorses” the Government’s application to opt back into the European arrest warrant. We should not do so. Mine is the only party to state unequivocally that we should not do so: there is 100% agreement on this Bench. [Laughter.] For all their huffing and puffing, those on the two Front Benches are at one on this issue. They are willing to opt to hand more powers over to Europe, and to hand over United Kingdom citizens to be extradited without evidence.
We need extradition. It is right and proper that those who are accused of crimes in one jurisdiction can be transferred from another to face justice, and I recognise the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). We do indeed need cross-border co-operation; I just happen to think that the European arrest warrant is a bad way of arranging it. As the Baker review put it in 2011, the basis of the European arrest warrant is an
“acceptance of a foreign warrant by national judicial authorities without an inquiry into the facts”.
That makes a system of “tick box” extradition inevitable. Provided that the forms are filled in correctly, and irrespective of the strength of the evidence against the defendant, judicial authorities must permit extradition.
Defenders of the European arrest warrant like to cite the new “proportionality test”, as if that would suddenly put right all that has already been found to be wrong with the system. It will not. What is needed is not a proportionality test, but a testing of the evidence in a British court. What is so objectionable about this measure is the lack of an evidential test. The “E word” is not “Europe”, but “evidence”.
The European arrest warrant is built on the fallacy that the different justice systems in the European Union are the same—on the idea of “mutual recognition”. The justice systems in individual member states are not the same. In some member states, public prosecutors are able to exercise a wide degree of latitude, of discretion, before bringing charges; others, such as Poland, have far less discretion. In some legal systems, such as our own, there is a very strong presumption of innocence; in others, the presumption is less strong.
Back in December 2002, before he led the opposition to the European arrest warrant, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) told the House that if we signed up to it
“we will be taking other…judicial systems on trust.”
Indeed. The right hon. Member for Witney also said that he found
“the European arrest warrant highly objectionable”. —[Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 107-8.]
Writing in The Daily Telegraph the other day, a former leader of my former party, Lord Howard, helpfully reminded everyone that, in opposition, he and his party had opposed the introduction of the European arrest warrant. Indeed they did. Parties do one thing in opposition, and another thing in office.
This is not merely a question of whether to opt back into the European arrest warrant. It is also a question of credibility: the credibility of the Government Front Bench. The Government say that they oppose a federal Europe, yet today they are lining up to vote to federalise the system of extradition. They claim to want to return powers to Britain, yet today they will cheerfully vote to hand them away.
The British left once understood what was wrong with this. It was thrilling to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) speak so eloquently and so powerfully. The British left would once have sided with individual liberty and against the power of the Euro-elites. My former colleagues should have the backbone to stand up to a Home Office Minister who is in the pockets of Home Office mandarins, and I hope that they will do so.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
We have seen Labour at its most opportunistic and cynical. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) complained vociferously about the lack of time given to this matter, but it was the Labour Government who negotiated the infamous Lisbon treaty, and did not call for any debate on the Floor of the House. If it had been left up to Labour, there would have been no time at all for a debate on the Floor of the House, and the matter would have been dealt with by an obscure Committee upstairs over a 90-minute period. Yet Labour Members now cynically suggest that there is not enough time, despite having had six opportunities here in the Chamber.
Labour Members have also complained that there has not been enough time for this debate. Last Monday, they used an arcane procedure—it can be found on page 404 of “Erskine May”—to curtail debate. They attempt to convince people that there has been insufficient debate when they have cut hours of it short using an archaic procedure.
Michael Ellis
In a moment, if I may.
This is not a debate about Europe; it is a debate about law and order. I spoke out in the Home Affairs Committee and in the Chamber against the European arrest warrant’s earlier manifestations, but there have been changes, which make a significant difference. For 15 years, before I came to this House, as a barrister in criminal practice, I fought for justice for individuals. It is my hope and intention to continue to do so from this place, but the reality is that the changes that have been made are significant.
Under Labour, British citizens were extradited for disproportionately minor offences. We have changed the law to allow an arrest warrant to be refused in respect of minor offences. Under Labour, people could be extradited for conduct in the UK that was not against the law of this country. We have changed that, too, so that that can no longer happen.
Under Labour, people were detained for long periods overseas before they were charged or stood trial. That was wrong. We have changed the law again to stop that unfairness. Under Labour, people were worried about arrest warrants being issued purely for investigatory purposes, rather than for prosecutions, so we have changed that. Under Labour, people were concerned about the prospect of being charged with offences over and above those specified in their arrest warrant if they chose to consent to extradition, and we have changed that, too. So it is a different creature. It is a different matter altogether.
Many issues have been raised by hon. Members, including eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), but they must bear it in mind that over 95% of those extradited are foreign nationals. There are miscarriages of justice, about which it is painful to hear and which I have spent my life fighting against, but there are miscarriages everywhere. It is not the European arrest warrant that is being objected to in those remarks; often, it is extradition itself that people are unhappy with. I remind hon. Members that the Home Secretary has made changes to the extradition process as well—I cite the forum bar in that respect. Therefore, we are talking about different creatures.
Did my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) wish to intervene?
Michael Ellis
I consider myself a Eurosceptic and I do not wish to see such a slippery slope. I wish to see criminals brought to justice. Like my hon. Friend, I do not wish to see people being allowed to use this jurisdiction as though it were a safe haven for criminals and people at large.
As a consequence of those issues, I have been satisfied that the European arrest warrant in its current manifestation provides safeguards. They are never going to be perfect. Sadly, we do not have a perfect system. No such system exists where it is operated by human beings because we are not perfect. There will occasionally be miscarriages of justice, but to wipe out the whole process of expedition that now exists, because of the arrangements that have been made, seems illogical, unnecessary and not to be in the wider interests of justice. Therefore, I support the Government and their measures on this matter.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I am a Eurosceptic of the first order and voted no in 1975, when a lot of now UKIP members were voting to stay in the Common Market, so it may surprise the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) and indeed the Whips Office that I am supporting the opt in to the arrest warrant. Before the Whips celebrate a sinner repenting, I say to them that this is certainly the last occasion I shall be supporting a European matter.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
It is not a question of the sinner who repenteth. Even Homer nods.
Martin Vickers
That is an intervention that could be made only by my hon. Friend.
I value the sovereignty of Parliament and the supremacy of the courts, so it may surprise Members that I have come to this conclusion, but in recent weeks I have heard and read many fine words, including contributions to the debates today and last week. I have listened with great interest to learned contributions from lawyers and Select Committee Chairmen and to good constitutional arguments and instinctively I tend to support them, but on this occasion, as with everything, it is a question of balance. One of the roles we perform here in this Chamber is to articulate the concerns of those we represent, and on this matter, although I represent an area that is by a large margin Eurosceptic, I am quite certain I am speaking for my constituents, because—[Interruption.] I am speaking for them because this is an arrangement that allows for speedy extradition, and in the modern world the aim must be to protect my constituents from the threats of terrorism and a whole range of serious criminals.
As has already been said in the debate, this is a law and order issue. My reservations are laid to rest when I note the comments of my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, who said in this House on 7 April:
“We have a sensible package. We have sought to operate in the national interest and to reflect the views of the law enforcement community about what it needs to fight organised crime. I am clear that I do not want, and will not tolerate, the idea of us becoming part of a Europeanised justice system.”—[Official Report, 7 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 93.]
I share those views, but—[Interruption.] I share those views, but I ask whether it is beneficial to make it easier to tackle cross-border crime, and of course the answer is yes, and whether it is beneficial for our law enforcement agencies to make it easier to bring serious international criminals to justice, and of course the answer is yes.
It is unacceptable that attempts at extradition should go on year after year after year. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Martin Vickers
No, I must continue.
Action has been taken to ensure that an arrest warrant cannot be used for minor offences. An arrest warrant will also be refused if all or part of the alleged crime took place in the UK and it is not a criminal offence in the UK.
The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said that many issues could have been debated today, and I am staggered that an Opposition should use their Opposition time to debate a motion in support of the Government. They have a whole range of issues that they could mention. It is somewhat bizarre that with this motion, when 500 or so of us are going to troop through the Lobby in favour, they choose their time to highlight their own weaknesses. Their weakness is of course that they have no coherent alternative to the current Government’s economic policies.
I reaffirm my opposition to membership of the EU, but I have always taken the view that—[Interruption.] I have always taken the view that while we are a member of that organisation, we should use its structures and powers to benefit this country. [Interruption.] We may as well say we are not going to accept its money if it wants to give us a grant from the social fund or wherever. [Interruption.] My original opposition to the then Common Market and to what has evolved from that has always been one of sovereignty, but I recognise that sovereignty given away by this House can be reclaimed by this House; otherwise there would be no point in discussing a referendum or debating such issues. So on this occasion I support the Government’s decision. [Interruption.] It is a wise one, it is in the best interests of those I represent, it is on a law and order issue, and it is one I fully support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I do not expect to hear you, Mr Carswell, continually shouting across the Chamber at Members who are speaking, as you just did to the previous speaker. Just because you are sitting further away from me than you did in the past does not mean I cannot hear you, and I would be grateful if you listened to the debate.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
It is a great privilege to follow a true Eurosceptic.
In my brief contribution I do not intend to expand on my concerns about the individual measures. In fact, I would welcome a number of the individual measures in this package if we were able to have the final say on them in this House and in our judicial system. But I worry about it happening in one sweep with little debate about the principle of why we are taking away parliamentary and judicial sovereignty in the area of justice and home affairs and allowing the European Court of Justice to have the final say. I am a bit surprised that that did not rate a mention in the shadow Home Secretary’s opening speech, given that it is such a big issue.
To help me to prove my point about the direction of travel that justice and home affairs matters are taking in the European Commission, I should like to quote the former European Commission vice-president, Viviane Reding. She has said:
“In the space of just a few years,”—
since the three pillars were collapsed—
“justice policy has come into the limelight of European Union activity—comparable to the boost given to the single market in the 1990s. We have come a long way, but there is more to do to develop a true European area of Justice”.
We do not talk much about that in the House. The closest we came to having a proper discussion on it was when we were talking about the European public prosecutor’s office in our debates on the European Union Act 2011, in which we discussed referendum locks. I think that all the parties agreed that that was an area of concern and a red line that we would not cross—all the parties bar the Lib Dems, of course. Now, however, the establishment of the policy is part of the EU area of justice. We must not mistake the direction in which we are heading.
Why am I concerned about giving Europe the ability to enact and police legislation in this area? Most of the EU operates under a different system of law from ours, and I do not believe that the European Commission is the body that should be making the UK’s and England’s criminal law. The European Court of Justice should not have the ability to override the primacy of this Parliament or of the English judiciary in these areas. The ECJ has become so prominent because almost everything the European Union does tends to become legally binding and eventually subject to review by EU judges or national courts acting on their behalf. That reflects a European tendency to move difficult political conflicts, such as the eurozone crisis and the EU’s 2013 fiscal compact, away from ministerial gatherings and towards apolitical groups of national experts, the legal realm and the courts.
Member states are discussing plans for a European public prosecutor, which may be created among a core group of countries under the Lisbon treaty. The European Parliament is helping to design jail sentences for rogue traders and people who do wrong in financial institutions, and the European Commission will start taking EU Governments to court over criminal justice standards from December 2014 onwards.
Chris Heaton-Harris
Quite possibly.
The EU now has well over 150 mainly framework decisions in the area of justice and home affairs, many of which involve intergovernmental accords. The Commission cannot yet enforce those accords and EU nationals cannot yet claim rights based on them. However, the Lisbon treaty allows framework decisions to be enforced before the courts in the same manner as single market legislation, but only after December 2014—the same time as our proposed block opt-in. We are not even opting back in to the justice and home affairs system as it operates today; we are opting in to something quite new. None the less, the ECJ has already produced around 50 judgments to do with police and justice co-operation. That is because 19 member states have already voluntarily accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, to enable their own courts be clear as to the exact scope and meaning of each individual EU crime and policing agreement. December 2014, which is just a couple of weeks away, will still represent a watershed. The ECJ will start to create a jurisprudence in an area that really should be a matter for the British courts, the British Parliament and British justice. I am afraid that I shall have to vote against the motion this evening.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
I find myself utterly at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) on this matter. I support the Government on these issues because it is the first duty of any Government to protect their citizens. It is in that spirit that I support the motion, notwithstanding any concerns that we might have about our relationship with Europe or the sovereignty of this House. In our increasingly interconnected world, criminal activity recognises no international boundaries. Consequently, the need for international co-operation in the fight against crime is essential if we are to keep our people safe.
I appreciate, and am sympathetic to, the sincere concerns that have been expressed by colleagues, but for me this is about practicality and I am satisfied that the Government have exercised their right to opt in only to those measures that will enhance the operational capacity of our law enforcement agencies. The simple truth is this: it is very easy for a wanted criminal simply to leg it to the Costa del Sol or scuttle across the channel. I want our law enforcement agencies to get their hands on these people—people who are plotting terrorism and people who are engaged in serious crime.
As hon. Members know, I represent a constituency that has significant port interests, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes. That perhaps explains why we may be more naturally Eurosceptic on many issues, but on this one we are influenced by hard-headed pragmatism about what needs to be done to tackle international crime.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
My hon. Friend says that it is very easy for people to get from one country to another and that we need to do something about these crimes. Surely the solution would be to make it much harder to get from one country to another. What we should be doing is stopping this free movement of people which is allowing all these criminals to come through our border controls daily with impunity. Surely that is what we should be dealing with.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. We are very short of time, and I am trying to protect the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who has been waiting patiently to speak. Taking interventions from people, however eminent, who have just entered the Chamber in the past few minutes would not really be fair on the final speakers.
Jackie Doyle-Price
Thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. All I would say is that often such people are evading our border controls, so it is a lot more complicated than my hon. Friend says.
I have witnessed at first hand, in the ports in my constituency, just how difficult it is for Border Force and for the police to tackle the activities of serious and well-organised international criminal gangs, and that work relies on international co-operation. Members will recall that only last summer a metal container containing a number of fleeing Afghan Sikhs was intercepted at Tilbury. Anyone who spends an amount of time in a poorly ventilated metal container is dicing with death—they are playing Russian roulette with their life. They have to be desperate to do that and there are people willing to exploit that desperation and make considerable sums out of them. We are not going to be able to tackle that kind of people trafficking without having good, strong international co-operation. In witnessing that incident, it was impressive to see how quickly arrests were made, and that was very much due to the co-operation between law enforcement agencies in the various ports that that container had travelled through. In that event, the perpetrators came from within our own jurisdiction, but that is not always the case. Such people trafficking is happening every day, and we have to get a lot sharper and smarter at dealing with it. These measures will be an important tool in doing so.
I am grateful for the changes the Government have made to the European arrest warrant, which go a long way to tackling many of the concerns that have been expressed in this debate about people’s liberties and the need to make sure that people will not be extradited for offences that would not be offences in this country. I feel strongly that we will be vigilant about that, that we will make sure the process continues to operate in a way that underlines the need for justice, and that we will always be vigilant in protecting the liberties of our own subjects. The reality is that the EAW will be deployed only in dealing with the most serious crime—murder, manslaughter, rape, terrorism, war crimes and people trafficking. Much as I dislike the EU, I am not going to get in the way of justice for victims of such offences, and let perverts and murderers walk free.
There are some outside this House who would rather engage in an ideological war about Europe than do what is necessary to keep our people safe—I am not in that category. If I thought these measures were not necessary, I would not support them. There is a very real debate to be had about our relationship with Europe, and it is one that Conservative Members are determined to have before letting the people decide in a referendum. In the meantime, lets give our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to do the job to keep us safe.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I begin by thanking the shadow Home Secretary for bringing forward this debate? In a wonderful spirit of bipartisanship, she has spared the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary their honour. Thanks to the right hon. Lady, the Prime Minister’s promise to have a debate on the European arrest warrant has been met. That shows an admirable, broad-minded, good-spiritedness although we are still some time from Christmas. I will not dwell unduly on the procedures, as those were covered quite thoroughly last week, other than to remind the House of what was said in the other place on Monday. The dissatisfaction is not limited to this Chamber. My noble Friend Lord Boswell, who is not a hard-nosed, hatchet-faced Eurosceptic, said:
“The problem now is a handling issue. The Government—particularly the Home Office—seem to be crippled by fear. Instead of encouraging a frank debate and a clear vote on their decision, they have resorted to undignified and ultimately self-defeating procedural dodges.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 333.]
That is an extraordinary statement to be made in their lordships’ House, which is a much less aggressive, more kindly place than this Chamber sometimes.
I want to move on to the substance of the issue. With seven seconds for each of the 35 articles into which we are opting, I will not try to cover every one of them; I feel obliged to stick to the arrest warrant and answer the point that the arrest warrant is not essential to extradition. It is perfectly possible to have extradition arrangements either with the European Union or with individual nation states, as we do with the United States of America. That is then outside the ambit of the European Court of Justice. It is the Court of Justice of the European Union that is at the heart of the matter. Constitutionally, it is the real problem, because all our safeguards are speculative—the Home Secretary admits that herself. It has not yet been judged by the Court of Justice as to whether those safeguards will be upheld, and there is no appetite within Europe for reforming the basis of the arrest warrant. I am glad to see the Home Secretary returning to her place.
In evidence given to the European Scrutiny Committee, it was made clear that efforts to rewrite the details of the arrest warrant to put in some of the protections did not meet with any support. When a representative of the Commission gave evidence to the Lords’ Extradition Law Committee, she said that there was no willingness to transform the arrest warrant to bring in those safeguards. The European Court of Justice, an ambitious court that has historically extended its powers to cover an increasing number of areas, will be in charge of how extradition from this country takes place from 1 December. That is very dangerous, because it risks some of those things that we in this country hold most dear; it risks people being extradited to countries that do not have habeas corpus.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman will speak briefly so that we can get to the wind-ups. I am afraid that his hon. Friend has shaved a minute off his time; he has 47 seconds.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Habeas corpus is at risk. We also risk bringing in the European public prosecutor, because if that body is created—and it is under discussion—we will find that it can get the member states that join to issue arrest warrants, circumventing the protection that we have in our own law and the referendum lock. Of absolutely crucial importance is this issue of mutual recognition. Once we start with mutual recognition, we then set similar standards, and our justice will have crept away. The arrest warrant is very dangerous; it is against Tory party policy. The procedure has been dreadful and we should defeat it this evening.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I appreciate the fact that we have had this debate. The Labour party, Her Majesty’s Opposition, called this debate because we believe that the House of Commons should be given a chance to speak, to debate, and ultimately to vote on and, I hope, endorse the principles behind the European arrest warrant. The Government Front-Bench team might disagree with this, but we did have a shambles of a debate not one week ago. By calling this debate in Opposition time, we have served a purpose. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) for acknowledging that; we are here to help. The Government and the Liberal Democrats agree with the motion. Half the Conservative Back Benchers agree with the motion, as do the vast majority of Opposition Members, so it is important that we proceed with the policy.
Mr Hanson
I have only a few moments to speak so, if I may, I would like to make some progress.
Getting to this point has involved a long and tortuous procedure, as the Home Secretary recognised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in the Chamber, said that his Committee published a report on the matter on 29 October 2013, and we are now only 12 days away from 1 December 2014. The matter has been debated by the Justice Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).
The process by which we have got where we are today has been a shambles. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) reminded us of his contribution to last week’s debate of claiming to move “That the Question, That be Question be not now put, be now put,” which is second in parliamentary history only to when I wore a top hat on the Opposition Back Benches to make a point of order during a Division some 20 years ago.
Hon. Members have set out several reasons why we should not sign up to the European arrest warrant and the other measures. They have said that doing so represents a transfer of power and that that subjugates UK law. They have said that UK standards of justice will not be met, that the warrant has the word “European” in its name, and that extradition should be dealt with in individual treaties. We also heard the serious point that innocent people may face an unfair procedure in a foreign court, which was cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who has a great deal of experience of these matters, as well as the hon. Members for Stone, for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), who is also no longer in the Chamber, pledged UKIP’s 100% support for opposing the motion—it was extremely satisfactory that he agreed with himself.
Such strong points demonstrate that there are genuine issues, which I do not decry. It is important that we consider them, but I disagree with the points made. I take the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), as hon. Members would expect, but I also respect the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who all pointed out that the measure is about bringing criminals to justice.
I confess that I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), but he made the valuable point that changes have been made. I can let him into a secret: we supported those changes during their passage through Parliament and we did so because we know, like the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and others, that the measure means that foreign national criminals will be deported back to their home countries to face justice, that criminals will face trial here, and that there will be justice for victims against whom heinous crimes have been committed. I welcomed the contribution of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who put his latent Euroscepticism to one side for a moment to recognise that the issue is about crime, not Europe, and about bringing criminals to justice to ensure that they spend time in prison, not on sun loungers in Spain.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr Hanson
With respect, my hon. Friend has not been in the Chamber throughout the debate. I have only two more minutes in which to speak, and as I did not take an intervention from the hon. Member for Stone, who has been present for the entire debate, I hope that my hon. Friend understands that I must be fair and not give way.
The Labour party believes strongly in retaining the European arrest warrant and the other measures to keep our communities safe, to protect our borders and to stop criminals from fleeing justice. More than 1,000 foreign criminals were deported last year under the European arrest warrant for drug trafficking, murder, fraud, child sex offences and rape. As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, this is about co-operating with European partners to ensure that people who have committed these serious crimes do not get away with them. Senior members of the Association of Chief Police Officers and police officers working for international agencies such as Interpol recognise the importance of dealing with such crimes. Fugitive teacher Jeremy Forrest, who fled to France with a schoolgirl, was extradited to England on a European arrest warrant in September 2012. Hussain Osman, who tried to blow up the centre of London in a terror attack, was brought back from Italy and is now serving 40 years in prison as a consequence of the European arrest warrant. Jason McKay, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West mentioned, was extradited from Poland within two weeks of murdering his partner—justice for a murdered woman.
Mr Hanson
Ordinarily I would, but I have literally one minute left.
We support joint investigation teams, the exchange of criminal records, Europol, combating international child pornography and tackling international football hooliganism. Those are the measures that we have put before the House in the motion. Members, even those who have spoken against the European arrest warrant, must recognise that the Metropolitan police have dealt with 1,457 cases under the European arrest warrant over the past four years. For my local police force, North Wales police, the figure is 33; for the local force of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, Humberside police, it is 83; and for the local force of the hon. Member for Stone, Staffordshire police, it is 52.
This is not a tool for having an argument about Europe. The points made by Members who oppose the European arrest warrant have a validity that needs to be examined and discussed, but they are points that need to be got over, because this is about crime, bringing people to justice and ensuring that this House sends a strong signal to criminals that we support the European arrest warrant and will sign up to those 35 measures before 1 December.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
I am grateful to all Members who have spoken. I know that many are frustrated that they did not get an opportunity, as they had expected, to do so last week. I am therefore glad that the Opposition have given back the hours they took away from the House when they decided to play politics with the matter then. I will try to address the points that have been made, but before doing so I will make a few of my own. Like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I welcome the opportunity to stand here and reiterate this Government’s support for the package of 35 measures, including the arrest warrant, that help us tackle serious crimes and keep this country safe.
Karen Bradley
I am afraid not, because I am really short of time.
I know that many hon. Members have concerns about the way the arrest warrant, in particular, has operated since the Labour party first signed us up to it more than a decade ago. That is why we will remain part not of the arrest warrant of old, but of a reformed arrest warrant, with greater protections for British citizens and others. The changes that this Government have made through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 mean that the arrest warrant is no longer the one operated under the Labour party.
First, this Government have changed the law to ensure that arrest warrants are refused for those suspected of minor offences. A British judge now considers whether the alleged offence and likely penalty is sufficient to make someone’s extradition proportionate, and it is a British judge who considers whether measures less coercive than extradition are available to foreign authorities.
Secondly, the Government have clarified the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a criminal offence in this country. The National Crime Agency is now refusing arrest warrants where it is obvious that the dual criminality test has not been met, and it has done so 59 times since our reforms came into force in July.
Thirdly, the Government have changed the law to ensure that the issuing state must be trial-ready before individuals can be extradited. That will help to prevent lengthy periods of pre-trial detention, which I know have concerned some Members, as they have the Government. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who has campaigned so hard on that. It is the example of his constituent, Mr Andrew Symeou, that has resulted in the change we have made. All those changes have been made to UK law and came into effect earlier this year. Our reforms are based on existing laws and practices in other member states, and they are already making an important difference to the operation of the arrest warrant.
The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, who I know will not be voting today, commented on the amount of debate there has been on the subject. It is worth pointing out that Ministers have spent more than 10 hours giving oral evidence to Committees and have answered almost 350 parliamentary questions on this matter. Since October 2012, Ministers have spent at least 18 hours debating or answering questions on the subject in this House, and at least 10 hours in the other place, and that does not include the three hours here this evening.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who has significant experience in dealing with these matters as a former colleague of mine in the Home Office, explained that this is an international arrest warrant that speeds up the process of finding and extraditing criminals. He made an extremely important point, because this is a public safety issue. He talked about trafficking being one of the biggest crimes that we face today—trafficking of drugs, of firearms, and of people. I know from my experience as the Minister with responsibility for modern slavery that the trafficking charities are incredibly keen for Britain to stay part of the arrest warrant mechanism because they know that it is so important in making sure that we tackle this heinous crime. He made a point that is worth repeating—that of the 5,000 people extradited from the UK under an arrest warrant, fewer than 5% are UK nationals. Furthermore, many member states do not extradite their own citizens. We must bear that in mind when we are considering whether it is appropriate not to be part of this arrest warrant mechanism.
The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) raised ECJ jurisdiction, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). It is important to remind the House that Labour signed us up to the Lisbon treaty without a referendum. Labour is responsible for the position that we find ourselves in today, and we have to work within it. The important thing is that we protect our constituents—our citizens—in working within the constraints of the mechanisms arranged by Labour.
I pay credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), because I know how hard he has worked on this matter and how much time he spends on dealing with it. I want to clarify the point he made about the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice wrote in a letter dated 10 November that he considered paragraph 20 of the European Union Committee report on this matter to be the correct interpretation of the situation. The report says that if the UK were to leave the EAW,
“it is highly unlikely that these alternative arrangements”—
the arrangements that this Government have put in place—
“would address all the criticisms directed at the EAW. Furthermore, it is inevitable that the extradition process would become more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety.”
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) talked about the position of the Scottish Executive. I remind him that as a result of significant discussions that Ministers have conducted with the Scottish Government, this Government decided to join the European judicial network rather than the European genocide network because the Scottish Government specifically wanted us to be part of that, and we listened and made sure that we were part of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)—my constituency next-door neighbour—is an expert on all matters EU. I have enjoyed many of his local speeches and comments about the EU. He asked what is special about the EU. My answer is that we need the best extradition arrangements we can have. We should not turn our back on the opportunity to have great extradition arrangements, where they are available, just because Europe is involved.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) has significant experience of extraditions under the old system. His examples from the Thames valley region really brought home how important this matter is.
The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), who has not returned to his seat, said that there was 100% agreement within his party. I hope he spoke to its economics spokesman before he made those comments, because he may find that that is not the case.
I want to make a point about prima facie evidence. It is not a requirement under the 1957 extradition convention that requesting states provide prima facie evidence when submitting a request. Therefore, leaving the arrest warrant and reverting to the 1957 convention would not have meant that all requests had to be accompanied by prima facie evidence.
Hon. Members have made many other good points. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) say that this is about law and order and working within the rules of the EU as they stand at the moment.
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Business without Debate
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 4 to 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Terms and Conditions of Employment
That the draft Maternity and Parental Leave etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
Legal Services
That the draft Referral Fees (Regulators and Regulated Persons) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
That the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales) (Modification of Functions) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
That the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) (Modification of Functions) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Gavin Barwell.)
Question agreed to.
Human Rights (Burma)
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have secured this debate, which follows my visit to Burma last month. Since then there have been much more notable visits, not least last week by President Obama and the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who were in the country for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations east Asia summit. President Obama delivered a clear and unequivocal message of concern that Burma’s reform process, which began three years ago with such hope and was welcomed by Members in all parts of the House, has sadly stalled and in some respects gone into reverse. That is why the debate is particularly timely—it means that we can hear from the Government about their concern. I suggest that they will join the chorus of disapproval about the lack of progress on the reforms. The previous week, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi delivered the same message. I know that the Government listen carefully to her, and we need to respond accordingly.
At the same time, Harvard law school has published a report accusing the Burmese army of war crimes and crimes against humanity, following not just a fly-by look but a four-year investigation. I ask the Minister for his response to the suggestion that reforms have stalled and, in some respects, slid backwards. Do the Government agree with Harvard law school’s conclusions that the military in Burma have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity? That backs up other human rights reports that we have brought to the House’s attention over a number of years—it is good to see a number of friends of Burma in the Chamber. What Government action should follow?
I visited Burma just over a month ago courtesy of the human rights organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide. We visited Rangoon and Myitkyina, the capital of war-torn Kachin state in the north of the country. I left with mixed feelings. One has to recognise that significant and welcome changes have occurred in Burma in the past three years. I had the privilege of delivering three public lectures focused on the relationship between parliamentary democracy, human rights and civil society. They were given to three distinct audiences: to the British Council in Rangoon, where I understand the Minister also spoke; to civil society and religious leaders in Kachin state, organised by a remarkable organisation called the Humanity Institute; and to at least 150 people from a range of political, ethnic and religious backgrounds, who in many ways represented the future of Burma—diversity in unity. They showed us the thirst for democracy and human rights. That meeting was organised by young activists from Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, in the restaurant that was previously the office of the father of democracy in Burma, the independence leader General Aung San.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene; I asked his permission beforehand.
When the Nobel peace prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest in 2010, many of us thought it was a move towards real democracy. Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman said, more recently there has been persecution of Christians to such an extent that Burma is now 23rd on the world watch list in that respect. That indicates how much has happened. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the persecution of Christians who are being brutally abused, attacked and killed and having their churches damaged as a result of their beliefs?
Mr Burrowes
I do, and one focus of my visit was to meet a number of Church leaders across Burma who are expressing the same concern. Although for some reason there is not quite the same visible outright discrimination, it is going on and people are not able to build churches. The army may leave, pagodas are put up, and Christian communities are displaced. I will go on to address concerns about religious liberty, not just for the Christian community but for the Muslim community, which is being severely persecuted.
I was accompanied on my visit by Ben Rogers of Christian Solidarity Worldwide. He is a remarkable young man whom many of us know well. He is a champion of democracy for Burma, and perhaps one symbol of progress was when we learned that his book “Than Shwe: Unmasking Burma’s Tyrant” has, without his knowledge, been translated into Burmese and is being sold on street corners in its thousands. That is a good example of unstoppable momentum, and the thirst for freedom and democracy is shown by that distribution. The opportunities that I experienced when I visited would have been inconceivable three years ago.
It is right to welcome the fact that Burma has taken a significant step along the road to reform and democracy, but this House, with the particular responsibilities of this country, must highlight the serious concerns of and challenges facing the people of Burma. According to the Free Burma Rangers, which is a humanitarian organisation working in Burma’s ethnic areas—it is very much in these areas that we see the worst situations—so far this year there have been 168 clashes between the Burmese army and armed ethnic resistance forces. That is at a time when the Government, the army and ethnic nationalities are engaged in ceasefire talks, and the Government promise a peace process. During that process, however, rape, torture and the killing of civilians continue, and a significant military offensive has continued in Shan state since June.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his trip with Ben Rogers to Burma. Does he agree that there are still concerns about the census? Britain gave £10 million towards the census, and the Rohingya have been excluded. Ahead of President Obama’s visit, although 3,000 prisoners were released, I do not think any were political prisoners. Are we taking a step back in terms of constitutional change?
Mr Burrowes
I shall address a number of those points in my remarks, but yes, Britain has responsibility and involvement, and it supported the census, which in principle is a good approach. However, it has also brought into sharp relief the state of the Rohingya people, who are stateless. They are the most persecuted of peoples, not just in Burma but around the world, and their lack of full citizenship is a real litmus test for Burma.
I shall deal later with the constitutional issue, but the hon. Lady’s point about political prisoners was well made. One does not have to look just at the visit of President Obama—when President Thein Sein came to this country, it was made clear that all political prisoners would be released. The Prime Minister welcomed that, as did we, but it has not come to fruition. People are playing about with what we mean by political prisoner, but in reality that crucial commitment has not been honoured.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he have anything to report on Rakhine state action plan and the proposed resettlement of a large number of Rohingya out of their own area?
Mr Burrowes
When I was in Burma, leaked documents were in the public domain, and the issue is causing real concern. In the words of Human Rights Watch, if the plan was followed through it would be
“a blueprint for permanent segregation and statelessness.”
The plan would involve the construction of temporary camps for those who refuse to abandon the name Rohingya, with a view to relocating them to third countries. That is abhorrent, and they would be forced or obliged to identify themselves as Bengali in order to be considered for citizenship. That plan certainly needs to be condemned and I hope the Minister will be able to do that.
Last week, the United States called for a new plan to be developed. I hope the Government can support that call. The UN Secretary-General called for the rights of the Rohingya people to be respected. This is a good opportunity for the Minister to make it abundantly clear, as he has done previously, that any plan that involves such segregation into camps and forces Rohingya to identify as Bengali is totally and utterly unacceptable.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I share his acknowledgement of the progress that Burma has made in the area of greater political freedoms, but when I visited Burma at the beginning of the year the apparatus of a police state was still in evidence. Citizens spoke to me in hushed tones, fearful of being overheard, about the oppression of the Rohingya Muslim minority, among other matters.
Mr Burrowes
That is right. It is easy for us, from afar, to see the obvious discrimination against the Rohingya people. Even those who are on the side of democracy and reform are challenged by the issue. We can see clearly that, in the long term, for there to be a truly democratic free state there have to be equal rights, including for the Rohingya people. The abuse of the Rohingya people continues. Fortify Rights has documented such abuses showing that Government authorities have been involved in trafficking Rohingya out of the country and profiting from it. I encourage the Minister to raise this subject directly with the Government of Burma.
I invite the Minister to give an assessment of the peace process and the steps our Government are taking to urge the Government of Burma and their military to observe ceasefires, stop further offences and stop the further militarisation that I saw and heard about, particularly in Kachin state. I was in Myitkyina and visited a camp for internally displaced Kachin people. They were surviving in very basic conditions. Access to medical care and education was frankly woeful. They had fled their villages following attacks by the Burmese army. Their plea was genuine:
“We want to go back to our villages but the army are still there and we do not feel secure. Our request is for genuine peace.”
We met the Kachin Independence Organisation, which is involved in negotiations. It saw a particular role for the United Kingdom:
“We Kachin are longing for the involvement of the United Kingdom as a strong advocate for peace.”
I invite the Minister to respond to that call.
While in Kachin state, I was particularly moved by meeting the wives of Kachin men who had been arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned and tortured. One told me how her husband’s torturers heated a knife in a fire and then sliced his skin, rubbed bamboo poles up and down his shins, subjected him to water torture and stamped on him. A man described being forced to kneel on very sharp stones with his arms outstretched as if on a cross, a physically painful position to be in for a long time but also a deliberate mockery of his Christian faith. A hand grenade was placed in his mouth. Others claimed that male prisoners were forced to engage in sex, and to beat each other with sticks.
I met another man, Brang Shawng, who, after reporting the rape—victimisation is going on; we are not just talking about historical abuse—and murder of his own daughter Ja Seng Ing by Burmese army soldiers, found that he was the one on trial, charged with defamation. That is unacceptable. There is a continuing catalogue of human rights abuses taking place. This is not just historical. Justice is not only being delayed but denied. No one is being called to account and we need to see that happening. Various institutions of government and the application of the rule of law are in their infancy, but the scale of human rights abuse and the lack of justice need proper attention.
The Humanity Institute told me that on the issue of sexual violence, on which our Government have rightly taken a lead with the preventing sexual violence initiative, Burma is, thankfully, on the list. It needs to be a priority case. The institute told me that there have been 12 cases of sexual violence in the past six months of 2014 in northern Shan state alone. In just that one part of Burma, there has been that much sexual violence, with the youngest victim reported to be three and the oldest 40.
Will the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to urge the Burmese Government to stop the torture, the rape and the impunity and, crucially, to ensure that perpetrators are held to account? Will he also encourage my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, whom I have forewarned of this request, in his capacity as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict, to prioritise and visit Burma to address issues of sexual violence there? I hope that the commitment made will continue beyond the election. Burma is one place we need to visit if we are to tackle the perpetual use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.
I met a representative of Burma’s Rohingya Muslims, whom I have referred to already and who, as others have pointed out, are among the most persecuted peoples in the world. Despite having lived in Burma for generations, they have been stripped of their citizenship and rendered stateless, and two years ago they suffered appalling violence that resulted in thousands living in dire conditions in camps. I visited a camp for internally displaced people that was in poor condition, and I understand from reports that the condition of these camps is absolutely shocking. The Rohingya continue to experience segregation and further dehumanisation. I ask the Minister, particularly in the light of the leaked action plan, to respond to these concerns.
Beyond the particular issue of the Rohingya people, wider religious intolerance against Muslims in Burma is causing serious concern. In the past two years, a wave of violence and hatred has swept the country. Aung San Suu Kyi, whom I had the privilege to meet, expressed concern about religious intolerance and said that some were using religion for political purposes. Will the Minister press the Burmese Government to hold to account all those inciting violence or hatred and to ensure inter-religious harmony? This is an opportunity for Burma, with its melting pot of religions, to show that freedom of religion is a foundation of true democracy.
The proposed legislation restricting inter-religious marriage and religious conversion, about which there is great concern, must be abandoned as soon as possible. Ultimately, however, the most significant test of Burma’s democratic reforms are the elections in 2015. During my visit, some were concerned that they would be postponed and that the Government were playing games, but I understand that the election commission in Burma has confirmed they will go ahead next October or November. However, Aung San Suu Kyi’s clear message to us was that they had to be fair, free and on time. Without amendments to the constitution enabling her to stand for the presidency; without international monitors in place some months before—Britain could play a role in that—to assess the climate in which the campaign is held; without further legislative reform to end the arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of activists and protesters; and without the release of all remaining prisoners, it is difficult to see how the elections can be free and fair. What pressure is being brought to bear on the Burmese Government to amend the constitution?
Britain and the international community must be vigilant and heed the words not only of Aung San Suu Kyi but of those I met from the different ethnic nationalities, civil society and so on, all of whom, without exception, told me that reforms had stalled. We need to ensure that further religious strife does not get in the way of true freedom and democracy.
Despite the gloom and despair over the lack of reform, I was most impressed by those who expressed the greatest determination and commitment to the pathway of democratic reform. I am talking about those who have the most reason to feel bitter and negative and to give up, the former political prisoners, who instead spoke to me about the culture of dialogue, about which they were still positive. It is the duty of this House and this Government to be on their side and to help ensure that society in Burma is free and fair.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing this debate, and I welcome his insights following his recent visit to Burma. I also pay tribute to his continuing work and indeed that of many right hon. and hon. Members across the House in supporting human rights and democracy in that country.
As the House will know, I, too, take a close personal interest, and visited Rakhine state in 2012 and Kachin state earlier this year—the first western Minister to travel to the former and first British Minister to visit the latter since Burma’s independence. In common with my hon. Friend, I visited camps for internally displaced people in both places, and I agree with him on the dire conditions that they face.
The British Government unapologetically support Burma’s transition. Unlike some, we have always seen the need to encourage the green shoots of reform where they exist, but I can assure the House that human rights remain firmly at the heart of our engagement, even if those who do not share our approach are determined to find ways sometimes to suggest otherwise. Being a true friend to Burma has meant being an honest and sometimes a critical friend, and we have been honest that much more needs to be done.
The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, raised the plight of the Rohingya, which is one of the greatest challenges Burma faces. The UK is giving £12 million in humanitarian support to Rakhine state and a further £4.5 million towards projects that support livelihoods. Some of the Burmese Government’s steps to address the complex and inter-related challenges in Rakhine state are to be welcomed, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate rightly points out, parts of the Rakhine action plan would, if implemented, undermine the prospects for peaceful co-existence and stability across Rakhine state.
I made our concerns very clear again when I met the Burmese Minister for Immigration and the Rakhine Chief Minister during their visit to London in October. I also repeated our concern that the Rohingya had been unable to self-designate their ethnicity during the census.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned Kachin in particular. We welcome the continuing peace talks between the Burmese Government and all the ethnic armed groups, and agreement was reached to work towards a national ceasefire and a political dialogue. I have serious concerns, however, about the continued fighting in Kachin state and northern Shan state, as well as about continued reports of human rights violations. I raised these concerns directly with the northern commander in Kachin during my visit in January. During that visit, I, too, was able to meet the Christian Baptist convention and the Shan ethnic minority group to hear about the human rights abuses they have suffered.
My hon. Friend raised the issue of the trafficking of the Rohingya across the region, and I share his concern. As is well known, this Government have a strong track record of opposing trafficking wherever it is to be found. We have regularly raised the issue with the Burmese Government, and I discussed it with the Bangladeshi Foreign Minister when I met him in the Asia-Europe meeting in Milan in October.
My hon. Friend raised, too, the proposed legislation on inter-faith marriage and religious conversion. We have made-clear to Burmese parliamentarians and Ministers that, if enacted, these laws would contravene international standards and treaties to which Burma is a signatory.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue—he always does in these and other debates, and quite rightly, too—of violence against Christians. Foreign Office officials regularly meet representatives of all Burmese faiths, here and in Burma, to discuss these matters, which are of great concern to us.
Sexual violence was another significant and important issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. I raised this directly with the Minister for Immigration in October, and with the President’s office, the commander in chief and the northern commander during my visit in January. Notwithstanding the horrific stories that my hon. Friend has related to us, I welcome, as he would and did, the Burmese Government’s endorsement of the declaration, following considerable lobbying from the UK, by attending the global summit in June, to which he alluded. However, I will continue to encourage the Burmese Government to follow up their commitments with concrete action. It is of course for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—who, I am sure, follows our proceedings closely, and will read the report of the debate in Hansard tomorrow morning—to decide whether to pursue the matter.
I share my hon. Friend’s deep concern about the extremely serious findings of the Harvard law school report. A judgment on whether war crimes have been committed—an issue that has often raised in the House, although I do not think that it has been raised by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—is, of course, a matter for the courts. However—this is in response to my hon. Friend’s points about accountability—we have made it absolutely clear to the Burmese Government that any allegations of human rights abuses, including these, must be dealt with by a clear, independent and transparent judicial process that meets international standards.
Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Walsall South raised the issue of political prisoners. In March 2011, the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners reported that 2,073 political prisoners were being held in Burma. In October 2014, it reported that 75 were being held. During the intervening time, some 2,000 political prisoners had been released.
I am well aware that arrests and sentencing of political activists continue, and that some of those activists have been released and re-arrested several times. As I said in response to a question from the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) in the most recent session of Foreign Office questions,
“one political prisoner…is one too many”.—[Official Report, 28 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 168.]
We will continue to lobby until all political prisoners in Burma have been released unconditionally.
My hon. Friend asked what pressure we are putting on the Burmese Government to amend the constitution and hold credible elections. The Prime Minister raised both issues with President Thein Sein earlier this month at the G20 summit in Brisbane, and I have raised them with Ministers several times. Inclusive and credible elections are obviously critical for Burma’s future, and the international community is watching very closely during the months that lead up to those elections.
Mr Burrowes
What about the suggestion that international monitors should be present for the lead-up to the elections?
Mr Swire
We would certainly want to consider that. Ultimately, it is for the Burmese Government to decide whether to accept international monitors, but the international community would be reassured that the elections were fair, transparent and credible—all the things that we are calling for—if they could be independently and internationally observed. I always think that, by default, elections should be observed by international figures other than those who are benefiting from or taking part in them. I think that that is manifestly a good thing and that we should encourage it—not just in elections in Burma, the United Kingdom or any other country, but in any elections—in order to ensure that things are done properly and in accordance with norms and, of course, the law.
We know that much more needs to be done in Burma, and, as we approach the elections, we also know that progress, as we see it, is not necessarily guaranteed. We remain in close contact with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who has made it clear that the reform process is going through a difficult phase and that reforms have stalled in some areas. We are by no means complacent. We also recognise the significant steps that the Burmese Government have taken, and we are realistic. A transition from a dictatorship was never going to be easy. As President Obama said during his visit to Burma last week,
“change is hard and it doesn't always move in a straight line”.
It is now vital that we do not stand back and simply say that it is all too difficult. Throughout the United Kingdom there is a deep well of support for Burma’s efforts to fulfil its enormous potential. We therefore need to maintain Britain’s full-blooded engagement with all parts of Burma’s society—which will include the valuable contribution of our parliamentarians—and to do everything possible to maintain the momentum on this difficult road to democracy.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for the opportunity to set out, yet again, the Government’s position on Burma.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Winter Flooding (Preparation)
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have you presiding over us, Mr Bone.
Last winter was nothing short of a nightmare for many people in our country, including in my constituency, who faced some of the worst flooding in living memory. The heaviest and most persistent rainfall in years created transport chaos, destroyed livelihoods and literally put people out of their homes. Even the most conservative estimates made the 2013-14 winter the wettest on record. More than 5,000 homes and businesses were flooded and many rivers in southern England reached their highest ever recorded levels.
I want to make it clear from the outset that although many of my constituents experienced huge inconvenience and some flooding as a result of last winter’s weather, we are not in the same ballpark as many areas of the country, nor do we pretend to be. Indeed, part of the reason why I secured this debate is to tell a good news story of how we learned the lessons of the past in Winchester and prevented flooding from taking place, and how I think that can serve us in the winter to come.
However, my main purpose today is to try to explain the wider socio-economic impact that flooding can have in a constituency such as mine and how some parts of our country can all too easily fall off the map when it comes to flood resilience works. In doing that, I intend to break Winchester’s story down into two parts: the historic city of Winchester and everywhere else. It will become clear why as I develop my argument.
Back in the year 2000, Winchester flooded—not just some of the villages that make up my constituency, but Winchester itself, as the River Itchen burst its banks. Locals remember ducks and swans happily swimming around the ancient city streets within sight of the famous statue of King Alfred, who keeps watch over the city from the Broadway. Many of my constituents use the year 2000 as their marker when judging floods thereafter.
This year, I am happy to say, Alfred kept his feet dry, and it was generally positive action from Hampshire county council, Winchester city council and the Environment Agency that ensured that he did. The River Itchen flows into my constituency through Alresford, into the Itchen valley and down into Winchester itself, passing along the appropriately named Water lane in an area known historically, although not so much these days, as “the Soak”. At its height, such was the volume of water flowing through Winchester that there was a real risk that dozens of homes and businesses in the lower part of the town would flood.
To put a figure on what I mean by volume, I should say that at one point, some 12,000 litres per second were flowing towards the city mill and, as it turned out, the incredibly sturdy and resilient Roman bridge that goes past the city mill. With the help of the Isle of Wight fire brigade, to whom we are incredibly grateful, people tried to bypass the mill to relieve some of the pressure on homes upstream, but even the heaviest pumping equipment known in the county and elsewhere, I am sure, was never going to be enough. That is where the lessons learned from the events of 2000 came into play: we tried something that other Members may be interested in copying in their areas.
Fourteen years ago, the sluices that control and protect Winchester and control the flow of the River Itchen through the city were not intelligently managed. Several downstream at William of Wykeham’s famous Winchester college, designed to let water out on to the ancient water meadows, were not fully open. The inevitable backing-up that occurred was sooner or later going to cause the Itchen to burst its banks. That was what flooded many homes and schools in that part of town.
In 2014, the lessons had been learned and the Environment Agency was fully in control of all the sluices in the city. It was a delicate balancing act. I went out with people from the Environment Agency many times and watched them work. The impact was obvious to those living alongside the Itchen and will serve as a reassuring factor as we approach the winter of 2014-15.
Further to that, there is an idea that I aired in the House back in February; I know the Minister is aware of it and I believe it could be useful to other parts of the country this year. We borrowed a bit of genius from Pakistan that really did save Winchester this year. The gentleman in question was a former army major in the Pakistani army. He settled in the UK, where he became part of the Environment Agency team in the south-east. He was aware that the sluice control in the centre of the city could only ever do so much, and, with water levels continuing to rise as the rain continued to fall, he imposed what we call a restriction many miles upstream, which deliberately flooded some farmland in the Itchen valley. That restriction literally drew heat out of the river. The Environment Agency lowered dozens of giant bags of granite and gravel into a river from a bridge on the busy A34 and M3 motorway; it was quite a sight.
As a result, River Itchen flows at the village of Easton reduced from a peak of 15 tonnes per second to about 13 tonnes per second. That might not sound like a lot, but I can assure you that it had an impact, Mr Bone. Estimates at the time reckoned that the action, together with all the other multi-agency work that went on, saved around 100 homes from certain flooding several miles downstream in the centre of Winchester. It was a first for our country, but it clearly worked. There was significant media interest at the time, and has been since, in the man and the method that saved Winchester. The gravel was even emptied out into the river when its job was done to help the fish spawn, so it was a true environmental success story.
I turn to the future. The Environment Agency is working in what it calls a partnership team—a wonderful term—with Winchester city council and Hampshire county council to implement contingency measures taken in last winter’s flood as permanent defences in the most strategic locations in the city. The areas identified include Water lane, where we are looking into the feasibility of a flood wall along the length of that road that will serve to protect the road and those properties from flooding in future, and north of Park avenue.
The Park avenue works will manage the flood flows from entering the city and give direct benefits to properties in Park avenue, to the Winchester school of art, run by the university of Southampton, and to St Bede’s primary school, by protecting flood walls. The partnership is aiming to deliver those improvements this financial year, which will be welcome news, especially for St Bede’s school. It had to be rebuilt and raised off the ground further after the floods of 2000. The team there, not to mention the parent body, which both coped brilliantly in extreme circumstances, were dismayed to find that the school was partially closed again this year, even after those works, as unprecedented water levels rendered the toilets in the school and parts of the building unusable.
Furthermore, the Environment Agency in our part of the world now stocks a flood barrier and has access to more nationally, if needed, that can be used to direct water away from high-risk areas, reducing the impact on property in my constituency. Those can be deployed quickly and the south-east team regularly train with the equipment to ensure that they are ready to respond at a moment’s notice. I have seen the training sessions in practice and the equipment really does the business.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and I am following his speech with great interest. Would he acknowledge the contribution of the fire and rescue brigades? Perhaps he will come to that issue later in his speech. Certainly, a number of brigades from my region were in the south-east. Does he further recognise the value of having a statutory duty placed on fire and rescue authorities to prepare for flooding in such contingencies?
Steve Brine
I have already mentioned the Isle of Wight fire brigade, and generally speaking, the Hampshire fire and rescue service were incredible. I have heard from many colleagues around the country about the work they did. I had the mobile number of the chief fire officer and I was constantly talking to him. At one point, I remember being out in the village of Littleton in my constituency; I called them and within two hours, they came out and helped pump out some people who were in real trouble. So yes, they were incredible.
On the statutory duty, my honest answer is that I am not sure, but I am well aware of the debate. I am more than open to it, and fire officers have talked to me about the issue in my part of the world. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.
The tale of central Winchester last winter is a winter’s tale with a happy ending. That was in no small part down to the effectiveness of Gold control, which is based in Netley in southern Hampshire, backed up by Silver control in Winchester at the Guildhall, under the leadership of Simon Eden, the chief executive, and Rob Humby, the leader of the city council. That is the sort of command and control system that I am sure Members will recognise from their areas, designed to co-ordinate cross-agency working. It was a recommendation of the Pitt review following the floods of 2007 and it is key now to our planning for next winter if needed. It worked, and to visit it, as I did on a number of occasions back in February, and see city officers working alongside the Army, county colleagues and fire and rescue colleagues was very reassuring indeed.
The most visible example of that was one very bleak afternoon in February in Winchester, when those of us who had been heaving sandbags for longer than we would care to remember were more than a little relieved when Silver control sent some incredible guys and girls from HMS Collingwood to help us. Something tells me that they had the shoulders for it more than I do, and they were very welcome.
I said at the outset that I wanted to explain the wider socio-economic impact that flooding can have in a constituency such as mine. That is why I shall focus on what happened in a number of the villages that I represent. In places such as Kings Worthy, Headbourne Worthy, Littleton, Hursley and Sutton Scotney, flooding from groundwater, not the river, is the main flood risk management issue. The impact of groundwater flooding on individual communities such as those is severe and long-lasting in terms of the duration of flooding and recovery. My constituents living in Lovedon lane and Springvale road in Kings Worthy, as well as Chris and Sharron Bruty, who, with Ross Brimfield, run the King Charles pub—they were incredibly helpful to me and many other residents—would recognise that problem, as it was in their lives, and almost in their pub, for a month or more.
Residents just up the road in Headbourne Worthy, whose parish council chairman in a meeting with me just last week described his village as the “plughole for the valley”—he meant it in the nicest possible way—had weeks of deep water creeping closer to their homes and the ancient St Swithun’s church. The road through the village was closed, at their request, because of the bow waves—that became a hashtag last winter—caused by inconsiderate drivers flying through the floodwaters.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I am very interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, and he is absolutely right to raise the issues that arise in villages. Does he agree that this is one of the challenges? The Environment Agency does a good job with the major schemes, and that is reasonably well funded. However, when we get to the smaller schemes, we find that the local authorities are simply not funded and therefore the prevention—there are many things that you can do in fields with help from farmers—is not done, because the money simply is not there. One protection and prevention measure this year could be to put the funding in those local authorities—particularly the rural authorities, which are so dreadfully underfunded.
Steve Brine
My hon. Friend is a visionary and a futurist. Bear with me—“bear with”, as someone recently said.
I was touching on Headbourne Worthy. The Good Life Farm Shop lost thousands of pounds of business because of the road closure. That is part of the wider socio-economic impact that I mentioned. My constituents in the village of Littleton, another place where my team and I shifted thousands of sandbags, took that to a whole new level, as one end of the village was the ungrateful recipient of thousands of tonnes of water flowing off groundwater-saturated farmland at the other. One thing that I have learned this year is that water is ruthless and will find its way, no matter what or who is in its way, to the lowest common point. I saw that happen to devastating effect.
Meanwhile, villagers at the other end of my constituency, in Hursley, saw rising groundwater levels fill cellars and infiltrate sewerage systems, with the resulting outpouring down the picture-postcard streets. The villagers do not look on that as their village’s finest hour and I would not want to see it again.
What do all these communities, including Sutton Scotney in the north of my constituency, where there are still constituents out of their homes, have in common? As I said, their flooding was the result of groundwater—levels just overspilled. The problem that they all share is that the cost-benefit ratio for flood alleviation schemes—this issue was alluded to by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris)—under the national funding formula does not favour them or, I am sure, many of the villages that colleagues represent, because of the low number of properties that are actually physically flooded.
The difficulty is being able easily to quantify impacts such as the road closures that I mentioned, disruption to local businesses, such as the Good Life Farm Shop and the King Charles pub, deliveries to those businesses and to homes, welfare services, social care, education—I mentioned St Bede’s school—and normal life in general. Our experience in Winchester points to the need for the cost-benefit analysis for flood alleviation schemes to be articulated in a very different way.
We know that the national funding formula, the so-called flood defence grant in aid programme, will never touch us, but we want to build something that is complementary to it, not in place of it, which properly recognises the value of multiple small-scale local measures to deliver community flood resilience.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating the debate. Could he address a problem that constituents right across the United Kingdom face when flooding happens? I am referring to the difficulty that householders, including my constituents, encounter when they try to get insurance. They experience great difficulty in getting insurance at all or they face exorbitant rates. Surely the Government must do more on that with the insurance companies.
Steve Brine
Yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I could have gone into huge detail on insurance, but I know how many hon. Members want to speak in the debate. A huge insurer based in my constituency, Ageas, briefed me recently. There is a scheme that has come out as a result of the floods; there is a levy on policies that helps those in hard-to-insure or uninsurable properties. I urge the hon. Gentleman to look into that. Perhaps the Minister will refer to it.
I was talking about the national programme and the difficulties that communities such as mine, and those represented by many colleagues here, will have in accessing that. Fortunately, Hampshire county council, which Winchester clearly comes under, has a plan that is actively being discussed with officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—even the day before yesterday, they were discussing it again, I think. Following my introducing the idea to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Treasury officials are looking at it ahead of the autumn statement. Called the Pathfinder programme, it would look beyond property protection to measure the benefits of resilience in the wider area—for example, the benefit of maintaining strategic transport routes.
Better management of groundwater flood risk at local level, unconstrained by the current funding methodology, would mean that the communities that I represent could remain open for the duration of the flood, enabling local economies and businesses to function. By integrating existing programmes with a devolved funding pot for new measures, benefits of scale could be realised by incorporating simple flood risk measures alongside other maintenance programmes such as highway drainage or even the resurfacing of a road.
The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report, “Winter floods 2013-14”, rightly highlights the fact that each catchment area has different flood risk management needs. It argues that effective flood risk management should be informed by local knowledge and prioritised according to local circumstances. It calls on the Government to assess the possibility of a total expenditure for flood and coastal risk management in order to allow greater flexibility to target funding according to local priorities. I think that Government support for the Pathfinder programme in Hampshire would provide for exactly the type of flexibility envisaged in the Select Committee’s report.
Lest the Minister think that this is just another clever ruse from Hampshire, supported by its MPs—my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) is here today—to eke more money out of the Government for it to spend as it sees fit, I am pleased to be able to say that Pathfinder is underpinned by serious academic work by the university of Portsmouth, which is working to secure a sensible baseline for cost-benefit analysis of flood risk adaption and mitigation. Hampshire seeks £2 million for Pathfinder that DEFRA devolves for a three-year programme and it will stand behind that request with match funding from Hampshire council tax payers. If the Minister hears nothing else that I say this morning, I ask him, as a consequence of today’s debate, to press his officials on those proposals and to think creatively about what they can offer.
Finally, I come to the repair and renew grant, or RRG, which I have become incredibly familiar with in recent months. It had the best of intentions when it was set up, but it was, for a start, poorly named, as many of my constituents who were attempting to claim against it would find out. The original guidelines defined the RRG as being used only if
“habitable internal areas of the premises have been damaged by flooding”.
However, following sustained appeals from my constituents, through me, DEFRA Ministers, to their credit, noted the high impact on daily lives where people were unable to continue living in their home and, on 24 June, Ministers decided to extend the RRG beyond the use in relation to habitable areas. That means that under the revised scheme, money can now be paid to those people whose septic tanks were flooded—a problem that was very acute in my area and that I suspect others will recognise. As they put it to me in their letter of 25 June,
“this is due to the fact that people cannot reasonably be expected to live in a property that is not flooded but has no functioning sewerage system”.
Quite!
That was a victory for common sense, and Winchester city council has run with it. As of the end of last week, the chief executive tells me, the council had received 67 applications to the reformed RRG, with 44 approved and only two rejected. The value of grants paid out to date is in the region of £45,000.
I do, however, have one final ask on the RRG, on which I beg the Minister’s assistance; I gave him notice of this. As he knows, the scheme is due to close at the end of this financial year, by which time all schemes that receive grant approval need to be implemented and the money claimed back from the council. I do not think that that will be a problem for most individual claimants, but for larger-scale, collaborative schemes, that deadline certainly is a problem.
There is one such scheme in the village of Littleton, which I have already mentioned. A residents company has a programme, already agreed by the council in Winchester and by DEFRA, that is designed to deal with the surface water that inundated their private foul drainage system last winter, leaving many of my constituents without drainage for many weeks. There were Portaloos in the village for a long time.
I am concerned that because of the detailed design work that is required to do this properly—and it must be done properly—it may not be possible for my constituents to implement the scheme and claim back the costs by the end of March next year. I appeal to the Minister to look at the case once again and to demonstrate the kind of flexibility that the Department displayed earlier this year, which showed it in such a good light. I am happy to provide the details to the Minister outside the debate.
I place on the record my thanks, on behalf of my constituents and many others in Hampshire, for the £11.5 million that our county was awarded from the Government’s flood recovery fund to assist with repairs following the floods. That has been invaluable in repairing roads in my constituency, such as Springvale road in Kings Worthy and the B3047 through Itchen Abbas, which were ripped to shreds by floodwater. Hampshire spent £5 million of that £11.5 million on repairing the county’s roads. That was in addition to the £35 million that the county spends on highways as part of its annual maintenance budget. That is a word of thanks, which I know the Minister will appreciate.
As I have tried to set out, many things went well in my constituency last winter when we were faced with unprecedented levels of rainfall, and there are real success stories to tell. Some things, such as the RRG, have since improved. We need some further help, as I outlined, in preparation for winter 2014-15. In preparation for this winter, however, other nuts are not so easy to crack. I close by stressing the importance to me and to my constituents of the Pathfinder scheme, as put forward by Hampshire county council. I look forward to hearing what other Members have to say, and I look forward to the response from the Minister and the shadow Minister.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. For the convenience of Members, I do not intend to impose a time limit, but it might be useful to know that I intend to call the Front Benchers no later than 10.40 am.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing this important debate. We all share the view that flooding, wherever it may happen, is devastating for communities, individuals, families and elderly people. As the hon. Gentleman said so eloquently, water gets everywhere, and we should never underestimate the damage that it can do.
In my constituency, places such as Morpeth, Mitford and Hepscott have suffered the horrendous consequences of flooding over several years. There is now a reservoir and a new flooding system. Some call it a Rolls-Royce system, but others say that we need more. Thanks to the hard work of everyone concerned, finances were made available under the previous Labour Government to ensure that Morpeth—a market town, and apparently one of the best towns in the country to reside in—was secured from future flooding. That does not mean that all the problems are resolved. Other MPs and I speak regularly to people who live in areas where there is potential risk. Every time there is a drop of rain, they look out from behind their curtains and worry that there will be another flood in the next hour or so. A lot more work must be done to ensure that we can deal with the problems as politicians.
I place on the record my thanks to the Environment Agency, which has been under a lot of pressure and has done a lot of good work with regard to the flooding up and down the country. It has certainly done a good job in Morpeth. There are other problems besides the flooding, such as surface water and drainage capacity. The situation must be looked at in its entirety, and the necessary finances must be readily available. Residents are concerned about insurance. Houses have been blighted in beautiful places. Traditionally, places next to rivers are beautiful, but they are subject to risk, and people are worried about what will happen in the winter months. There is also a problem with drainage capacity. Water levels rise beneath the roads and the gutters burst, which creates surface water. We are working together with the Environment Agency in the hope of overcoming that problem.
We must do everything we can, and we must look at every possible way of securing the safety and the best interests of people in flood risk areas.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is talking about looking at every possible avenue of assistance, and I am sure that he will develop that theme. Does he agree that we need to think strategically and look logistically decades ahead, because of climate change? Forty years ago, previous Governments did not anticipate the situation that we face now. We need to ensure that we do not repeat the same mistakes.
Ian Lavery
That is essential. Whether people are climate change sceptics or not, there is a general belief and understanding that we are getting more rain that we have ever had before. It is essential that we have a strategic plan not just for next year or the next five years, but for 10, 20 or 30 years into the future. We need joined-together thinking with all the services that will be required to ensure that we address the problem adequately.
One major issue is the role of fire and rescue services. In my community, I witnessed horrific levels of flooding that posed a danger to life, particularly to an elderly community that was stranded because of the floods and the water levels, and the fire and rescue service did a fantastic job on that occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) mentioned the work of fire and rescue services. Is it not strange that despite the fact that they get called out to such areas and face danger when they try to rescue people—such as the elderly people I have just mentioned—they have no statutory obligation to respond to flooding in England and Wales? Is it not even stranger that there is such a statutory obligation on fire and rescue services in Scotland and Northern Ireland? Is it not about time that that was the case in England and Wales? I cannot see why anyone would disagree with that. Fire and rescue services, carrying out the fantastic service that they do, should be under a statutory duty to respond to flooding.
As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has just said, we must look back to see what happened not only in 2013-14, but 10 or 15 years ago, and learn lessons from it. The winter of 2013-14 was the wettest on record. The fire and rescue services have said that 7,800 homes and nearly 3,000 commercial properties were flooded, and 28 fire and rescue services supplied crews, high-volume pumps, flood rescue tactical advisers and pumping appliances. A large number of incidents were attended by the fire and rescue service, and across the UK over the entire three months nearly 7,000 incidents were recorded. The vast majority of those were in England, with more than a third in London, Surrey and Kent. Firefighters in Wales dealt with 457 incidents during the three months, the Scottish fire and rescue service dealt with 356 incidents and there were 27 incidents in Northern Ireland.
Grahame M. Morris
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. He has mentioned an important aspect of our preparedness and the lessons we should learn from the flooding to help us create more resilient plans. Does he agree that the Minister should have discussions with colleagues from other Departments, such as the Department for Communities and Local Government, about putting in place plans on a regional or area-by-area basis to facilitate such an intervention, where firefighters have been involved not just in rescues but in safeguarding critical infrastructure, leafleting, issuing warnings and so on?
Ian Lavery
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I will ask that question when I wind up my short contribution.
In 2013-14 most fire and rescue services recorded a large number of rescues—there were almost 2,000 rescues across the UK during those three months. Most of the rescues were in Surrey, Kent, Devon and Somerset, with Surrey alone recording more than 1,000 rescues during the three months. The figure is generally believed to be an underestimate. We must learn lessons from 2014 and beyond. It is time to acknowledge the main recommendations of the 2007 Pitt review, which the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned. The review, which was commissioned by the Labour party, had six key components: knowing where and when flooding will occur; reducing the risk of flooding and its impact; rescues; maintaining power and water supplies during an emergency; better advice and help to protect families and homes; and recovery. I do not understand—I hope the Minister will explain—why there should be a statutory duty in Northern Ireland and Scotland but not in Wales and England. Hopefully we can put that right.
The fire and rescue services have done a tremendous job, and they have been there when others are running away. I am talking about not only fires but flooding—I have seen that with my own eyes. As MPs, I am sure we all have experience of flooding monitors, who are unpaid volunteers from local communities who do their best. They check the flooding and alert other people. Those unpaid volunteers do a fantastic job. The Morpeth flood action group in my constituency does a great job, and not only in that type of work. It brought the funding and the partners together, and consequently we have what I would class as a success story.
The fire and rescue services do not just turn up and pump water; they rescue people and save lives, too. They were there in boats and other appliances to clear furniture and carry people on their shoulders. They did everything. They did a fantastic job. They also monitored for carbon monoxide and other gases once the water started to subside. I have emphasised the need for the Government to acknowledge that we must act now to ensure that the fire and rescue services have a statutory duty and the correct funding for flood training. They need the right appliances and funding for everything else that comes with a statutory duty. It is essential that those services are funded because, frankly, there has been a huge slash-and-burn exercise within local government that has had a huge impact on the fire and rescue services. Responding to flooding, which is an additional responsibility, is unfunded.
This debate is due, as we need to discuss how we can ensure that we do the best for the communities that we represent through flood defence schemes and ensuring that finances are available. We must also ensure that, when floods unfortunately occur, the fire and rescue services have a statutory duty and are in place to carry out the fantastic job they do anyway.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing this important debate. As we have heard, surface water flooding has affected the constituencies of many hon. Members. Many residents across the country, including a huge number of my own residents in Castle Point, are deeply concerned about the prospect of the wet winter that has been predicted.
In August 2013 there was severe surface water flooding across my constituency, and my residents were told that it was a one-in-100-year event. Many hon. Members will have seen the flooding in my constituency on 20 July 2014, which we were told was a one-in-319-year event. One of my constituents remarked to me that his maths is not very good but that something did not add up. We clearly need to consider the fact that the national weather patterns are changing due to climate change, and that such rainfall events will be more frequent in future. We desperately need to ensure that we are prepared.
I thank the Minister for seeing me so swiftly after the flooding in July, and I thank the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir Mark Walport, for delving into the preparation and responses of the various flooding authorities in two reports that quickly issued recommendations. I am very pleased to say that my local agencies are taking action to implement those recommendations, and it was an enormous help for my constituents to know that an independent person was looking at exactly what happened, because many agencies were involved, and getting to the bottom of why the flooding happened is crucial to ensuring that we address it in future.
As many as 500 properties are thought to have been affected in Castle Point this year, but that number is much larger than the official figure. As many hon. Members will have experienced, flooding agencies find it very hard to get an accurate number for flooded properties because many people do not wish to declare the damage that they have suffered for fear of being unable to sell their property or of the effect on their insurance premiums. I already have residents who are being quoted insurance premiums with excesses of £10,000 to £20,000 because of the flooding they experienced, which is effectively making many of my residents unable to insure their properties. That is causing enormous concern.
There were cases of flooding across my constituency on that day in July—Rayleigh road, the avenue areas of Hadleigh and around the bottom of Woodside hill in Thundersley—but the majority of flooded properties were on Canvey Island, which suffered rainfall of almost 220 million gallons in a little under four hours. Canvey Island has some of the best tidal defences in the country, and the sea walls and barriers that protect the island and the low-lying parts of Benfleet saw off the great tidal surge that affected many other areas last November. DEFRA has invested millions in sea defences on Canvey Island over the past decades, which is of course very welcome, and I will always fiercely lobby for that investment to continue, but the rainfall event in July exposed a surface water drainage system that has clearly suffered from decades of local under-investment, illegal tampering and appalling connections made by various developers over the years.
After the event in July, I was shocked to learn that the various flooding agencies with responsibility for drainage did not have a clear picture of the drainage systems and assets on Canvey Island or who is responsible for them. That might be an unintended consequence of shifting responsibilities and ownership by various agencies over the years, but the serious, practical consequence was that some drainage assets had clearly not been maintained by anyone for years. Therefore, no one knew the level of risk or strain on the underlying infrastructure. I am grateful that we are now seriously looking at the situation, and an integrated urban drainage study is being undertaken not only to plot the assets but to work out who is responsible for them and how they work, but that will take some time.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making some important points. Does she agree that it is important that local authorities have an insight into the situation when considering permitting further developments and when setting their community infrastructure levies, which they now do themselves? That would ensure that local authorities set the levies at a level that is sufficient to ensure that new developments are able to contribute, including off site, to the surface water drainage systems, which will be required to take a greater strain than would otherwise have been the case.
Rebecca Harris
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and it is a critical concern to my residents. When more development is proposed in areas where we clearly already have an inadequate system, improvements will have to be made that guarantee that there will be no further strain on the infrastructure before we allow that further development to take place. In county areas such as mine, the county council must take some responsibility for the problem of surface water flooding.
It is hard for people to make preparations for a crisis if they are not entirely sure what resources they have to hand or how effective they are. My residents have a real fear every time it rains, although they can see an enormous amount of work being done. Nobody should have to live with that level of fear.
We must get an accurate picture of the drainage network’s capability if we are to upgrade it, which is why I support my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, who spoke about the need to provide local sources of funding to prevent surface water problems. If there are problems, people need to be able to access local funding quickly.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
The Environment Agency has spent £750,000 on measures to protect Gloucestershire. Does my hon. Friend agree that that activity and the activity of drainage boards and councils, taken together, represents sensible agency co-operation, which is critical to preventing flooding in the future?
Rebecca Harris
Absolutely. Many organisations deal with our water drainage networks, but the most important and critical point is to ensure that they are working together and that somebody is taking leadership of that. One of the firm recommendations in Sir Mark Walport’s report is that somebody must take a firm lead. We must not allow crazy situations to occur, such as when a county council cleans out its drainage pots, finds another blockage and says, “I’m not doing that; it’s someone else’s responsibly.” Organisations must work in concert; otherwise the system will not work. A blocked drain is not a drain any more.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
We are very clear that we have lead authorities, but, for example, when my constituency was flooded, each of the authorities looked to the others for co-ordination. We know that Lancashire county council is the lead authority, but on the day everybody looked to each other and nobody delivered. It was the firemen who rescued my constituents, and they were the only people who came out of the day with honour. Local authorities will not provide sandbags, and do not engage in fixing the problem. Everybody wants to lead, but nobody wants to do.
Rebecca Harris
I recognise that situation, which is why I was interested to see that recommendation 7 of Sir Mark Walport’s report states:
“The Natural Hazards Partnership should use the Canvey Island event as a case study”
for modelling future events. We should also recommend that the lead authority must know what its role is. I, too, wish to put on the record my praise for my fire service, which was sill pumping out people’s houses and doing its damndest to support my constituents at 2 o’clock in the morning. I am grateful to it.
Two measures are absolutely necessary. First, the different agencies must work together effectively to ensure that their response to flooding and the maintenance of the drainage network is co-ordinated. There should be no buck-passing or pointing at other organisations. I am pleased to say that following the Government’s report, co-operation has vastly improved in Castle Point and agencies are working together to overcome problems. However, as the hon. Lady said, that should be common practice.
Secondly, constituents need support to proof their properties against flooding. The repair and renew grant is a sensible, successful measure introduced by the Government for victims of the floods last winter and spring. Unfortunately, my constituents did not benefit from it, because the flooding events fell outside the time scale of the grant period. If the grant were extended and the hundreds of families in my constituency who suffered flooding this July and last August could access that support, they would have peace of mind and further damage to their homes would be prevented. It would be enormously beneficial in helping them to reinsure their homes with evidence that they are less at risk.
I am extremely grateful for the chief scientific adviser’s report on the flooding event in my constituency. He further recommended:
“The Met Office and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology should review the likelihood and impact of extreme weather events looking into the future, and provide a clear approach”.
We must not keep talking about one-in-300-year or one-in-100-year events. We must look at what is likely to happen in the future and ensure that our infrastructure and defences are able to meet the potential events. We must look at the hazards that will be caused by the overall rainfall effect. Anybody who has had flooding in their area should look at the chief scientific adviser’s report to see how it applies to them. I am delighted to say that it is now a case study for how we should do these things in the future.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing this timely debate.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I have constituents who have been affected by flooding. There is a sizeable community in my constituency that, although it has not been affected by flooding for some time, is in desperate need of flood defence work to protect it from the increasingly severe weather that we are experiencing. I regret that some of the funding that was earmarked by the previous Government was cut. Consequently, the flood defence works that should be in place or be well on the way to being in place have been delayed. Hopefully, those works will be completed before there is an extreme weather event in my constituency, which would have a devastating effect on the community in the Chester Green area of Derby North.
The title of this debate is “Preparing for flooding in winter 2014-15” but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said clearly, we must prepare for flooding in the longer term, although this winter is the most pressing concern. When the Minister responds, will he tell us what the Government are doing to encourage farming practices that reduce soil erosion? Some modern farming practices have significantly contributed to the flooding that communities around the country have experienced. The Government must look at that issue and enter into discussions with the farming industry to see what can be done to diminish those practices.
The main purpose of my contribution is to talk about the important role that the fire and rescue service plays in tackling flooding episodes. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) said that the fire and rescue service in her area was the only agency to roll up its sleeves, with its customary can-do approach, and do a good job. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck and for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) that the fire and rescue service should be given a statutory duty to enable it to take a lead during flooding events, and to ensure it has the wherewithal to respond to floods—flood response is an increasing part of its activity. We refer to the fire and rescue service as the fire service, but increasingly its role is to deal with flooding events.
I was formerly the shadow fire Minister, and prior to entering this House I served on the Derbyshire fire and rescue authority, so I have seen at first hand the work that fire and rescue services do to tackle flooding episodes. They erect temporary flood defences—an innovative approach to diminishing the impact of flooding—where there are not permanent flood defences. They evacuate vulnerable residents—my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said they did that in his constituency—and, importantly, they protect critical infrastructure. Much work has been done to protect critical infrastructure during some of the terrible flooding events that we have seen around the country.
I remember that when flooding episodes were widespread across the country two or three years ago, North Yorkshire fire and rescue service had to use all available hands to prevent a hospital from being inundated. It used high-volume pumps and so on. The scale of the emergency meant that it had to leave motorists stranded in rising floodwater so that it could protect the hospital from being flooded out. Usually, when there are major incidents, the adjoining fire and rescue service will send firefighters in to assist. I think the problem on that particular occasion was that the adjoining fire and rescue service was dealing with its own flooding episode. There is a message there, which I hope the Minister will take back to his colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government, namely that reducing the number of firefighters is potentially counter-productive in many ways, not least of which is in dealing with flooding events such as the one I have just described. I believe that last winter, 70% of fire and rescue services were called upon to help with the winter relief efforts.
Like other hon. Members, I have already said that climate change is leading to more extreme weather events. Therefore, the role of the fire and rescue service will increasingly be to deal with the consequences of those events. I think that the hon. Member for Winchester touched on the cost of failing to deal with them; I hope he will forgive me if he did not, but I thought I heard him speak about the potential cost of failing to protect crucial infrastructure. It is absolutely colossal when we consider some of the power plants that have been under threat of being inundated, and hospitals, which I have already mentioned. This situation will only get worse, so we need to recognise the central and crucial role that the fire and rescue services play.
I know that the previous Labour Government invested significantly following earlier floods—I think it was after the floods in 2007—and put in place one-off expenditure to enable fire and rescue authorities to purchase additional equipment. However, that was about seven years ago and there has not been a similar injection of funding since. Maybe it has not been necessary, because that earlier injection gave the fire and rescue authorities the wherewithal to purchase that equipment. However, the equipment is now getting older.
One-off injections are not good enough. We need the statutory duty I have mentioned to enable fire and rescue services to plan for this increasingly important part of their activity. Because there is not such a statutory duty, and in the context of diminishing budgets, that understandably means that when the chiefs of fire and rescue services are planning their budget obligations, dealing with flooding will inevitably take a lower priority, because they are obliged to deal with their statutory obligations. That is why it is essential that, when it comes to planning at local level, a statutory duty is applied.
There is also a lack of consistency. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck has made this point already, but how can it be right that in Scotland and Northern Ireland, firefighters have a statutory duty to deal with flooding, and yet firefighters in England do not?
Other hon. Members have already mentioned the Pitt review. Recommendation 30 of the review was explicit on this point. It said:
“The Government should review and update the guidance Insurance for all: A good practice guide for providers of social housing and disseminate it effectively to support”—
I beg your pardon, Mr Bone: I am reading out the wrong recommendation. I thought I had highlighted the one I wanted to read out. I will just have to gloss over that for a moment. I was going to read that out with a great flourish. However, I can assure you, Mr Bone, that somewhere in the review there is that recommendation. I may intervene on the Minister later, if he will allow me, when I have scrutinised my notes properly; this is the problem when we prepare our notes in a hurry. There was a recommendation in the Pitt review that explicitly said that a statutory duty was needed.
For all the reasons that I have outlined, it would help in planning, in ensuring that there is necessary investment, in developing the integrated risk management plans, in training, in providing personal protective equipment and all the other necessary factors if we ensure that we have a coherent approach to tackling flooding in this country. And when the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he can explicitly respond to the point about statutory duty, because a lot of Members feel it is important, and to my point about farming and the importance of reducing farming practices that are contributing to increased flooding in our country.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
I have three Members who want to speak. I would love to get everyone in, but we are pressed for time. So five minutes or so for each speaker.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I am grateful, Mr Bone, for the opportunity to speak. As always, it is a pleasure to speak when you are chairing proceedings. I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing this debate.
My Cleethorpes constituency is situated on the south bank of the Humber estuary, and on 5 December last year it suffered a major flood, and what could have been a major tragedy, when a tidal surge hit the area. Because the Minister replied to my previous Adjournment debate on that flood and has been very helpful since the tidal surge, he knows many of the problems that my constituency has faced.
In the vicinity of Barrow Haven, every home was flooded, and the areas around the villages of New Holland and Goxhill also suffered badly. Today, however, I will focus on the port of Immingham, which was put out of action last year. Clearly, the Government recognised its strategic importance and the then Environment Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), visited it just 48 hours after the surge.
It is difficult not to over-emphasise the importance of Immingham. Measured by tonnage, it is the UK’s largest port, handling about 50 million tonnes annually, rising to more than 60 million tonnes when it is coupled with neighbouring Grimsby. Thirty million tonnes of coal and petroleum products, and biomass for the newly converted Drax power station, play an important part; the coal and biomass is estimated to account for around a third of the UK’s generating capacity. Drax itself has the largest generating capacity of any power station in Europe. There are two oil refineries situated adjacent to the port and together they represent 28% of the UK’s refining capacity. The country’s strategic supplies of road salt are also stored on the dock estate. The tidal surge, and the disruption to the port and to wider industrial activity, resulted in a direct loss to Associated British Ports of £15 million. When that loss is coupled with that for businesses situated in or dependent on the port, the total loss was in excess of £100 million.
It is clearly essential that the Humber ports and villages are better protected against future risks. Many homes remain uninhabitable and with further developments anticipated, the Government have a duty to act. The Environment Agency and North Lincolnshire council acted swiftly, and by the end of March defences were restored to their pre-surge levels. However, more work is clearly needed. Humberside MPs, acting collectively on a cross-party basis and with the help of all the various agencies involved, have put detailed plans to the Government, from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister downwards. We met my right hon. Friend a few months ago, and we have also met his flood envoy, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who visited the port of Immingham on Maundy Thursday. The Minister for Government Policy and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), has also received a delegation, and I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), have met the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Humber flood risk management strategy represents a plan prepared by the various agencies involved, and it has now been submitted to the Environment Secretary. The planned work is estimated to cost £1.28 billion. That is to protect the whole estuary; it is an enormous amount, but an essential investment. When one considers that this is a major civil engineering project spread over 17 years, it becomes affordable, particularly when the strategic importance of the port is considered, as well as the fact that homes in Barrow Haven and other nearby villages have been flooded not only last year but in 2007 and on previous occasions. The plan details the main objectives, which are to improve the resilience of Humber ports and to ensure that the nation’s trading needs, which the ports contribute to, are secured. The residential areas are sparsely populated, but the council and other agencies have allowed further development, so it is incumbent on those authorities to protect people’s homes.
Last year’s tidal surge occurred with just small changes to wind speed and direction. Important decisions were made by the dockmasters at Immingham and Grimsby. If those decisions had been different, thousands of homes in north Cleethorpes and the East Marsh area of Grimsby would have been under water, as well as many homes in villages on the north bank of the Humber and in areas around Hull.
Last month, a joint parliamentary Committee gave the go-ahead for a further development by Able UK on the south bank of the Humber, a major development that will help with the Government’s project to establish the Humber as the renewables estuary for the UK. Some 4,000 jobs are promised. The Government have been supportive. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was in my constituency in August, handing over another £15 million cheque towards infrastructure. The Government have clearly indicated their support for the area, but they have investments that they, too, need to protect.
It is essential that the Government and the various agencies look seriously at the proposals. I appreciate that the Minister is unlikely today to pre-empt the autumn statement or next year’s Budget by announcing the resources, but clearly in both the long and the short term, for this winter and the winters immediately ahead, action is certainly needed.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
I will try to keep to five minutes, Mr Bone, to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on this timely, important debate.
I shall talk about a constituency issue in the parishes of Pilling, Thurnham and Winmarleigh, two of which are quite low-lying. The Minister is well aware of Thurnham, where we have had huge arguments with the Environment Agency, which continue, about its failure to commit to protect the sea defences beyond 30 years. The Minister will be relieved that I do not want to talk about that today.
Last winter, many of the fields of Winmarleigh, which is 2 or 3 miles inland, were covered by water, because the dykes and ditches had not been maintained regularly enough by the Environment Agency. For the last four years, I have had meeting after meeting with parishes, farmers and the Environment Agency. I was also trying, occasionally and now more regularly, to get Natural England at the same meetings, so we can get decisions. We even got to a situation a few months ago where Natural England and the Environment Agency agreed that some local farmers could remove weed from those ditches, although they could not dredge those themselves. The argument was about dredging, but of course when it got to the point we could not get official permission to do that. There was also the problem for farmers of who pays for what and the problem of liability insurance, so we are back to the same issue. Many dykes are higher than the neighbouring land, because once upon a time Pilling and Thurnham were undersea and they need the protection of sea defences.
The other week, at a meeting of Pilling parish council, the measurements on the two rivers concerned—the Broad Fleet and the River Cocker—were discussed. Measurements on the Broad Fleet had reached 1.6 metres, with 1.7 metres being flood-imminent or flood-liable. We have had the highest markings. The farmers’ argument is that that is happening because the ditches had not been dredged. However, more importantly, the Broad Fleet and the River Cocker, which all the dykes drain into, go out to sea and apparently that makes that situation the responsibility of the Marine Management Organisation. Those channels, which go into the Irish sea as part of Morecambe bay, have not been dredged for years. Anyone who knows the tidal range there will know that it is massive. Silt has built up and the tides have not cleared it, so even if we get some agreement with the Environment Agency regularly to clean out the land-based dykes, we will be trying to shove the water uphill through the channels beyond the sea wall, because nobody will take on the responsibility of going out there. I contacted the Marine Management Organisation and was asked why, as a Member of Parliament, I was contacting it, because apparently I should have contacted the Environment Agency.
I have got to the point of writing this week to the Secretary of State, saying, “If I get floods in Pilling and Thurnham this winter, then I know where the responsibility is.” The question is exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) put it: who has the responsibility, out of all these organisations, to come down to Pilling and Thurnham, look at those channels and say, “We need to dredge them; otherwise, hundreds of farms, and hundreds of residents—and caravan parks—will be under water”? That is the problem.
Pilling parish council has appointed an emergency committee, together with representatives from Winmarleigh and Thurnham, to meet weekly to try to deal with the land-based dykes, but the problem is out in the tidal range. I am trying to arrange a meeting, finally, with a strategy team at the Environment Agency and the Marine Management Organisation—hopefully that will happen—but at the end of the day I am still lost and hope that the Minister will answer my question. Who takes the responsibility, above all those organisations, to clear out the channels of the Broad Fleet and the River Cocker which go out into the Irish sea?
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is perhaps appropriate, Mr Bone, that I bring this debate back to Hampshire, which is where it started, with my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), whom I congratulate on leading it.
In Romsey and the Test valley villages last winter, there were many types of flooding. I did not even know about the whole range, which includes ground water, surface water and foul drainage flooding. Finally, the banks of the Fishlake stream and the River Test burst and there was a dramatic influx of water into people’s houses and businesses.
As many hon. Members have mentioned, all the agencies worked incredibly hard. I emphasise that in Romsey it really was a multi-agency approach, including the EA, the county council, the borough council, the town council and the surrounding parishes. The fire service did an absolutely cracking job at all times in Romsey. Eventually, the military responded in the face of a rising tide of water.
Southern Water struggled to tanker away the foul effluent in many cases where the drainage had been infiltrated with surface water, but it kept going. I have to mention the householders, who—
Caroline Nokes
I really do not have time. I am sorry, but I am left with a very few minutes to talk about flooding in Hampshire, which is where we started.
Householders were bringing out endless coffee and cakes for the tanker drivers, because they recognised that they were the people keeping the sewage out of their homes.
What of the aftermath? I thank the Minister for coming to Romsey last month to speak to residents and the EA, and to learn about the cat flap, which was a temporary structure that has now been removed, and about what could be done to protect the town and the surrounding villages and prevent the Test from causing future mayhem. The Minister’s Lib Dem colleagues, albeit at local council level, criticised his visit, describing it as a political stunt. I do not believe for a minute that it was. I put on record my thanks to him for coming and for his genuine interest.
Of course, the big question on everybody’s minds in Romsey is, what more needs to be done? I can tell the Minister that the Test is significantly higher today than when he visited last month and residents are extremely anxious as they look at the weather forecast and the rain. The EA has worked hard to repair the banks of the Fishlake stream and much work has been done in the villages to ensure that the water can flow more freely. In Stockbridge there is even a fully worked-up scheme that the local chamber of commerce assures me will cost only £50,000 to implement, but its question is, where is that money coming from? Southern Water has done some amazing work improving drainage networks. In one village alone, King’s Somborne, it spent £700,000, and it has worked on the pumping station in Longparish and improved the drains in Chilbolton.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester mentioned, the county council—I pay tribute to it, particularly for its work with the pathfinder project—has done sterling work in both the Test and Itchen catchment areas and worked hard with the Environment Agency, refining ideas and strategies ahead of the autumn statement.
I could praise the work of the insurance companies, which responded well at the time, but of course now residents have the problem of high renewals and high excesses: £25,000 in some cases. The promised Flood Re scheme seems to be a long time coming. The Minister heard residents mention that when he visited Romsey. They do not care whether the delay is with the insurance company or the Department; they just want it sorted.
The Minister will have understood from his visit that the Fishlake stream and the River Test pass through Greatbridge and behind the Budds Lane industrial estate. This was where the greatest impact was felt by householders and businesses. The cat flap was only a temporary structure. Residents want to understand who is responsible for a permanent measure, who will fund it and, importantly, when it might happen. I share their desire for answers.
The Causeway is the only access to the Southern Water pumping station. If that fails and is inaccessible, the sewage in Romsey backs up very quickly and it emerges in people’s houses in Riverside gardens, in Middlebridge street, and in sheltered accommodation at Bridge court. We heard about the cost-benefit ratio. There may not be a massive population here, but these are people’s homes and their livelihoods—their very existence—and I cannot begin to describe how unpleasant it is for people to be knee-deep in sewage in their own kitchen. There has to be recognition that that pumping station and its access is of strategic importance to the town.
I would like to hear from the Minister an assurance that the Test valley, although not as glamorous as Windsor and not as badly hit as Somerset, has not been forgotten and that he understands the problem and, following his visit, will do his best to convince the Chancellor that it deserves the sort of funding needed to prevent the dreadful experience of last winter.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing a popular debate. I am sure the many Members who have spoken could have given significant extra detail over and above the detail they have given on their constituencies. There are few more important issues for Government than protecting people from extreme weather events. We all remember the catastrophic scenes of last winter. It is therefore important that we have an opportunity to debate preparations for flooding this coming winter. It seems clear from all the speeches we have heard today—from the hon. Gentleman, from my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Derby North (Chris Williamson) and from the hon. Members for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) and from the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who waited extremely patiently for her opportunity—that prevention is better than cure.
After the significant floods in 2007, the previous Labour Government responded quickly and effectively. Once the significant relief effort was over, we commissioned the Pitt review, which was the most thorough assessment yet of Government’s ability to prepare for and respond to flooding. We put in place proper and effective long-term plans following that review, which included significantly increased spending. There was cross-party support for that, including for the increased spending levels. Unfortunately, that support did not survive the general election and the entry into government of the coalition parties. The response to last winter’s floods has been nowhere near as strong.
The reality is that this Government have been poor on flood protection. They slashed the budget when they first came into office and crossed their fingers and hoped it would not rain, but we know that the impact of climate change is increasing the risk of flooding in the UK. The Committee on Climate Change, the Government’s advisers on this, say that the chance of a £10 billion-cost event in the next 20 years is 10%. That event would be 10 times worse in cost than last year’s floods and more than three times worse than the catastrophic floods of 2007. The Government’s failure to take climate change seriously is putting more homes at risk of flooding. We have heard clearly from Government Members that they take climate change seriously. Perhaps they would like to ensure that their Government do so, too. This debate is obviously part of that effort.
The Labour party has clear plans to get the country back on track in managing flood risk. We will reprioritise long-term preventive spending, which is essential, as all the Members who have spoken today have made clear. We will establish an independent national infrastructure commission to identify the UK’s long-term infrastructure needs, including flood defences. That will enable us to try to reach a consensus that lasts beyond general elections on what is necessary with this kind of infrastructure spending. That is the approach we need. It is what the Committee on Climate Change and the National Audit Office say we need, but we have not seen a lot of it from this Government.
The National Audit Office made it clear in its report on strategic flood risk management that funding for flood protection has decreased in real terms by 10% since 2010, although the Government have made efforts to spin those spending figures. That is a real issue with the Government’s approach to flood protection, which is why we are hearing so many reports about problems with flood maintenance works, which I will talk a little about. Members have talked about maintenance in their constituencies, but the National Audit Office report last month put it plainly. Half of the nation’s flood defences have been maintained only to a minimal level. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on last winter’s floods, which was published in June, also made it clear. It said:
“Defra needs to recognise the importance of regular and sustained maintenance work in the prevention and management of flood risk”.
What has the Government’s response been so far? Have they taken the advice on board and set out plans to address failing flood defence maintenance and the falling level of spending? No. They have spent more time trying to hide the problem than actually dealing with it. When the National Audit Office criticised the Government’s record on spending and maintenance, the Minister responded by briefing against the methodology used in the report. As NAO value for money reports are agreed as factual with the Department concerned before they are published, how he could do that?
It is not just the National Audit Office saying that proper maintenance is not taking place. Last weekend, The Sunday Times reported that an unpublished maintenance review by the Environment Agency shows that thousands of areas along Britain’s rivers are in danger of flooding as a result of poor maintenance. Will the Minister commit today to publishing that maintenance review at the earliest opportunity? Those at risk of flooding due to poor maintenance, whether they are farmers or householders, should not have to read about it in newspapers. The failure on maintenance highlighted by the NAO and in The Sunday Times is just further proof of the Government’s failing record on flood protection, and it is not just the Opposition who say that.
The Government’s independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, say that Government plans will leave an additional 80,000 properties at serious risk of flooding in the next Parliament alone if they are not improved. When I pointed that out over the summer, the Conservative press office—not the Minister’s party—briefed against the Committee on Climate Change’s figures rather than setting out what the Department was planning to do to get to grips with the problem. All the signs are that the Government spend far more time trying to spin their way out of trouble instead of putting in place proper plans to reduce flood risk, which are what is needed.
On flooding, it seems that the Government cross their fingers and hope for the best, which is not good enough. All the signs suggest that Britain is not adequately prepared for flooding this winter. Lead local flood authorities, which have a significant role in managing flood risk, not least in emergency planning and recovery—Members across the Chamber have remarked on good emergency planning, but also on some failures—are having their funding from DEFRA cut from £15 million in 2014-15 to £10 million in 2015-16. That is a cut of a third. Will the Minister please explain what sort of impact he expects a cut of that size to have? Will he also explain why 86% of lead local flood authorities have failed to publish their flood risk strategies, despite being required to do so by Ministers since 2011? A clear theme during the debate has been that co-ordination across many agencies, with everyone knowing who is doing what, is an important part of flood response. Once it has started raining, it is too late to set the strategy. People have to know what they are doing in advance, so what is the Minister doing about the fact that 86% of lead local flood authorities have failed to publish their flood risk strategies?
Not only are the Government failing to carry out the necessary maintenance work to an adequate level, but they are failing to communicate that to the public. The NAO has warned that communities are not being made aware of maintenance works in their area being deprioritised. Will the Minister set out what steps are being taken to keep communities informed of that? Some householders may be able to take steps themselves that might assist. At least if they knew that their protection was being deprioritised, they would know that they have a problem. If preparation for last winter’s floods was poor at best, the immediate emergency response was good. However, the response to ensure recovery after the deluge can only be described as slow and chaotic. For weeks after the flooding started, Ministers refused to accept the need for additional funding, the serious situation facing many farmers and householders and that the Government had a duty to act, regardless of whether official requests from councils had been made. As a consequence, the response was chaotic and not at all good. I hope that the Minister can assure Members here today and the rest of the country that the response in future will be better.
I have already said that if I was Secretary of State, I would start by reprioritising flood risk. The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), removed that from his Department’s priorities. We would introduce a new national adaptation plan to ensure that all sectors of the economy are prepared for climate change. It is unacceptable for Britain to have a plan for adapting to climate change drawn up by a Secretary of State who openly said that climate change would benefit Britain. We must end this Government’s short-term approach to flood investment and prioritise preventive spending by establishing a national infrastructure commission to identify our long-term infrastructure needs and get cross-party support to meet them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on securing this important debate, which is of great relevance and interest to Members of all parties and the communities that they represent.
I start by reflecting on what we have seen and the impacts on constituencies described by hon. Members. Last winter saw record levels of rainfall and the stormiest period for at least 20 years. Record river flows, sea levels, wave heights and ground water levels in many locations across the country led to the flooding of more than 8,300 homes and caused damage or disruption to businesses, infrastructure, transport and utilities.
I have seen first hand the damage caused by last winter’s flooding and the devastating impact on people’s day-to-day lives. My sympathies continue to go out to those affected, in particular those who are still unable to go home because buildings can take a long time to dry out. The Government have led a major recovery effort to help people to get back on their feet, including committing more than £560 million of recovery support funding. Many organisations were involved in responding to the exceptional weather, including the Government and their agencies, in particular the Environment Agency, the emergency services and the military, as well as many voluntary organisations and transport and utility companies.
While efforts were generally effective, we acknowledged at the time that some aspects of the response and recovery required improvement. The shadow Secretary of State described a chaotic situation, but we have heard from many hon. Members that the response in their local communities was good. However, we must learn from the cases where it was less good, as we did for previous events and will continue to do. The shadow Secretary of State described the experience in 2007 under the previous Labour Government and the constant need to learn lessons and move on.
Dan Rogerson
I need to make some progress as I have a lot to respond to, but I hope to cover the hon. Gentleman’s points.
The Government are spending more than £3.2 billion over the course of this Parliament on flood and erosion risk management, which is half a billion more than was spent in the previous Parliament. Comparing this Parliament with the previous five years, I should say that investment in flood risk management has increased in real terms by 5%. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has secured a protected, long-term six-year capital settlement to improve flood management infrastructure. We will be making record levels of investment in capital improvement projects and more than £2.3 billion will be invested in capital alone over that six-year period, with £370 million in 2015-16 and then the same in real terms each year, rising to more than £400 million in 2020-21.
That investment will deliver long-term value for money and reduce the risk of flooding to a further 300,000 households between April 2015 and March 2021, which is on top of the 165,000 homes protected during the current spending period. The national programme of flood and coastal erosion risk management improvement works is now being developed in alignment with regional flood and coastal committees, which are working on their local programmes. By the end of the decade, we will have provided a better level of protection to at least 465,000 households.
I turn to the local impacts. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester set out the situation in Hampshire, which experienced record amounts of rainfall last winter, leading to high flows on the River Itchen and on the River Test, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). Properties were affected in several communities along those rivers.
As other hon. Members have pointed out, the issue is about not only those who were directly affected, but those who were not, who may be stressed and concerned about the future. I absolutely understand the wider impacts. The multi-agency emergency response in Romsey and Winchester, supported by military and other professional partners, helped to reduce the impacts of the flooding. I am grateful for the tributes paid to those who worked incredibly hard to achieve better results for their communities.
The Environment Agency estimates that more than 260 properties across Hampshire suffered internal flooding. DEFRA is currently considering an application from Hampshire county council for a three-year programme for ground water flood alleviation schemes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester said, officials met with county officials earlier this week to discuss the proposal and we remain in touch with the council over how we might take it forward.
Turning to the general preparedness for the coming winter, 844 flood defence assets were damaged in England alone last winter, including those managed by the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards. In response to last winter’s exceptional weather, DEFRA made an extra £270 million available to repair, restore and maintain the most critical flood defences. Repair work at many sites started as soon as the weather conditions allowed and continued throughout the summer. The Environment Agency continues to work with local authorities to ensure that any outstanding repair work is identified and that funding options are clarified.
Dan Rogerson
As I said, I want to cover the points made in the debate, so I need to press on.
Thanks to the tremendous efforts of all involved, all areas will have at least the same standard of protection as before last winter, and permanent defences have been restored to more than 200,000 properties. For a small number of sites where repairs are continuing, contingency measures, such as mobile pumps and temporary flood defences, have been put in place to ensure that communities are protected. I understand that just 4% need temporary defences, which in some cases is down to longer-term projects that are coming forward, so it makes sense to do temporary work. Permanent defences are therefore back in place for 96% of communities.
Last winter’s floods highlighted the valuable contribution of our armed forces and the difference that they can make in response to domestic emergencies. New arrangements have been put in place to strengthen military involvement in local emergency planning and preparedness and to make it easier for responders to access support from the armed forces in an emergency if necessary. Last winter also saw disruption to our transport, energy and water supply networks, so extensive work has taken place to ensure that we are better placed to deal with similar events in future, with action being led by both Government and relevant service providers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) spoke of the issues on Canvey Island and is all too aware of how necessary it is that water companies are involved, along with local authorities and the Environment Agency, in coming up with new solutions to increase capacity and to ensure that the area is better prepared should there be a repeat of the severe event of July. I welcome the fact that water companies are engaging with her, which is important, and thank her for her kind words about the Department’s support and the chief scientist’s contribution.
A review that we have undertaken shows that lessons need to be learned from recent weather events affecting transport and from future projected changes in extreme weather events. Those lessons will be for a number of agencies.
Following the implementation of the Pitt review’s recommendations, we have been clear about where responsibilities lie. I want to address the contribution of fire and rescue services, which was raised passionately by several Opposition Members.
Dan Rogerson
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he wants to highlight the relevant bit of the review now that he has found it.
Chris Williamson
I am grateful for the opportunity to correct my earlier mistake. I meant to read out recommendation 39, which states:
“The Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty.”
Dan Rogerson
The Pitt review certainly recommended that we consider that, but the advice of the chief fire officer is that such a change would not be right at this point. The hon. Gentleman makes that point consistently in Parliament and with my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government. We have heard today about the huge contribution made by the fire and rescue services. There was no shortage of resource and they were a big part of the recovery process, which is a good sign that current arrangements are proving successful. DCLG can continue to keep the matter under review, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will raise it with Ministers from that Department.
Dan Rogerson
I want to cover some of the other points made in the debate.
The Government are also reviewing the packages of support that have been put in place, with DCLG reviewing some recovery packages, but we are focused this morning on preventing flooding. In the short time remaining, I want to address the specific issues, frustrations and hopes for swift progress raised by other hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) sought assurances about the ditch clearance work that his communities believe would make a real difference. I am happy to get more information on that and to get back to him. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), along with a cross-party selection of Members from across the Humber area, consistently stresses the importance of future plans for that part of the country. As he uncannily predicted, that will be a matter for future major financial investment programme announcements, such as the autumn statement.
I am grateful for the contributions of all hon. Members. The Government are committed to investing record amounts in flood defences and to working with local communities to ensure that we spend that money more efficiently than ever to protect more and more homes.
Planning Policy (Housing Targets)
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again this morning, Mr Bone. I hope that the sitting, which has been a little Hampshire-centric so far, does not make you think that all southern MPs are focused only on planning and flooding, although those issues are critical to our local communities and, arguably, the biggest challenges to face our towns and villages.
The Minister will not be surprised that I requested this debate specifically about housing land supply and local authorities’ difficulties in seeking to uphold robust and well-considered planning policies in the face of repeated and determined speculative applications by developers, who are consistently using the requirement for a five-year housing land supply to their own advantage, rather than to the advantage of local residents and would-be home owners.
We all know that figures can be massaged and distorted. In Test Valley, the abolition of spatial strategies was widely welcomed, but the reality of local planning and localism has not been as we all might have hoped. It makes no difference whether sites are on the edge of Romsey or in the strategic and local gaps between smaller settlements and the major city of Southampton. To the layman, developers appear to be using the national planning policy framework to their own advantage and riding roughshod over local opinion and the local decisions made by democratically elected councillors.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
What my hon. Friend has said echoes what is happening in my constituency. Only last week, I went to a meeting about the neighbourhood plan for Chapel-en-le-Frith—a fantastic piece of work that is seemingly not being considered. The issue is all to do with the land supply. Residents are getting incensed, thinking, “Are we in a situation of planning by appeal?” Does my hon. Friend think that a valid point?
Caroline Nokes
I agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the experience that we are facing in Test Valley.
The onus of the NPPF is very much on delivery—I do not need to remind the Minister to refer specifically to paragraphs 47 and 48. Local councils in general and, as the Minister knows from his own correspondence, Test Valley council in particular, are calling for greater clarity and for a focus on planning issues, where the authority has the ability to have a role.
Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that no matter where we are in the country, we are seeing more and more of our green belt disappear? It is vital that we should first consider every brownfield site possible before any green belt is even looked at.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the green belt. Unfortunately, in Hampshire we have next to none.
Recent information from the National Trust indicated that if the five-year land supply can be disputed by developers, more than 70% of locally made decisions are overturned at appeal. The Minister will not comment on individual cases, and I do not ask him to, but in order to highlight how the requirement for a five-year housing land supply has been abused, I shall use the example of Parkers Farm on the edge of Rownhams, which is the subject of a speculative planning application that right now is at the appeal stage.
Test Valley’s revised local plan has recently been submitted and is expected to be determined some time reasonably early next year. Throughout the borough, local communities are looking at neighbourhood plans, some more actively than others, and there is real enthusiasm locally to ensure that residents’ views are heard and taken into account.
If there is one thing that my constituents get, it is local planning, and as someone who served for 12 years on the southern area planning committee of Test Valley borough council, it is something I get. I have long held the belief that nothing is more vexed in the world of politics than local planning. Where guidance is clear and statistics cannot be manipulated and distorted, however, there is at least clarity. People can reasonably understand policies and not be confronted with ever-shifting sands.
With Parkers Farm, which is only one site that I have identified—the Minister might be aware that there are several others across southern Test Valley—the case of the appellant rests on there not being an adequate five-year land supply. The Minister may recall the correspondence from the leader of the local council on the matter, following a motion in Test Valley borough council, but the five-year supply depends entirely on how it is calculated and on the rate of delivery of granted permissions. In the majority of cases, that rate of delivery is entirely in the hands of the developers.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
I totally support my hon. Friend on that point. In effect, we appear to have an extraordinary flaw and an unintended consequence of the planning system. Developers like the comfort of a long-term plan and lots of land in it, but they are not as keen to deliver that land as quickly as we might like for many reasons, among which is not wishing to bring the local land price down, as well as ensuring that they can get more land into their land-banking systems.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend is of course right. The issue is entirely about the laws of supply and demand. Those who control the supply have the upper hand in this case.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend not agree that the brownfield sites are sitting there waiting to be developed while green land is being developed?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend is right to a certain extent, but in Test Valley we have both scenarios: neither brownfield sites nor greenfield sites with permission are being developed.
I have raised the issue more than once in the Chamber and with more than one planning Minister. In Test Valley, we have repeatedly witnessed the scenario in which each developer seeks permission by demonstrating, usually on appeal, that sites with extant planning permission are for some reason or other undeliverable. We have even had the bizarre situation in which landowners have argued that their own sites, previously granted permission, are now not coming forward at the expected rate, so a further permission is required for an additional site. That is all in order for the borough to maintain its five-year supply.
The revised local plan, therefore, proposes a higher annual housing delivery figure than that contained in the now revoked south-east plan. Test Valley is doing its bit to aid housing supply. The construction rate is at a 15-year high, and since 2012 the borough has had the highest completion rate in Hampshire, including in the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton.
The council has a long-standing working relationship with many developers and seeks to bring forward appropriate sites. It has worked hard and made incredibly difficult decisions, but is repeatedly frustrated. It is doing its best to grant appropriate permissions and to encourage developers to bring forward housing, but the ability of certain landowners and developers to fail to meet their promised delivery rates once they have obtained planning permission is causing huge difficulties. That manipulates the land supply forecast and calculations to the developers’ advantage and, as a result, yet more greenfield sites fall under the continuous pressure from speculative planning applications.
Rebecca Harris
My hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. The problem is clearly one that we recognise in many parts of the country. What counts as deliverable in planning circles is very much what the developers tell us is deliverable. They will assure us that they can get their vehicles straight on to that nice green-belt site, or in the course of a couple of days, but that the brownfield sites are not deliverable. Once the site is given to them in the plan, it becomes quite another matter, and sites might sit there vacant, but causing planning blight for residents.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify that cause of planning blight. Residents see a greenfield site with planning permission, but with nothing happening, which causes huge frustration. Decisions not to bring forward sites that are not under the local authority’s control—for commercial reasons, for example—should not have the effect of penalising the land supply figure.
At this point, I remind the Minister that Hampshire has no green belt, save for a small corner in the far south-west designed to prevent the spread of the Bournemouth conurbation, which I must remark lies in a totally different county. Hampshire does not benefit from green belt and, as a result, the coalescence of settlements and the loss of the distinctive gaps between them is a serious problem.
The Minister’s response to me, of Monday’s date, helpfully points out paragraph 82 of the NPPF and identifies exactly why my local authority cannot designate new green belt. The NPPF states that the general extent of the green belt is already established—we do not have any and we are unlikely to get any—and that new green belt should be established only in exceptional circumstances. Let me tell him that unfortunately the circumstances in Test Valley are not exceptional, and it would be incredibly difficult for us to designate a new area of green belt, because we are not planning a large new settlement or major urban extension. Even if we could designate a green belt, the current criteria do not allow us to. I urge him to revisit those criteria.
I return to the point in hand. Over the past four years, all the speculative developments in southern Test Valley have been justified on the grounds of a lack of a deliverable five-year supply and the supposed ability of yet another site to make up the shortfall. Yet, as the deputy leader of the council said earlier this year, if we were to tot up all the permissions granted across southern Test Valley, there would be over seven years’ worth of supply. Developers are building deliberately slowly, for either strategic or commercial reasons.
The housing land supply figures are too easily influenced by developers simply either changing their forecasts on permitted sites or not bringing sites forward at all, or else not as quickly as was forecast. The case of the Romsey brewery is well documented. That development has been brought forward at a painfully slow rate since the final brew was started on my 11th birthday.
Caroline Nokes
Yes—a very long time ago, as my hon. Friend says. For 30 years, the landowner and developer have dragged their feet, and have set a pattern that others seem very happy to follow. Of course, we all understand that there may be solid planning reasons for sites not coming forward as quickly as was hoped—both I and the Minister understand that—but those reasons should not include the whims of developers. Test Valley borough council is seeking an amendment to national guidance that would enable local planning authorities to factor in forecasted delivery rates in the housing land supply calculated when permission was originally granted. The review of delivery rates should be permitted only if there are sound planning reasons to do so.
I note the Minister’s response—dated yesterday—to the leader of the council, which focused on the steps local authorities can take to bring forward development. Yes, of course he is right that time scales for the start of development can be shortened, but that does not help where development has started but then progresses very slowly indeed. The fund for self-builders is, of course, welcome, but it simply will not deliver the scale of development needed to address the disputed land supply figures.
I turn now to some specific Test Valley examples. I have mentioned Parkers Farm in Rownhams, a greenfield site, which has not been included in the revised local plan but is now the subject of an appeal for 320 houses and a 60 bed extra-care facility. That site would have been considered as part of the borough local plan process but clearly was not deemed as sustainable as other potential sites. It is adjacent to another site that it is thought will imminently be subject to a planning application.
Were the two applications to be granted, they would effectively close the gap between the village of Rownhams and the Southampton city boundary. For generations Test Valley councillors have sought to maintain gaps between settlements and enable villages to retain their own identity and sense of community, but that looks to be under very real threat.
On the edge of Romsey, a site at Halterworth—again, a greenfield site and part of an important local gap between Romsey and the village of North Baddesley—is subject to a proposal by Foreman Homes for in excess of 100 dwellings and a leisure centre. Again, that site would have been considered by the borough local plan process and, again, for good planning reasons it has been excluded.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Hampshire love-in continues. Those examples are very pertinent. There is a site in my constituency being developed called Pitt Vale, next to Pitt Manor. It is between Winchester and Hursley, and is right on the border of my hon. Friend’s constituency—she is my parliamentary neighbour. That site was considered as part of the local plan and was dismissed. It is now part of what I consider to be a speculative planning application but that I have no doubt will one day end up with the Planning Inspectorate. My constituents are angry because they have done their bit, worked with localism and created a local plan, but now they find themselves in that situation. Does she not agree that that is undermining one of the best things this Government have done—namely, the Localism Act 2011?
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour makes a valid point. That is exactly the sentiment of my constituents as well.
I wrote to the Minister about Wrens Corner in Romsey Extra—he has responded recently. That is yet another example of a speculative proposal on the edge of the borough local plan and certainly not included within it. All the schemes I have mentioned rely on a supposed lack of a deliverable five-year housing land supply, despite the fact that, as I said earlier, on the cold figures Test Valley borough council has granted seven years’ worth of permissions in the south of the borough.
I will conclude, as I know the Minister will want to respond. Test Valley borough councillors have sought to be constructive and engage with him and his officials at the Department for Communities and Local Government. They have provided examples and evidence of how the five-year land supply, as it is currently determined, is being manipulated by developers. The system enables developers to bank permissions, start development, although painfully slowly, and then move on to a new site, claiming that previous developments are now not deliverable—or at least not at the same rate they had once claimed. It is rather like a cake from which a slice is cut and one bite taken out, before the consumer moves on to cut another slice: the whole cake is ruined, but nobody’s appetite is satisfied.
That is not good planning. It is not plan led, but led by speculation and greed, helping only the developers, and certainly not those seeking to buy their own homes in this desirable part of the country. I urge the Minister, who I know is in receipt of advice from his officials and my councillors, to look at the five-year supply problem and find innovative and effective ways of encouraging—or, if necessary, compelling—those who have permissions to bring their sites forward, as well as ways to deter that sort of manipulation of the system, so that ultimately communities can be constructed, rather than blighted for decades by slow or non-existent building.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on securing this timely debate. I know that she is committed to making sure that housing in her constituency is developed in the right locations, and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the role of the Government’s national planning policy in achieving that, as well as the issues other hon. Friends have raised today. I know that Members across the House, as well as my hon. Friends here today, have made similar points about making sure development happens; we know we need to build more houses, but we all want to see them in the appropriate places, and designed and built in an appropriate way.
My hon. Friend has outlined the importance of getting local plans in place, and I will respond on that point in more detail in a moment. Most of the areas where there are issues do not have a local plan in place. Once a plan is in place, it gives the level of protection that people want. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said, nothing will ever stop a developer trying something, but with a local plan in place residents have protection and therefore the expectation—rightly—that the planning process and any appeal will back up the approved and adopted local plan.
Several of my hon. Friends have mentioned the green belt and brownfield land. I know that the green belt is not directly relevant to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North, which does not have much green belt, but it is worth noting that the green belt has remained constant in England over the past few years. If we disregard land reclassified as national parks, the green belt is larger now than in 1997. We are focusing on developing brownfield land as a priority. That is why we launched a new fund specifically aimed at brownfield development during the summer.
I am pleased to hear that Test Valley council is giving strong leadership and recognises the importance of providing the housing necessary to suit the needs of local people. That the rate of construction in the local authority area is at its highest for 15 years is testament to that and to the work done there by councillors and by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend noted that as a Minister in DCLG I have a quasi-judicial role in the planning system and therefore cannot comment on specific proposals, or on the emerging local plan in Test Valley, which, as she said, is currently at examination stage. However, she has raised some important issues relating to the Government’s approach and reforms and I will touch on those.
The Government are committed to increasing housing supply and helping more people achieve the aspiration of having a home of their own. I am pleased to hear of my hon. Friend’s support for our changes to get rid of the top-down regional strategies that, as many of us know, built up nothing but resentment, while in the meantime, of course, nothing was getting built. I welcome the enthusiasm of local communities in her area for exploring neighbourhood plans. When we came into power, we wanted local communities to play a much stronger role in shaping the areas in which they live and supporting new development proposals that would deliver the houses we need. That is why we introduced the neighbourhood planning system in the Localism Act, which my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester mentioned. That important and popular legislation means that local people in communities get a real say in planning in their area. For the first time, communities can come together to produce plans that have real statutory weight in the planning system.
Andrew Bingham
I agree with what the Minister says about neighbourhood plans, but it seems that the plan written in Chapel-en-le-Frith is being completely ignored by the planning authority—the borough council—which has led to great dissatisfaction in the village. People got together to put the plan together, but they now feel it is being ignored, so they are wondering what the point is.
Brandon Lewis
Without going into the specifics of my hon. Friend’s case, if a neighbourhood plan has been drawn up—particularly if it has gone through a referendum and been approved—it is right that the local authority should give it weight. Neighbourhood plans have statutory weight. If residents in my hon. Friend’s area look at casework from just the last month or two, they will see that the Government and planning inspectors have backed neighbourhood plans and turned down planning applications that go against them. If a local authority is not taking account of neighbourhood plans, residents should be very firm with it about what it is doing. Authorities are ultimately elected by their communities and they should be listening to them.
Neighbourhood plans can include policies on where development should go, what it should look like, what should be protected and what facilities should be provided. I therefore encourage all constituents, whether in rural or urban parts of any of our constituencies, who want to support house building while protecting the historic, environmental and aesthetic value of our communities, to get involved with neighbourhood planning.
Caroline Nokes
I very much welcome neighbourhood plans, and some great plans are being worked on in my constituency, but will the Minister acknowledge that in some instances there is frustration at how long the process can take? Even when good, experienced people are drafting the plan, it can take many years to come to fruition.
Brandon Lewis
People in a few areas have raised that point with me over the summer. For neighbourhood plans to work, we want them to be robust but as straightforward as possible, rather than a bureaucratic nightmare. I am determined to do something to see whether we can speed up that process, and if my hon. Friend can bear with us over the next few more weeks, we will be taking decisions about this very issue.
I am aware that there are concerns—my hon. Friend has outlined some—about the way the framework is used in areas such as hers. In all our reforms, including the introduction of the NPPF, the Government have put plans and communities at the heart of the planning system, which is very much designed to move from the historical system of development and control to a plan-led system and, ultimately, with neighbourhood plans, to a proactive plan system. An up-to-date local plan, prepared through public consultation, sets the framework in which all decisions should be taken, whether locally by the planning authority or at appeal.
The framework is clear that the purpose of planning is to deliver sustainable development, but not development at any cost or in any place. Localism means choosing how best to meet development needs, not whether to meet them at all. We do not ask local authorities to plan to set housing targets or to build more homes than they need, but by putting in place a locally led system, we ask them to take tough decisions about where development should and should not go.
Mr Andrew Turner
What we have is urban areas where building is suitable but does not come forward, while in pleasant places outside those areas it does come forward. How do we get cases, some of which have been there for years, treated so that they come forward in a reasonable way and are not ignored?
Brandon Lewis
It is for local authorities, not for any of us in Westminster, to take through their local plans. The policy itself says that local planning authorities should
“use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies set out in this Framework”.
That is important. Sometimes, councillors forget that it is for the local authority to use its evidence to see what its housing needs will be. Then, at the second stage, having assessed what those housing needs are, it should produce a strategic housing land availability assessment to establish realistic assumptions about what it can deliver, and what is appropriate and where in its area. There are, in effect, two separate stages. The authority could and should also take into account environmental constraints, as is clearly outlined in the NPPF. Once the local authority has done that, it ends up with its housing requirement figure, against which the supply of housing sites should be calculated.
Local authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites. Once a local plan is in place, has been approved and is therefore robust, that gives local communities the protection so many people want. I therefore encourage all areas to move on and get their local plans adopted and taken through the system. That approach is preferable to the endless discussions and debates that are often replicated in determining individual applications and appeals. Should Test Valley borough council’s plan be found sound and be adopted next year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North anticipates, the council will be in a much stronger position to defend its decisions on general planning applications in line with that plan.
Where local authorities cannot demonstrate a five-year supply, relevant housing policies will not be considered up to date, and the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies. That means granting planning permission unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or unless specific policies in the framework indicate that development should be restricted. Even in the absence of an up-to-date plan, our policy seeks to strike a balance between enabling the sustainable development we need and conserving and enhancing our natural and historic environment. Clearly, the weight attached to every decision will depend on the decision taker and the facts of a given case, but planning decisions over the last few months show that development that goes against environmental constraints will be overturned, even where there is not necessarily a local plan, if that is the appropriate decision.
I note the National Trust’s claims about developers’ rate of success where there is no five-year housing land supply in place. I should point out that, overall, the views of local authorities are upheld in the majority of cases. About two thirds of appeals are refused, and the figure has been around that level for a number of years.
My hon. Friend mentioned her concerns about slower delivery rates by local developers on sites with planning permission, which can put extra pressure on local authorities to release more sites. Test Valley borough council has been concerned about such activities, which is why my officials met the council and other authorities while preparing the planning guidelines. Many factors influence when a development is started, not least the availability of finance, market conditions and legal constraints. In the main, however, I would hope that a developer that commits to building out at a particular rate will do so, and we are right to expect that the local planning authority will keep the delivery of new development under review as part of its wider working on monitoring housing delivery.
At various stages of the planning process, local authorities may be able to take steps to tackle concerns about that. For example, our guidance is clear that they can consider the likely deliverability of sites as part of the plan-making process. When assessing the availability of a site, consideration should be given to the delivery record of the developers or landowners putting forward the site and to whether the site’s planning background shows a history of unimplemented planning permissions. We also made the point in our guidance that local authorities that review their five-year supply every year are likely to make the assessment very robust and to be protected from having out-of-date housing policies when defending an appeal further down the line. We have also made it clear that older people’s housing, student housing and vacant housing can, in the right circumstances, be counted towards meeting the housing requirement. Furthermore, where a local authority has concerns about the deliverability of a site and about the negative impact of delay, it can, where appropriate, impose shorter time scales for the start of development. It can also serve completion notices to require that development commenced is completed within a set period, and it can, ultimately, revoke planning permission in some circumstances.
I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s request for a change to national planning policy on the designation of the green belt. As she knows, the Government attach the highest importance to protecting our green belt, and we underlined that further in guidance this summer. However, designating and changing green-belt boundaries must be a local decision. We are clear that green-belt boundaries should be established in local plans. I appreciate the challenge for an area such as Hampshire, and I am sure my hon. Friend will continue to make representations to us, but we want to avoid urban sprawl. Despite my hon. Friend’s concerns about protecting our beautiful villages and the countryside in her constituency, designating land as green belt is not necessarily the way forward in this instance, although I am happy for her to make further representations herself or through her local authority in the future.
Public Libraries (England)
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I am delighted, Mr Bayley, to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. I am pleased to be here to debate public libraries in England; we do not do that often enough. Sadly, England is becoming a place where access to creativity, culture and the arts is rapidly diminishing. Our libraries, which sit at the very heart of our communities and offer that cultural experience, seem almost to have been forgotten by this Government.
It is difficult to give a definitive figure for the number of library closures because, tellingly, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Arts Council do not directly collect figures. However, according to Public Libraries News, since 2010 nearly 500 libraries, including 80 mobiles, are reported to have closed, been passed to volunteers or placed outside council control.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
The hon. Lady may be aware that we now do an annual report to Parliament under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. Last year, we calculated that fewer than 100 static libraries had closed.
Lyn Brown
The Minister will be aware that, since 2010, 500 libraries are reported to have been passed to volunteers, to be outside council control or to have closed. Nevertheless, there are 3,000 libraries in England doing hugely positive work. They sit at the heart of our communities, promoting culture and creativity despite these difficult times.
According to one survey, public access to libraries is being curtailed. One third of libraries have reduced their opening hours and a further third have introduced charges for services that were previously free. By reducing hours and increasing charges for services such as the internet, people on limited incomes who cannot afford a home computer, and rely on libraries for school work or to search and apply for jobs, are excluded.
Lyn Brown
To recap, we are talking about the nearly 500 libraries, including 80 mobile libraries, that are reported to have closed, been passed to volunteers or been placed outside council control since 2010. We are talking about the reduction in hours and the increasing charges, especially for internet use. We are talking about the fact that library outreach services are among the hardest hit by the cuts. Limiting those services has meant that the less mobile people in our community—particularly the elderly—have found their mobile services severely limited.
The reason why libraries are as valued as they are and why I am passionate about them and their role is that they act as a gateway for personal development, promote community cohesion, act as economic enablers, promote democratic participation, inspire the imagination and fuel aspiration.
When I was growing up, my mum’s driving ambition for me was that I would not join her working on the shop floor, packing icing sugar, at Tate & Lyle. She, like many other mothers and fathers, had the insight to know that education and literacy were crucial to that aim and my future. She took me to the library every day she could, hoping that it would have a positive influence on me.
As a result, my world opened up and a reading habit was instilled in me, which has given me enormous pleasure and enabled me to continue and enhance my education. Libraries give working families such as mine access to resources, influences and learning that many middle-class families may take for granted. Libraries remain radical and empowering places. As the great philanthropist Andrew Carnegie once said:
“A library outranks any other one thing a community can do to benefit its people. It is a never failing spring in the desert.”
Sadly, under the Government’s watch, that spring is drying up.
Public libraries are not only close to my heart, but highly valued by the British public. Despite the downturn in library provision, the latest figures show that 306 million visits are made each year to UK libraries, and that 70% of five to 15-year-olds have used a library in the past year. When the Carnegie UK Trust surveyed attitudes towards public libraries, the results were overwhelming. More than two thirds of people said that libraries were essential or very important to a community. I am pleased to say that the Carnegie report identifies an increase in the number of library users between 2002 and 2006, after a period of falling use between 1992 and 2002. The Carnegie UK Trust rightly attributes that increase in numbers to the installation of the people’s network, which provided internet access in UK libraries.
Lyn Brown
Thank you.
Some hon. Members present may believe that libraries should or will be consigned to history, and that the rise of the e-book and digital services will render libraries obsolete. Those Members should remember that one in five families in this country do not have internet access at home. Although we have seen a drastic rise in the number of internet users in coffee shops, half our libraries still do not have wi-fi. To respond to the changing needs of the 21st century, the library offer must adapt and change. That, just like the people’s network, will take real commitment and leadership from the Government—or a Government, perhaps I should say.
Our local authorities were once the mainstay of cultural funding throughout the UK. Today, they are underfunded and reduced. They are struggling. Even the local authorities with the best practice are being forced into taking previously unthinkable action. Gateshead, Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and many others that have been successful over many decades are struggling to maintain a decent cultural offer. Indeed, one Tory council, Barnet—which, when I was chair of the Local Government Association culture services executive, had beacon status for its libraries—is now consulting on service reductions. It posits a choice between closing six out of 14 libraries and cutting the space in 10 out of 14 libraries to what it describes as the size of a living room.
The council proposes to rent out the rest of that community-owned space as commercial offices. I understand that Labour’s candidate in Finchley and Golders Green, Sarah Sackman, is doing all she can to stop those vicious closure proposals. I wish her and all the other library campaigners across the country well.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate on an important topic that matters so much to so many of our communities. She mentioned a consultation run by one Conservative-controlled council in north London. Would she like to comment on Croydon council, which, under the Conservatives, consulted local people on how they wanted their libraries to be run—so far, so good—but subsequently privatised the libraries, even though that had not been one of the options for consideration during the consultation?
Lyn Brown
I think it is awful that a council would go out to consultation on an option and then disregard the views that people express. I cannot conceive of that. I understand that councils are struggling enormously under the cuts that the Government are making, so essential services such as libraries are at risk. At one time, Croydon council’s libraries were considered to be among the best that we had to offer in the capital.
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Lady highlights the actions of a Labour candidate in a Tory-controlled authority. Will she enlighten the House on what Labour MPs and candidates have done in Labour councils that have closed libraries, such as Barking and Dagenham, Bolton, Bradford, Hackney, Lambeth, Leeds, Liverpool—the list goes on? More than five times as many libraries have been closed by Labour councils as by Conservative ones.
Lyn Brown
What astounds me about the Minister’s contribution is that he does not seem to think that he has any responsibility in this debate. He wants to offload the responsibility on to councils, but he has offered very little leadership to enable those councils to take decisions collectively to make the best of their resources. I do not understand how the Minister has the brass neck.
Mr Reed
My hon. Friend will have heard, as I did, the Minister cite Lambeth as a Labour-controlled council that has closed libraries. In fact, Lambeth has opened a new library in Clapham and has closed no libraries at all. Does she agree that the Minister should withdraw his comment and apologise?
Lyn Brown
No; I am done now.
We must make the best use of the money currently assigned to libraries so that they can make the best use of limited and diminishing resources. That takes leadership, but such leadership has been sadly lacking. When the coalition abolished the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, it transferred responsibilities and resources to Arts Council England in what I believe to be an ill-conceived and ill-thought-through botch. The MLAC resources were reduced from £62 million to £46.5 million, and the libraries element was reduced from £13 million to £3 million. Understandably, the Arts Council remains arts-centric despite its broadened remit, so libraries are left with slashed resources and without leadership at a time when they need it most. William Sieghart recently stated:
“The way the service is set up, it is run totally dysfunctionally. The DCMS has responsibility, but no budget, the Arts Council has been given a role reluctantly, and the DCLG looks at the local authorities who actually make decisions.”
He continued:
“I’m frightened and worried for the library network. In the arctic blast of austerity, some authorities will struggle to know what to do with their library service. They will just hand over the keys and say goodbye, and that will be a disaster.”
Mr Sieghart hits the nail on the head. I should say to hon. Members who do not know that he has been commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Communities and Local Government to publish an independent report on the public library service in England.
The Arts Council believes that it can steer, help, support and guide a national network of libraries with a dedicated half-time post. I am an optimist, but that is optimism taken to the extreme. I presume that the Arts Council is doing its best with an enormous portfolio and significant cuts to its budget—indeed, there have been significant cuts to the arts sector as a whole—but it was never a good idea on the part of the Government to push libraries on to the Arts Council. I can only assume that Ministers looked for the easiest berth in which to park a problem about which they lack the nous or imagination to think creatively. That is to the detriment of the Arts Council and the library sector.
Only a few weeks ago, the Government moved formally to abolish the Advisory Council on Libraries, which had been left to rot for a number of years and was already effectively redundant. Although it had only an advisory role, it brought together leaders from a range of library sectors as well as other relevant parties such as publishers and authors. It helped to place public libraries within the context of broader library and information provision, which set challenges of improving performance and quality. If the Minister had had a mind to, he could have benefited from decent independent advice, which could have helped to provide the leadership that is sadly lacking. I think it a great pity that he did not. I would hope that the next Labour Government will consider re-establishing the advisory council.
I remember when the sector had great hopes for the Minister. Libraries would be safe in his hands. He would often write e-mails on a Sunday night to library professionals, telling them this and offering support on that. He was their champion. He attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), accusing him of
“ignoring his responsibilities as secretary of state”
over library closures in the Wirral.
Lyn Brown
I quote the Minister:
“Andy Burnham’s refusal to take action in the Wirral effectively renders the 1964 Public Libraries Act meaningless. [Interruption.] While it is Local Authorities’ responsibility to provide libraries, the Act very clearly lays responsibility for ensuring a good service at the culture secretary’s door. [Interruption.] If Andy Burnham is not prepared to intervene when library provision is slashed in a local authority such as the Wirral, it is clear that he is ignoring his responsibilities as Secretary of State, which in the process renders any sense of libraries being a statutory requirement for local authorities meaningless.”
I note that no such interventions have been made under this Government. What does the Minister now think of his own words?
Lyn Brown
The Minister clearly understood the sector when he was in opposition. He promised much, but in government, he has, sadly, delivered little.
We now have a dysfunctional national governance framework for libraries in England; Government Members who said one thing in opposition but do another in power; and a public libraries sector that is wilting due to the Government’s lack of leadership.
Surely there is now significant justification for creating a library development agency, decoupling the libraries portfolio from the Arts Council and using the remaining budget to create a lean, dedicated, passionate strategic national body that provides the leadership and advocacy the sector so urgently deserves. Any such agency should not curtail innovation or stifle the sector with bureaucracy, but enable local library authorities to seize the opportunities that exist, and support change and innovation.
The London Libraries Development Agency was an example of that being done successfully. It was founded in 2000 with one key aim: to develop and implement a co-ordinated strategic vision for library and information services across London. It was born from a recognition that the 400 public libraries, 30 mobile libraries, 1,500 service points, 17 million books and 2 million other items were one of London’s unsung success stories. That amazing asset resulted in 50.5 million visits each year, 42 million loans and 10 million inquiries, at a cost of just £23 per head.
It was equally clear that, although each of the 33 boroughs gave a distinct emphasis to their services, they all had much in common and were potentially much stronger together than apart. Council staff, of many different political persuasions, recognised that the sum should be greater than the parts and that, when they worked together, they could add real value to the libraries in their borough. That led to the creation of the first library development agency for the capital.
There is now a clear need for a bigger, more co-ordinated, more passionate voice for libraries at a national level, to provide strategic leadership and advocacy across Government for public libraries. We need a clearer sense of who will drive a workable vision of the sector’s future. I envisage an agency dedicated solely to libraries—one that will be lean, but not emaciated, and action-focused, with a mission to make a real difference to front-line services and the millions who use them. That needs to be absolutely rooted in delivery—always.
Established within the DCMS, the responsibilities of such an agency could include actively sharing best practice in and beyond the sector to maximise impact and make the best use of resources at every opportunity; driving efficiencies and saving as much money as possible to be spent on front-line services; pushing a national offer of actions for the years ahead so that everyone is clear about what the focus and direction should be; commissioning public, not-for-profit and private sector bodies to deliver on specific outcomes that secure a core national offer and drive innovation; advocating the case for public libraries across Government, reaching out beyond the DCMS and delivering on a co-ordinated, prioritised set of key actions; advising the Minister of State responsible for public libraries to successfully discharge his or her legal responsibilities; and reporting to the Secretary of State annually on the state of the public library network, highlighting best practice, identifying opportunities and noting areas of concern.
I urge the Minister, who is not a bad man, to take action now. He should make it his legacy. He should give us a commitment to produce a further report—actually, no, please do not give us a commitment on that, because I do not want to see any more round tables and circular arguments that go nowhere. We do not want empty pledges, and nor do the library sector and library users. We want the Minister to act with clarity, vision and determination.
When the Minister responds, I hope he will address the issues I have raised and those that my hon. Friends will raise. I hope he will recognise the need for greater leadership and clarity on an issue that, I am sure he will agree, is of great national importance.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on securing the debate and, much more importantly, on making a really excellent speech, a first-class speech, a committed speech, an informed speech, a knowledgeable speech—possibly a speech that was written in a library. She knows a lot about libraries; she was involved with them when she was in local government in London, and it showed. She would make a fantastic Minister for Libraries—if it was not for the fact that I will be in that role if the Labour party wins the next election.
My hon. Friend pointed to the value of public libraries, and she was absolutely right to do so. Libraries are trusted by the public. They are not just places for learning, but community meeting places, where young people go to find information about jobs, children without computers can do their homework and grannies meet for knitting circles. Last week, BBC 6 even announced it would be broadcasting programmes from a series of Manchester libraries to celebrate libraries’ role in inspiring musicians.
However, as my hon. Friend set out, libraries are under extreme financial pressure. Over this Parliament, there will be a 40% cut in central Government funding to local authorities. That means that local authorities are making difficult decisions, often resulting in library closures, cuts to opening hours and staff, and the transfer of libraries to the control of voluntary groups.
Helen Goodman
I am happy to do that, although I was going to come to that at the end of my speech. Resources are clearly one of the most important problems. The worst thing about what the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government have done is take out the needs element from the local authority funding formula. That means that in Surrey, Berkshire and Dorset the local authorities have received 1% increases in their resources, whereas in Durham, Liverpool and Hackney, the places where council services and libraries are most needed, the cuts are the biggest. A Labour Government would rejig the formula within the overall envelope, to take the pressure off the hardest pressed local authorities.
Mr Steve Reed
Is my hon. Friend familiar with the way Croydon and Wandsworth councils, which were at the time both run by the Conservatives, attempted to secure value from their libraries by putting them all out for tender jointly? Wandsworth chose the best value bid in the tender operation. Croydon chose the worst value bid, and happened to go with a firm of builders with which it had a £450 million property development joint venture. Will my hon. Friend comment on that example of Conservative values?
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend has set out something that is of extreme concern to the people of Croydon. I wonder whether what the council did was legal. To issue consultation, ignore it and then take into account completely different factors does not seem to me to hold water.
In Lincolnshire a Tory local authority decided that it wanted to close three quarters of the libraries. It is very different from Croydon—a large rural area needing a totally different library service. A consultation was held, which was so inadequate that local library campaigners took the council to the High Court and won. It had not been properly carried out and the council must now do it all again. Would not it have been better to carry it out properly in the first place? That is what we think. It is similar to the Croydon case and shows that local authorities must take their responsibilities seriously, which is not happening at the moment. The Minister does not provide the leadership that he should.
Mr Vaizey
My recollection is that Brent also lost a judicial review for carrying out an inadequate consultation. Does the hon. Lady not undermine her argument by being so partisan and focusing only on Conservative councils? Surely she should also hold Labour authorities to account.
Helen Goodman
The point I was making about cuts to local authority grant, which were overseen by the Secretary of State, is that the Tory-led coalition made the funding decisions that were imposed on Labour and Tory councils around the country. There were unfortunate results in local authorities led by Labour, the Tories and presumably the Liberals as well. The problem was driven by the unfortunate way in which the Secretary of State carried out, or failed to carry out, his responsibilities.
The Minister is a cultivated man who reads books and may even have visited a library on occasion. The problem is that he has failed to persuade his colleagues in other Departments of the significance of the cultural life of the nation. For the country to have a good cultural life, all the Departments must work together. We need the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government to be on board. We need them all to understand; we even need the Ministry of Justice to understand that it is a good idea if prisoners can read books.
Lyn Brown
I agree with everything my hon. Friend is saying and welcome her passion for the sector. The Government are also missing a trick on the economic development role that libraries can play in their communities. It is not only the obvious Departments that should be involved. All Departments would benefit from understanding libraries’ community role.
Helen Goodman
Once again, a colleague has anticipated what I was going to say. My hon. Friend is right.
There seems to be quite a lot of confusion regarding numbers. The Minister says that he produces an annual report. We have figures from the trade unions and from the Carnegie UK Trust. I do not want to debate statistics, but it is clear that library provision is down, and that is not helpful to many communities.
Mr Reed
Will my hon. Friend consider visiting the Upper Norwood joint library, which will be opening five days a week instead of just three because the newly elected Labour administration in Croydon has reinstated £50,000 of the funding that was cut by the previous Conservative administration?
Helen Goodman
I am very pleased to hear what is happening in my hon. Friend’s constituency and congratulate the Labour local authority responsible.
Despite the unhappy austerity that libraries face, there is a growing consensus about the role of libraries in modern Britain. The professional bodies have done a lot of work on that. The Society of Chief Librarians feels that every library should offer four things. The first, obviously, is books and reading; the second is information; the third is action to facilitate digital inclusion; and the fourth is health and well-being. I have sparred with the Minister on several occasions about the need for more Government action on digital inclusion, and the Government’s failures on broadband, and there is no need to go over it all again today. Suffice it to say that 5 million households are not online, and 11 million people lack basic online skills. Digital exclusion is a problem for many groups of people—not just old people, but also young people and, particularly, people on low incomes. Under the previous Government we had the People’s Network. A massive investment was rolled out through the library service. The present Government do next to nothing on digital inclusion. I have urged the Minister more than once to switch £75 million from his failing SuperConnected Cities programme into digital inclusion. I further urge that the best location for that would be in the public library service, which would give a boost to the libraries and to digital inclusion.
The geographical aspect of access also matters. It was fantastic that campaigners in Lincolnshire won some of their points in the High Court. It goes to show how, when a determined group of local people put their mind to it, they can achieve things for their community. It is not acceptable that people in a rural area should have to travel for more than an hour to reach a public library. I do not know why the Minister did not intervene, but I know why one of the professional bodies has passed a vote of no confidence in him, given that he has not intervened in any of the places in question.
Helen Goodman
Lincolnshire would have been a good start.
We also need to consider where mobile provision would be most effective. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham set out very well how such provision has been reduced, which is very significant. The mobile provision in my constituency is extremely valued by some people.
Governance is another issue that needs attention. When I have talked to councillors involved in library provision, and to the professional bodies, they have praised standards in Wales. We should perhaps go back and borrow from the Welsh model for our system. The Government seem to be taking a completely laissez-faire approach. The Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964 requires local authorities to have a comprehensive and efficient service, but the Government have not fleshed that out in any way or form. At one point the last Labour Government had 24 indicators, and I agree that we do not need to be quite so bureaucratic, but we do need to think about the key measures for a good library service so that we do not have a postcode lottery.
My hon. Friend raised the important matter of professional leadership, and she made a good point. The Government got rid of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, and I do not know whether the Minister has completed the abolition of the Advisory Council on Libraries or whether he is just in the process of doing so.
Helen Goodman
I have no doubt that the Arts Council is doing its best, but its best is clearly not good enough. Arts Council staff are not professionals in this area. A part-time professional is working on it, but one part-time professional for a national network of public libraries is not nearly sufficient. The different stakeholder groups are not being brought together at the moment. The Society of Chief Librarians, the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, the trade unions and the British Library all have a role to play in helping to share good practice, develop the library service and advise the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham made a very good suggestion, and it is one that I will seriously consider.
To achieve those things we might need to update the 1964 Act, which is so brief that it lacks the teeth necessary for a proper library service. The most important thing is that libraries remain a statutory duty of the local authorities. Although it is great to have volunteers helping in libraries, particularly in certain communities or where libraries are extremely uneconomic, it is obvious that we cannot hand over a whole library service to a voluntary group. The problem is, first, that there is a big skills gap and, secondly, that there will be initial enthusiasm for such ventures—there is often initial enthusiasm for such things—but we need a professional library service that is well managed in the medium term.
It is important to have professional librarians in every library authority. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I worked for a charity called the National Association of Toy and Leisure Libraries. We ran children’s groups in libraries, which was great. Mums and toddlers would turn up and, as well as having story time and the chance to share books, there would be an opportunity to borrow toys and engage in different kinds of play, which helped mothers and babies to learn together. All that is fine, and some of that work is well done, and perhaps better done, by volunteers who are in tune with the people coming into the library. However, stock control and purchasing policy are professional jobs: we need to have professional librarians on whom volunteers can depend—that is key. We need to make it clear that there is a good role for volunteers and a good role for staff, but we need to distinguish those roles and have clearer guidelines and a code of conduct so that we do not jumble them up.
I have spoken about resources and what we would do. It is also clear that back-office functions can sometimes be shared between library services in different local authorities. I understand that people who have looked into this in detail think there is still scope for more savings from such sharing. Despite the fact that libraries face tough times, we must assert that libraries are not about the past—they are about the future. We want a successful, modern economy, and the modern economy is knowledge-based. Where better to build that modern economy than the library?
The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Bayley. I apologise profusely for the number of interventions that I made during the excellent speech by the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown)—it is brilliant that she has secured this debate. I also apologise for intervening on the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), but it is probably clear that I feel, to a certain extent, that much of the Opposition’s position on public libraries, and indeed on my role as a Minister, is somewhat distorted, if I may put it that way. I would not accuse either hon. Lady of doing that themselves, but four and a half years of pent up frustration may be apparent because this is the first real debate on libraries in this Parliament. Given the importance that the Opposition spokesman attaches to libraries, it is surprising that there has been no official Opposition debate on this subject. There was a debate on arts and culture two or three years ago, and I look forward to her using her influence to call an Opposition debate in the main Chamber so that we can properly debate libraries.
Although both speeches were excellent, another element that added to my frustration is that the only library authorities to be criticised were Conservative-controlled. If someone made it back in Philae from the comet that is spinning hundreds of millions of miles away from us and landed in this debate, they would think that everything was perfect both under Labour authorities and under the previous Labour Government. It may surprise people to learn that libraries did close under the last Government, and that many Labour local authorities have closed libraries over the past four years.
The main reason for my receiving criticism is because it is alleged that I have not used my power under the 1964 Act, an Act that is 50 years old, to intervene and order an inquiry into some of the closures that have been announced over the past four and a half years. It is important to put that in context. The power has been used only once in the 50 years that the Act has been active—it was used in 2009 by the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), to intervene on Wirral metropolitan borough council’s proposed closure of half its libraries.
I was then the Opposition spokesman, and I came off the fence to give my views on the Wirral. In fact, there were two causes célèbres at the time: there were the Wirral library closures and the proposed closure of the Old Town library in Swindon, of which my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) will be aware. I visited both local authorities and listened to the case of both local councils. It transpired that although Old Town library was closed, it was moved to the museum next door and is now more popular than it was in its previous location. I made it plain that I thought there should be an inquiry on the Wirral, and eventually there was. It is interesting that the Opposition spokesman has not called for a single inquiry into any local authority closures except, most recently, in Lincolnshire, which happens to be Conservative-controlled.
Helen Goodman
The Minister is slightly over-egging the pudding. There is a difference between what he has done and what I have done. When I went to Lincolnshire to meet the Lincoln library campaign, I did not sit on the fence; I jumped on a wall to make a speech. Apart from that, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about libraries before the summer recess, so I am not coming late to this; I did this months ago. I am sorry if the Minister did not know about that.
Mr Vaizey
The hon. Lady points out that she did that in the summer of 2014. The first local authority to propose significant closures was Brent, a Labour-controlled authority that proposed to close half its libraries. Were I a man of a partisan nature, it might be expected that, as a Conservative Minister in a new Government, that would have been a political gift. I could have called a public inquiry into that Labour-controlled authority to embarrass the Opposition. However, from the get-go I made two decisions. First, I decided that my officials would investigate every council proposing to close libraries. Secondly, I decided that I would accept my officials’ advice about whether the proposed closures breached the “comprehensive and efficient” test. In one sense, my job as a politician was made more difficult, but my job as a Minister was made easier.
Lyn Brown
One of the concerns that library campaigners have raised with me is that the Minister no longer has a library adviser in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport—somebody who has come up through the ranks and understands the library service inside out and can advise him properly. That role no longer exists. I genuinely do not know the answer to this question, but I wonder whether the Minister can help us.
Lyn Brown
One of the problems that library campaigners have pointed out to me is that there is no longer a library adviser at the DCMS. The Minister has got rid of, or is in the process of getting rid of, the Advisory Council on Libraries, so he no longer has knowledge or professional advice that he can rely on when he takes action as Minister of State.
Mr Vaizey
First, as far as I am aware, the Advisory Council on Libraries was never used by the previous Government to investigate library closures. Secondly, the previous Government did not, as a matter of course, investigate library closures. I changed the policy when I became a Minister to ensure that we investigate every council that is closing libraries, and we took detailed evidence from those councils.
Before the hon. Lady’s two interventions, I said that my job as a politician was made more difficult but my job as a Minister was made easier because after the Wirral inquiry, Sue Charteris, who undertook the inquiry, set out a detailed analysis of what a library authority should do if it is contemplating changing its library service. My problem with the Wirral closures is that there was simply a review of infrastructure and buildings, not a review of the library service. Since the Wirral inquiry, every local authority that we have investigated has conducted a detailed analysis of its library service before proposing closures.
Mr Vaizey
It is true that Brent lost in the High Court, but the courts have never overruled a council’s decision on the basis that it was breaching the “comprehensive and efficient” test. They have mainly called out councils on their consultation processes—most notably on the basis of the Equality Act 2010, which is a relatively new piece of legislation.
It is important that I sum up the first part of my defence, as it were. We investigate every local authority that is closing libraries, and I take the advice of my officials. The power to review closures has been used once in 50 years, and so far I have not found a breach of the “comprehensive and efficient” test.
Mr Vaizey
We intend to publish the Sieghart report and our response to it in the next few weeks. As the hon. Lady will know, getting a slot in the Government grid is sometimes difficult, but we have worked closely with William Sieghart, and I will talk about that at the conclusion of my remarks.
My difficulty with the Opposition is that numerous libraries have been closed by Labour councils. There has been no official Opposition debate on library closures and there is, as far as I am aware, no official Opposition library policy. Apart from Lincolnshire—one can draw one’s own conclusions about why the hon. Lady called for an inquiry into Lincolnshire’s proposed closures—the Opposition have not called for me to investigate any other library closures. Indeed, when it was rumoured that I might intervene in the Sheffield closures, the local Labour MP said that any intervention by me would be “breathtaking cheek”. That goes back to a fundamental point that we can debate endlessly.
In 2009, the hon. Lady produced a brilliant report on libraries under the auspices of the all-party group on libraries, literacy and information management. It is worth remembering that there were debates on the viability and future of the library service under the previous Government. The report recommended that local authorities should continue to carry responsibility and accountability for the provision of public library services in their area.
Libraries are a local authority service, and when a Labour MP told me that I would be acting with “breathtaking cheek” if I were to intervene, he put his finger on the dilemma. Quite a few local authorities have called for the statutory provision and the power for the Minister to intervene to be removed. When the previous Government consulted on library policy, they included that as a possibility. Libraries are a service that has always been paid for and run by local authorities.
Lyn Brown
And I do not want to change that one iota. Libraries must be seated at the heart of their communities, so they must be the responsibility of the local authority. The Minister is failing to understand the thrust of the 2009 report, which called for national leadership to enable councils to work together to get the best out of our library service and to make it fit for the century we live in. Providing wi-fi in our libraries is a minimum. Understanding what libraries can mean to the cultural and economic development of our communities is a must. The Minister does himself a disservice by refusing to address the central thrust of our argument, which is that the Government have failed to take leadership on the crisis in our libraries and our communities.
Mr Vaizey
I reject that accusation, because when the hon. Lady says that the Government have failed to take leadership she is effectively saying that I have failed to take leadership.
At the end of last year, we published our first report under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964, which the Select Committee asked us to do. It asked us to do it at the end of 2014, but I was anxious to have a public document around which people can debate the future of public libraries. We published our first report at the end of last year, which recorded that fewer than 100 static libraries have closed.
It is important to remember that when I was the Opposition spokesman, I was keen not to say that the public library service was in crisis. Yes, I called out the Wirral, but at no point would I have said that the public library was in crisis. Time and again, we see only the bad news reported about libraries, as though the library service is being laid waste.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said in a passing remark that I have probably visited a few libraries. Yes, I have. On a couple of days I visited the fantastic Liverpool central library, in which there has been a £40 million investment. It is truly a cathedral of learning, and it has had more than 1 million visitors in the less than 18 months that it has been open. The hon. Member for West Ham referred to Birmingham, which has the biggest library in Europe. It has had 3 million visitors since it was opened by the Nobel prize winner Malala Yousafzai. Manchester central library has been refurbished, as has Wakefield’s library. The hon. Lady will know about East Ham, which has had a £40 million investment in its library. There are Havering and Streatham libraries, and the tri-borough model of Westminster, Hammersmith and Kensington, which saved £1 million and kept their libraries open. Bexley and Bromley merged their library services to save money. There is the Suffolk model—the independent industrial and provident society model—which has kept libraries open for longer. All around the country, one sees innovation in libraries and hard-working people in the library service making a real difference to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. We should celebrate those people.
What can one do from the centre? I cannot and do not want to run 151 library authorities, not only because it is physically impossible for me to do so, but because I believe local authorities should run their library services. I can encourage them and work with them.
When we abolished the Museum, Libraries and Archives Council, one of the first things I did was to put libraries with the Arts Council. If one looks at the framing of the 1964 Act, in terms of the White Papers that led up to it, a lot of the tone was about the merging, as it were, of cultural and library services—about putting culture at the heart of our libraries. With the Arts Council working with local authorities on arts provision, it is a totally natural move for it to work with libraries.
Helen Goodman
I just want to help the Minister, because he seems to be in a complete mess about what the role of central Government is in this sector. Could we just draw a little analogy with another public service that is delivered by local government—adult social care? However, that fact does not mean that the Department of Health does not have policy, does not provide the legal framework and that we do not have the Care Quality Commission to carry out inspections. Obviously, libraries are not as large as adult social care—what needs to be done is not as big—but it is just a little model, a little inkling, for the Minister about how he might approach libraries.
Mr Vaizey
But it is important to say that most adult social care is funded by central Government, so of course the Government will have a much more hands-on role in that area.
As I said earlier, libraries are funded, paid for and run by local authorities, and they always have been since the first public libraries emerged in the middle of the 19th century. The debate then was about putting money on the rates to pay for local libraries; it was not about central Government funding or running local libraries.
The Arts Council has taken a role with libraries, and with it we have set up a £6 million fund for libraries; 75 projects have already been funded. The Arts Council has worked with the British Library and the Department for Communities and Local Government on enterprising libraries, which put libraries at the heart of the business community, whose members are a good audience for libraries. Six major city-centre libraries and 10 hubs are planned, to provide advice for small businesses and intellectual property advice. We have paid for the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy statistics to be made public and freely accessible, to help library campaigners and people involved in the provision of library services to compare and contrast their library service with that of neighbouring councils; in this context, “neighbouring” does not mean geographically neighbouring, but councils with similar topography and demography.
We have worked to extend the public lending right to audio-books and e-books. We have also worked with William Sieghart to put together four pilots on e-book lending, bringing together publishers and libraries. They are obviously natural bedfellows, but on this issue there is some concern from publishers that e-lending could potentially cannibalise their business model. Consequently, we have worked to bring both sides together, so that they can work together for a solution that all sides can be happy with.
We work closely with the Society of Chief Librarians, which promotes its own campaigns to make libraries as relevant as possible; there is, obviously, a reading campaign, but also an information campaign, a digital campaign and a health campaign. The SCL has also launched a highly successful Books On Prescription scheme with the Reading Agency, which 91% of library authorities are signed up to. And the Reading Agency’s Six Book Challenge continues to draw in hundreds of thousands of children, and every year participation in the scheme increases.
To me, that is not the depiction of a library service in crisis. Of course, there are incidents where the modernisation, adaptation or change of a library service causes extreme concern, but everybody acknowledges that closing a library does not necessarily mean that the library service is no longer comprehensive and efficient. When we talk about a closure, sometimes we are talking about a merger of two libraries. Also, we rarely talk about the number of libraries that are opening across the country.
Earlier, the hon. Member for West Ham asked me about the Sieghart report. I would not have asked William Sieghart to produce a report unless I thought there was some opportunity to build on what I see as a highly successful public library service in England. The reason I asked him to produce this report—he has been ably assisted by a distinguished panel of publishers and other people working in worlds related to libraries—is to see how we can push forward, and the reason I asked him in particular is that he is an extremely practical man. He was the man who brought together the publishers and the libraries to support e-lending. He is now proposing a series of practical recommendations to move forward, one of which is a task and finish group that will work with local authorities to make practical recommendations to help library services to survive in what is not only a difficult financial climate but a difficult period of transition as the world itself changes, with the move to digital. It is important to emphasise that that group will meet, with local authorities at its heart, to make practical recommendations to take matters forward.
This has been a good and full debate. I completely understand the concerns of library campaigners across the country who would be concerned if they saw their local library closing its doors. However, a lot of heat and not enough light is generated in this debate. The number of library closures has been severely exaggerated. The number of closures that you, Mr Bayley, and I would regard as a library closure—that is, a building with its doors shut, empty and the lights off—is, by the Government’s estimation, fewer than a hundred. Libraries have opened up and down the country. I have already referred to the reams of central libraries that have been refurbished. In Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham, literally millions of people are visiting libraries and there are new library members.
Helen Goodman
The Minister is, of course, right to point to the success of the new library buildings in Liverpool and Birmingham is. However, is he not a little bit worried about the library service being a postcode lottery, because he is not seeking to have a secure policy framework across the country?
Mr Vaizey
I do not know what that means. For example, Liverpool reopened its central library; a million people have visited it; and until recently, Liverpool was proposing to close 10 of its 18 branch libraries. That proposal has now been withdrawn. Is it being suggested that I should have personally intervened three or four years ago to tell Liverpool, “No, you don’t run the library service like this. You don’t put money into refurbishing your central library. You’re going to keep all your branch libraries open”? Liverpool is seeking to deliver a comprehensive and efficient library service, and one of the ways it seeks to do that is to refurbish its central library to make it a hugely attractive hub for thousands of people living in that great city. That was a decision for the local authority, just as it was a decision for Birmingham to invest in a new central library, which is now the pride of the city and already one of the most well-known libraries in Europe.
Such decisions must be taken by local authorities but, as I said earlier, the number of static libraries that have been closed is often exaggerated; the actual number, while it may be regrettable, is far lower than people say. The action taken by this Government has been active: bringing on board the Arts Council, to provide leadership for libraries; providing a £6 million fund to support cultural work in libraries; extending e-lending to the PLR; working to introduce pilots with publishers, so as to promote e-lending; and now commissioning the Sieghart report, to continue to take libraries forward during the next decade or so.
As I have said, while I may understand the frustration and sometimes even the anger of some library campaigners, I feel that I can hold my head up high, in terms of being a proactive campaigner for the library sector.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
Order. I thank all Members who have participated in the libraries debate; it was a good debate. I now ought to explain the procedure for what happens next.
During the libraries debate, we had two Divisions, which meant we were suspended for 26 minutes. Therefore, we could continue the next debate, which I will be happy to start as soon as Members have taken their seats and got themselves ready to debate, if there was a will from Members for us to do so, until 4.56 pm. If there is such a will, the debate will be rather longer than a half-hour debate. I see a number of Members here in Westminster Hall, so some people might value the additional time, but of course you do not have to use it. And since the next debate was granted as a half-hour debate, the rule is that the Member who secured the debate, Stephen Twigg, will introduce it and then the Minister will reply. So if any other Members seek to catch my eye, they might be in luck, but it would be courteous to let me know beforehand.
Central African Republic
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Bayley, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I refer hon. Members to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am pleased to bring the current situation in the Central African Republic to the attention of Westminster Hall, and I do that particularly in my role as chair of the all-party group on prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity. I will set out later why I am making that express connection. I pay tribute to colleagues in both Houses for questions they have asked the Government about this important issue in recent months, particularly Lord McConnell and Baroness Berridge, who recently visited the Central African Republic and saw first hand some of the problems that it faces.
I am speaking about this matter because it is surely better for us to prevent mass atrocities from happening in the first place, rather than have to deal with a crisis when such atrocities occur. Aside from the humanitarian considerations that we face in seeking to prevent an escalation of violence, considerable security and economic benefits come from early action to prevent mass atrocities.
I am sure the Minister and other hon. Members will be aware that the Central African Republic has not had an easy recent history in its transition following independence from France in 1960. It has endured a number of coups and periods of shocking brutality and today, despite its considerable natural resources, it is considered one of the least developed countries in the world.
The recent period of instability began in 2012, when a rebel militia called the Seleka—meaning, roughly, “alliance” or “coalition”—began to advance across the country. This predominantly Muslim militia held deep grievances against the then Government, under President Francois Bozize, who it felt left the north-east neglected. In March 2014, the Seleka seized the capital city, Bangui, and ousted Bozize’s Government. It then began a campaign of looting and killing against the non-Muslim population.
The militia’s commander, Michel Djotodia, appointed himself as interim President but lost control over his forces, and over the months that followed the Seleka committed horrific human rights abuses against civilians, often targeting people in churches and even burning entire villages to the ground.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This issue is very close to my heart, because of the people and the persecution that has taken place. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Central African Republic is predominantly a Christian country, and this year it entered at No. 16 on the world watch list of countries where persecution is high. He rightly said that the Seleka group of terrorists who are dissatisfied with the regime have particularly targeted those of Christian faith. They have desecrated churches and have raped, murdered, kidnapped, tortured and killed 13 pastors. Does the hon. Gentleman feel, as I do—and as I suspect the Minister feels—that something has to be done to try to stop that persecution in a predominantly Christian country, specifically of those of a Christian faith?
Stephen Twigg
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who I know from previous debates takes a particular interest in the important matter of protecting Christians and other religious majorities or minorities around the world. He is right, and I hope to address some of the specific issues he raised. We cannot be content to allow the present situation to continue. We in this country have a responsibility to act both bilaterally and in concert with other countries, including our European Union partners, an issue to which I will return.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
I am probably the only Member of Parliament—I appreciate that Members of the House of Lords have been there—who has visited the CAR. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one big problem is that it is surrounded by three broken states—Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan—and becomes a black hole for all the failures of those surrounding states, with all the bad people from there going in and causing even greater problems? That is a major problem that we need to deal with.
Stephen Twigg
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have not visited the CAR and I did not know until he told me just before the debate that he had done so. It is always helpful for the House to hear such first-hand accounts from Members. If the time allows us—it may do, with the extension—perhaps we could hear a little more from him about that experience after I have spoken. He is right: CAR has its own issues, which I am addressing, but it is surrounded by countries where there are challenges, including the ones he described. Also, Nigeria is not far away and issues such as Boko Haram and the insecurity and instability there may be relevant to the CAR’s security situation in future.
Returning to what has happened this year, Djotodia eventually declared the Seleka disbanded, but of course many of those who had been members of it continued with their destructive actions regardless of that decision. In response to the attacks and violations committed by Seleka, we saw the formation of another group, known as Anti-balaka, meaning “anti-machete”. This group is comprised predominantly of Christians, but there are also animists, and although it was initially formed as a counter to Seleka, increasingly it stopped distinguishing between the Seleka and the wider Muslim population. Sadly, estimates suggest that more than 5,000 people have died since December in that sectarian violence, affecting initially the Christian community but later, with the response from Anti-balaka, the Muslim community as well.
The current transitional Government are not fully established and they struggle to stop the violence. Just last week reports emerged that Seleka rebels had blocked key roads in Bangui and exchanged fire with peacekeepers.
It is welcome that a number of international missions are in the country, with the purpose of increasing stability, including from the European Union and France, and now the United Nations mission. In September, the UN mission took over from the early peacekeeping response of the African Union. We should pay tribute to the important and difficult work being undertaken by these forces. However, it is clear that they remain undermanned and are not always able to take the steps necessary to stop violence in the country. They often come under fire themselves, including in an attack on the current President’s home, showing that rebel forces are often confident that they can act with complete impunity.
Peacekeepers and the state—in so far as the state exists —are therefore unable to stop fully the violence, and that violence can of course lead to reprisals, which lead to further violence; and so a vicious circle is maintained. It is therefore essential that member states ensure that the UN mission comes to full strength a soon as possible.
Greater humanitarian intervention is also needed to help alleviate other pressures that the country faces. Crops have been looted or destroyed, creating food shortages, and more than 900,000 people have been displaced during the conflict. The International Rescue Committee has stated that women and girls in the CAR listed sexual violence as their No. 1 fear.
More work also needs to be done to promote religious tolerance and understanding. Bringing various communities together is vital if we are to see a peace that lasts. I take heart from just one example that I should like to share with the House: that set by Father Bernard Kinvi, a Catholic priest whom Human Rights Watch has recognised. Father Kinvi had been helping both Christians and Muslims who were hurt during the fighting. In one incident, the Anti-balaka rebels had been targeting Muslims in the area in which he lived. As he was helping the injured, they approached him and singled out for execution a 14-year-old boy who was clinging to his robes. The priest stood his ground and told the Anti-balaka rebels, “If you have to kill him, then you will have to kill me first.” He put his life on the line to uphold universal values of human dignity, and that example is a powerful message on the importance of religious tolerance and understanding. I am sure we would all want to put on record our praise for his courage and determination.
We have a window of opportunity to act to stop the CAR returning to a state of full civil war. The United Kingdom, the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development have significant experience in helping countries to rebuild after conflict. We should consider doing more to bring that knowledge to bear in this situation. The CAR is due to hold elections in February, although they may be postponed until later in 2015. We should do our best to help ensure that they are free and fair and that moderate forces are able to compete effectively. We know from history in all parts of the world that elections, particularly in fragile countries, can create difficult periods where extremist politicians and parties can polarise and manipulate the population, feeding off fear and stirring hatred. Should further violence be triggered and escalate to the level we saw this time last year, the population could well lose faith that a Government can provide the change the country needs. With that in mind, will the Minister explore whether there is scope for the Westminster Foundation for Democracy or the British Government to carry out work in the CAR in the run-up to the elections to try to ensure that they are as free and fair as possible?
The UK can help to provide some practical solutions to end the conflicts in the CAR. This year is the 20th anniversary of the Rwanda genocide, and there are a number of respects in which Rwanda can be used as a positive case study in attempting to replicate some of the successes we have seen with the rebuilding of the capacity to govern in Rwanda over the past two decades. Replicating that could not only help the civilian population, but strengthen the CAR’s regional relationships. Rwanda has been supported by the British Government. We have helped it in a number of ways, including through aid, but specifically relevant to today’s debate is that we have strengthened Rwanda’s capacity for good governance. If we encourage Rwanda and the Central African Republic to work together, we could help to strengthen the CAR Government through programmes where Rwanda helps to train the civil servants and Ministers of the CAR in modern governance practices.
More needs to be done to promote religious tolerance and understanding. Bringing various communities together is surely vital in building a peace that lasts. In April, I was in Kigali in Rwanda for the Kwibuka 20 commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the genocide. I had the chance to hear the mufti of Rwanda—he is a leader of the Muslim community in Rwanda—speak powerfully about how faith groups in Rwanda, both Christian and Muslim, viewed the signs of violence in the CAR with great concern. In April the faith groups were in the process of creating a forum to bring together Christian and Muslim leaders from the two countries to exchange experiences. Twenty years after the Rwanda genocide, they hoped that lessons could be learned for the Central African Republic.
That process of dialogue has developed considerably since. The faith leaders from the CAR visited Rwanda in August and were impressed by the success of the peace education and reconciliation programmes they observed. They wish to establish similar programmes in the CAR to promote social cohesion. To that end, they have forged a partnership with the Aegis Trust, which provides the secretariat to the all-party group that I chair. The Aegis Trust is a British-based non-governmental organisation whose reconciliation work in Rwanda is funded by a number of organisations, including DFID.
Jim Shannon
On the persecution of Christians and those of Muslim faith—I am aware of both factions being deliberately targeted—Seleka is mostly formed of Muslims from outside of the Central African Republic, so there is an outside influence. The hon. Gentleman has referred to this, but along with all the effort that can be made within the Central African Republic, direct action needs to be taken on neighbouring countries, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark). While it is good to see what is happening, effective action has to be taken outside of the Central African Republic to prevent the influence of terrorists—perhaps Boko Haram—who are directly targeting whatever good work has been done in the country.
Stephen Twigg
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The question of peace education and the promotion of mutual respect, tolerance and understanding between religious groups must go hand in hand with a strengthening of the security situation in the country, to face up not only to the internal threats that we have talked about, but to the external threats from forces that might be based in neighbouring countries, to which he and the hon. Member for Braintree have referred. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for making that important and powerful point.
The programme that is being developed could be a unique one in which those who have experienced mass atrocities and, in the case of Rwanda, those who experienced genocide 20 years ago, can talk about how best to overcome some of the dangerous forms of hatred that feed human rights violations, mass atrocities and, in the most extreme cases, genocide. I am sure the Minister will agree that the programme is a positive step forward for both countries that warrants appropriate support from outside, including from the United Kingdom, not least because the Aegis Trust is a UK-based NGO.
Before I finish I will share a quote from the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who said in February:
“Our commitment to protect civilians is only as meaningful as the political, military and financial muscle deployed to defend them...Our responsibility is clear: We must stand with the people of the Central African Republic.”
That is an incredibly powerful message on behalf of all the nations of the UN, but we in this Parliament can say that we want the British people, the British Parliament and the British Government to stand with the people of the Central African Republic.
Will the Minister outline some of the steps that the Government are taking through his Department and through DFID? In particular, what are the Government doing to protect civilians in the CAR? Will he outline any plans to increase the strength of peacekeeping forces and the support given to them? Secondly, what are the Government doing on aid for the humanitarian needs of the population of the Central African Republic? Thirdly, what is being done to improve the safety of women and girls facing violence in that country?
In the arena of promoting sustainable peace, what are the Government prepared to do to support peace education programmes to overcome hatred and to support the transitional Government in the CAR in establishing the rule of law and good governance? What are the Government doing to provide opportunities to improve the economy and infrastructure of the CAR? Will they consider increasing the British diplomatic presence in the CAR? The United States has recently reopened its embassy. Can we look into the potential for increasing the British diplomatic presence? That would show our commitment to the transitional Government and to the elections due in 2015. Will the Minister comment on the support that the UK Government will give to the European Union trust fund for the Central African Republic?
I am grateful for the opportunity to ask some important questions here today on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group for the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity. To return to the theme that I outlined at the beginning of my speech, prevention is so much better than cure. If we can stem the tide of hatred in the CAR and prevent the country from returning to the civil war that it faced a year ago, that would be a positive example of our learning from places such as Rwanda, which witnessed some of the worst mass atrocities. I look forward to hearing the Minister speak about the Government’s approach.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
I was not going to speak in the debate, but I have been inspired by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg). I think that I am one of the only Members of Parliament who has had an opportunity to visit the Central African Republic. I was inspired to visit CAR following a trip to Rwanda, thinking, “Here is a broken state that we can perhaps have a constructive role in.” For anyone who is interested, a good primer would be to read the excellent “Malaria Dreams: An African Adventure” by Stuart Stevens. It was written several years ago, but sometimes things never change. I highly recommend that people read it.
CAR is a broken state that is surrounded by three other broken states: Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan. It is a remarkable country, because it is rich in natural resources that have never really been taken advantage of. I visited with Merlin, a health care NGO that was recently taken over by Save the Children, and I want to make a couple of suggestions to the Minister.
I visited eight regions with hospitals that are effectively white elephants. There is nothing there. The problem is a lack of medicine. I costed fixing up the hospitals and providing medicine for five years, and it would cost something like £7 million to £10 million, which is not huge given the size of the Department for International Development’s budget. If anyone from DFID is listening to the debate, one way that we could help the country is through better health care.
The second way, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby mentioned, is by looking at Rwanda as an example of government and how Governments can change. If we can work with the CAR Government to help them try to have some form of proper governance and a proper transition, we can perhaps grab them out of the French orbit, as we did with Rwanda, and it can perhaps one day be the third African country with no link to Britain to join the Commonwealth.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) for securing this debate on the situation in the Central African Republic. The hon. Gentleman and I are old friends. We first discussed politics—we did not spar—in the ’80s when he was president of the National Union of Students and I was president of Loughborough students’ union. It was clear then that we were both probably destined to pursue a career, or at least an interest, in politics. Even then, however, it was perhaps clear that we would pursue paths of different political hues. It is a real pleasure to continue that friendship and an honour to respond to the debate. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge, passion and interest in this area.
I also apologise that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), the Minister with responsibility for Africa, is unable to respond. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby may be aware, the Minister has been quite gravely ill and we wish him well. I will do my best to respond to the points made and to place the Government’s position in context. If am unable to cover the hon. Gentleman’s points, I will write to him in more detail.
The UK Government remain extremely concerned by the situation in the Central African Republic, where the security environment remains volatile. There have been some modest security gains in Bangui, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby outlined, but the situation has deteriorated outside the capital. October saw a spike of violence, including attacks against the personnel and property of humanitarian organisations. Violence against the civilian population sadly remains high.
The UN estimates that more than 2.5 million people—over half the total population—are in dire need of humanitarian assistance. There are some 410,000 internally displaced people and there are 425,000 CAR refugees in neighbouring countries. A third of the country is suffering from food insecurity as the production of food crops has dropped by between 50% and 75%. The situation is likely to deteriorate further as the food supply reduces due to missed planting seasons. The country’s state, justice and economic structures have all but collapsed and will need to be rebuilt from scratch, requiring significant international support. Our immediate focus is on working with the international community to improve security, protect civilians from violence and provide humanitarian support.
In line with the conclusions of the international contact group on CAR, which the Foreign Office attended on 11 November 2014, we welcome the deployment of the UN peacekeeping mission, MINUSCA, and the efforts of the EU force, EUFOR, the African Union, MISCA, and French troops. It is important that the international community continues to show support for such efforts. We welcome the three-month extension of the EUFOR mandate to maintain security in Bangui while MINUSCA reaches full operational capacity. We condemn in the strongest terms, as the hon. Gentleman did, the attack against a MINUSCA convoy on 9 October, which killed one peacekeeper and injured several others, and we are concerned by the recent resurgence of violence and continuing attacks against civilians in Bangui. The UK also condemns all instances of sexual violence that have occurred during the conflict. The African Union’s recent deployment of sexual violence experts to CAR, co-financed by the UK, will support sexual violence victims.
The UK has played a strong role as part of international efforts to address the situation. These efforts have included aid to refugees, logistical support to the French and EUFOR missions and agreeing substantial EU funding for MISCA. A British diplomat, Diane Corner, is also currently serving as the deputy special representative in the capital for the UN mission. The UK has committed £23 million in humanitarian support to the Central African Republic since the crisis began in 2013 and £7 million in support to refugees in Cameroon and Chad, funding the Red Cross, NGOs and UN agencies to provide access to protection, food, water, shelter, health and livelihood. We remain the third largest bilateral provider of humanitarian aid to the CAR.
The UK welcomes the signing of the Brazzaville agreement for the cessation of hostilities on 23 July as an important step towards a lasting peace in CAR. However, military efforts alone cannot bring about long-term stability in CAR. The UK recognises that it will be critical for the agreement to be applied and for an open and inclusive dialogue to be held, including the holding of free and fair elections, which will require sustained international support. The UK therefore welcomes the international engagement seen in the high-level meeting on CAR in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly on 26 September in New York and in the international contact group meeting held on 11 November in Bangui.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s question on humanitarian aid, the UK, via the Department for International Development, has committed £30 million in humanitarian support to the Central African Republic and its nationals who have sought refuge in neighbouring countries since the start of 2013, funding a range of NGOs and UN agencies to provide access to aid. That consists of £23 million in humanitarian funding in CAR and £7 million for refugees in Cameroon and Chad. DFID does not intend to engage in development programmes. This year, the UK has provided £18 million, including £3 million for the International Committee of the Red Cross to provide health services and water distribution for hundreds of thousands of people as well as protection services for the vulnerable, particularly women and children, which the hon. Gentleman was keen to point out. The aid also includes transportation for aid workers and relief supplies to remote parts of the country through a £1 million contribution to the UN humanitarian air service.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby made some specific points. On Father Bernard Kinvi, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DFID officials have just had an extremely useful meeting with him and were able to hear about his experiences at first hand—my thanks for that. On the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, all international support for democracy and elections needs to be co-ordinated carefully so as to avoid overlap and waste, and we expect that the UN will play the key co-ordinating role in the country, but we remain alert to the possibility of the foundation playing a role if we do not see any advances under the UN.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the involvement of Rwanda, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark). He and I, as well as others, have travelled to Rwanda a number of times and I am more familiar with that country than with the Central African Republic. It is a curious thing to learn that my hon. Friend is the only MP to make it in and out of the CAR safely. The House is wiser for his experiences, as the hon. Gentleman said. We have long encouraged and supported Rwandan involvement in supporting peace in Africa, but the hon. Gentleman is in no doubt that the Rwandans—or is it the right hon. Gentleman? [Interruption.] He says, “Soon.” The hon. Gentleman was aware that the Rwandans are participating in the UN force in the CAR. It is important that that takes place.
UN and Government officials are helping to develop thinking on dealing with the violence and conflict in the light of Rwanda’s own experience, with which the House is familiar, and of the UK experience in places such as Sierra Leone. We have increased our engagement considerably, including frequent visits from the Foreign Office and DFID officials and the secondment of a senior British diplomat to the UN mission in Bangui. We have put in place a new regional political officer in Yaoundé, who will have responsibility for the Central African Republic. At the moment the selected officer is undertaking the required language training.
Jim Shannon
I am conscious that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) in his introduction referred specifically to the persecution of Christians, which I also mentioned in my two earlier interventions. I was hoping that the Minister might be able to come back to us and give us some indication of what we can do through the Foreign Office to ensure that the persecution of Christians can be curtailed or stopped, with some direct action taken. Under influences from some neighbouring countries, people are specifically targeting Christians for their beliefs.
Mr Ellwood
I will have to ask the Minister for Africa to write to the hon. Gentleman on that important issue with more details—unless I am swiftly handed a piece of paper before the end of my speech. That is unlikely to happen, so I will certainly be back in touch.
There are no easy answers in the Central African Republic, and certainly no quick fixes. We need to encourage all parties to follow up on the Brazzaville agreement of July to establish an open and inclusive dialogue. Without peace, justice and reconciliation, there can be no future for the CAR. We need to be committed in the long term to assist in rebuilding the country, its Government, its institutions and its infrastructure, as well as maintaining humanitarian support for as long as the high levels of need persist. We will do so by working with international donors and through bilateral and multinational humanitarian assistance programmes.
It is tempting to recoil from and reject the horror, to back away and almost to give up and lose hope, but we cannot. We have a responsibility to remain engaged and to support the people of the CAR. This week I read the inspiring story of Father Kinvi, a Catholic priest in the north-west of the country who put himself at great risk when he sheltered at his mission thousands of Muslims threatened by sectarian violence. There is no doubt in my mind that his brave actions saved many lives. Human Rights Watch has rightly acknowledged his efforts and I express our gratitude for and recognition of the many people who have worked to prevent an even higher toll of death and destruction in the country. Father Kinvi and the people of the Central African Republic deserve our support. We have the capacity to assist them in the short term, by providing security and humanitarian aid, but we must also support the country in its long-term reconciliation and development.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
We now come to the debate on support and rehabilitation for veterans. While Members move around and take their places, it might be helpful for me to say a brief word about the procedural situation. Earlier we had two Divisions in the House, so the timetable for the afternoon debates is running 26 minutes late. We will start the debate in a moment, when the next Minister has had the opportunity to take her seat, but it could run until 5.26 pm—it does not have to run that long, but it could run that long. The debate is on the Order Paper as a half-hour Adjournment debate, which would normally give the Member who obtained the debate, Jack Lopresti, time to speak and the Minister time to reply, but if I receive indications that other Members wish to speak and they can assure me that they will get the say-so from the Minister and Mr Lopresti, I am happy to accept additional speeches.
Veterans (Support and Rehabilitation)
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley.
I hope to outline the ongoing need to support people who have served our great country in the armed forces, once their service is complete. The issue is close to my heart and I must declare an interest, because I am a veteran. I had the honour and privilege to serve with 3 Commando Brigade in Afghanistan on Operation Herrick 9. I am also vice-president of my local Stoke Gifford Royal British Legion branch. I know at first hand how important the support network and welfare are, and in particular what is offered by the Royal British Legion.
First off, not all former service personnel need help once they leave the armed forces, as noted in the excellent veterans’ transition review by Lord Ashcroft earlier this year. It is important to point that out. As is too often the case, negative media stories mean that there is a perception among the public that veterans are likely to be physically, mentally or emotionally damaged by their time in the armed forces. In fact, the majority of ex-service personnel go on to good careers where the skills that they have acquired during their service in the military are highly valued. The negative perception, as Lord Ashcroft’s review states,
“in itself constitutes an unnecessary extra hurdle for service leavers, restricting their opportunities by lowering expectations of what they can do.”
I was proud to have served on the Committee that considered the Armed Forces Bill, through which the armed forces covenant was enshrined in law for the first time in 2011. I find it incredible that, as a nation, we had never previously ensured through statute that the armed forces community did not face any disadvantage in getting access to public services due to their service and that special consideration was, of course, appropriate in some cases. I am pleased that South Gloucestershire council, which serves my constituents, signed the covenant on Armed Forces day in June 2013. I wrote to Bristol city council in January this year to encourage it to sign the community covenant, and it has finally done so, as have, I understand, 100% of local authorities in the country.
The armed forces covenant has created change for the better. Alabaré, with its homes for veterans, two of which are in my constituency, tells me that across all its work with veterans in the south-west
“a noticeable shift is taking place regarding the recognition and support of homeless Veterans by Local Authorities; and housing procedures are reflecting this. This, we believe is a direct consequence of the Armed Forces Covenant.”
Alabaré is, however, concerned enough to ask whether it will be the case that
“once the ‘gleam’ and positive media put upon Local Authorities for signing up to the covenant has died down…the Local Authorities remain true to their word”.
Will the Minister assure us that cross-departmental work will continue to enforce the covenant and that local authorities that are found lacking will be held to account? I await with interest the next report, due imminently, on how well the armed forces covenant is being implemented, and in particular how it supports our veterans.
I welcome the Government’s response to Lord Ashcroft’s veterans’ transition review and am pleased that the Government understand that support to ex-service personnel is needed to aid their move into civilian life. I am pleased that the Government have already started to implement many of Lord Ashcroft’s recommendations. We definitely need to be developing and maintaining contact with personnel on their transition to civilian life, which should be for longer than the six months currently proposed.
It is good that the Ashcroft recommendations on how to support service leavers into new careers now include those who do not finish their contract or who serve for less than six years. I understand that early service leavers who have served up to four years are the most likely to have experienced unemployment and other problems. We need to recognise that they, too, have volunteered to serve their country.
I hope the Minister will confirm that the career transition partnership will be permanently extended to all service leavers. It is encouraging to see the figures for the first quarter of 2013-14, which showed an 82% employment rate for service personnel who used the CTP resettlement services within six months after leaving the armed forces. However, the statistics for ex-service personnel also show that 10% are unemployed and 9% are economically inactive, meaning that up to 20% have not started new careers after six months. I would also like to know what follow-up there is to find out how ex-service personnel are doing after one year, two years and then further on. There is a risk that CTP providers could be getting veterans into jobs that are not suitable for their skills and future prospects in the long term.
The Government’s implementation of personal development pathways for all service personnel will definitely help future veterans take responsibility for their own development and should give them guidance on how their skills are transferable to the civilian world. Initiatives such as the Troops to Teachers programme and provision of free further or higher education for services leavers with six years of service and for members of the enhanced learning scheme are definitely a step in the right direction.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should congratulate organisations such as SSAFA that do an amazing job to help veterans? I draw his attention to Lieutenant Colonel John Arthur in my constituency, who does an amazing job supporting veterans in Braintree.
Jack Lopresti
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We owe a huge debt of gratitude for the ongoing good work done by organisations and charities such as SSAFA. What they manage to achieve is remarkable.
Looking after our veterans is not only our duty; it is practical. For this country to continue to have the world’s best armed forces, we need to recruit the best and those recruits need to know that their service will be recognised and can be part of a successful long-term career, both while they are serving in the military and when they leave. It is encouraging to hear from Alabaré homes that the south-west veterans multi-agency mental health service, provided through the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust, has been well received. It shows promise in making a difference in the support and rehabilitation of veterans.
I know the Government have been working with the NHS and service charities such as Combat Stress and Help for Heroes on helping those with mental health issues. Help for Heroes received £2.7 million from the LIBOR fund in 2013 to work in partnership with Combat Stress to develop the “Hidden Wounds” psychological support programme, which supports veterans suffering from early symptoms of mental injuries such as stress and depression, as well as supporting their families. The problem is often that symptoms do not show until many years after the person affected has left the service. I hope that the MOD’s “Don’t bottle it up” campaign will help to mitigate that in the future.
Alabaré homes has also told me, however, that accommodation for those receiving treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, who may need 24-hour support throughout their treatment, is almost unheard of. I understand that care as a whole for those suffering from PTSD is improving and it is encouraging to hear that 16 departments of community health around the country will provide support and treatment to personnel from all three services. Facilitating GPs’ ability to obtain service leavers’ military medical history should help further, as should the GP e-learning programme.
Research on homeless ex-service people carried out by the homelessness charity Broadway showed that 3% of people sleeping rough in London in 2012-13 were former military personnel. That is not as high as a percentage as is sometimes cited, but obviously we would all prefer the figure to be zero. Besides, sleeping rough is not the true measure of homelessness, which also includes those who do not have a permanent home and are sleeping on a friend’s floor or sofa.
Lack of affordable housing remains an ongoing issue, and one that is particularly prevalent in the Bristol area due to a shortage in the private rental sector of suitable affordable accommodation for people who charities such as Alabaré work with. Again, I am pleased to report that the veterans nominations scheme has been used by Alabaré residents as a way of securing accommodation. That seems to be working better in the Bristol and south Gloucestershire area.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Big congratulations to the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate; I consider him a real friend in this House. I thank him for his service to this country during his time in Afghanistan.
One issue I have found when working with veterans is that some of the statistics are very hard to collate. In the north-east, we have worked with people who have gone to prison. The figures for those people vary from around 4% to almost 12%—we are talking about huge differences. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is something that we can work on together to try to make sure that the statistical information that we get on veterans is much more accurate?
Jack Lopresti
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—my honourable friend—for his kind comments about my very modest and short military service. I will touch on veterans in the legal system and in prison later in my remarks, but as far as the figures go, he is absolutely right that it is very important that we try to put figures together that stack up across the country, that people can take seriously and that are credible.
I know that the MOD has committed over £1.3 million in support of homeless and vulnerable veterans. In October, the Minister said in response to a written parliamentary question on homeless veterans that she hoped to announce
“further funding in support of homeless hostels, drawing on the £40 million Veterans Accommodation Fund.”
Will that be happening? If so, what is the time scale?
I welcome the difference and the positive change in how local authorities treat veterans: their being allowed to apply for housing in the area where they have served instead of where they originally came from; the disregarding of any lump sum received as compensation for an injury or disability sustained in active service; and the cessation to occupy certificate given six months before leaving forces accommodation. That will all help veterans find permanent accommodation, as will the recently introduced forces Help to Buy scheme, along with Money Force.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) mentioned veterans in the criminal justice system, a subject I wish to touch on now—I know that we are awaiting a review of the issue by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). I understand that an estimated 3.5% of the prison population are ex-service personnel—those are the figures from 2010, and, as I have said, it is important to get those figures right. I look forward to hearing what the Government will do to make sure that the needs of ex-service personnel are met while they are in the criminal justice system or in prison, and that once they have served their sentence they are referred to specialist rehabilitation services to help reintegrate them into society.
One of the biggest issues that a lot of veterans struggle with is where to find help when it is needed at a particular time. The review of the Veterans-UK website is a positive step, although I am nervous about the site being hosted on the gov.uk website, which can be difficult to navigate and is often confusing. A directory of accredited third sector providers and accredited armed forces charities, run by a central body and with a 24/7 contact centre—as recommended by the Ashcroft review—would be invaluable, as would the proposed advice app for veterans. I know the Government are taking steps towards that and I would be interested to learn from the Minister what progress they are making.
To summarise my feelings on this matter, the issue of caring and looking after veterans is not a new one. It goes back to the inception of the nation state, from the ancient Romans giving land to their veterans to provide them with a livelihood, to Elizabeth I, who recognised the responsibility the country had to wounded veterans by passing an Act of Parliament in 1593 that levied a weekly tax on parishes for the relief of soldiers and sailors, to the modern-day enshrining of the military covenant in law. We have a duty of care, not just as individuals, politicians and law-makers, but as a nation, to ensure that the people who have served our country and have been prepared to pay the ultimate price in defence of our way of life and our freedoms are not in any way disadvantaged by their service. We must ensure that all veterans are treated with the respect, appreciation and honour they absolutely deserve.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
Order. I understand from the body language of the hon. Gentleman and the Minister that neither objects to other brief speeches being made.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I reiterate my earlier comments about the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti).
It is true that organisations such as SSAFA and the Royal British Legion do great work, and that the military covenant has been a big help through its recognition of the debt we all owe to our veterans; the role of local authorities has also been critical for development work on the ground. I want to talk about some of the work being done by smaller groups, in particular a group I am involved with in the north-east called Forward Assist. That was set up by a former marine, and a colleague of mine before I came to this place. All he had ever wanted to do with his life was to join the Royal Marines. After 18 months of training, he ripped his shoulder and despite two years of medical treatment was unable to carry on in his service. He left what had been his dream job, and fell into a downward spiral of drink and drugs. Thankfully, he was rescued by a counsellor who got him back on the straight and narrow and he was able to go back to university and learn a new trade. Now, in his later life and after working for a long time in child care and in the probation service, he has decided to set up a charity to take care of veterans. He was seeing young men coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan and going through what he had gone through 30 years before, and he felt that something had to be done.
Some of these guys had been kicked out of the service for various reasons. They had gone into low-level crime or got involved with drink and drugs. They had terribly low self-esteem and were guilt-ridden because they felt they had let their families, themselves and the nation down. Many of their problems are mental health related, which is natural when someone has been in the services. They will not admit that they have mental health problems because it is a big issue for anyone, but for those coming out of the services it is a huge issue.
The role that Forward Assist plays in dealing with these people across Tyneside is about telling them, “You are not a failure. We want to help you get back into the normal way of living and get used to living in a world that is completely different from what you have experienced.” A lot of these people have been in the services for 20 years and the world today is very different from what it was in the 1990s and 1980s. Through a variety of interests, Forward Assist is working with people in the north-east. For example, in the north-east the National Trust have been very supportive, as have local councils, and big and small businesses have been tremendous. They have got involved in a huge raft of work, which has enabled these people to feel now that they can contribute to society again.
I want to mention three small things that are very important to these gentlemen. Veterans have been enrolled on cookery courses and some have obtained qualifications to enable them to cook for the public. They go round community centres and cook for elderly people and community groups, so they feel that they are giving something back. Similarly, some get angling qualifications. A community centre in the town I live in took 16 people with learning difficulties to a local fishing lake and is teaching them the skills of fishing. It is absolutely brilliant stuff. When fishing, those people can release and speak openly about what they are going through and it is very therapeutic for them to work with the people who are taking care of them. People have also taken sports qualifications. Some are working with Sunderland and Everton football clubs to develop community sports on the ground. That is happening only because of the work that people have done and the huge support they have given to veterans.
One reason why I wanted to speak is that a gentleman called Tony Wright, who won a Winston Churchill travelling scholarship three years ago, spent his time in the United States looking at how they look after their veterans, and as a result we set up a twinning link between Arkansas, Texas and Tyneside. There was already a sister city relationship between Little Rock in Arkansas and Tyneside, and out of that we have developed other work. I had the privilege of going there in December two years ago and I have been there during the recess in the last few years. Some of the things we learned from them are really important.
In no way would I ever denigrate the national health service. What happens in this country is that if someone has a problem, we point them to the national health service. Everyone has problems, but veterans have greater problems. One thing the American Veterans Health Administration has learned is that the issues involve more than health problems. It has learned through the terrible experience of men who came back from Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, which was horrendous. They were treated like pariahs in America and were seen as failures, with people spitting on them and calling them all sorts of names such as “traitor”. People who had been in the forces were treated like dirt; people who were opposed to the war were treating them like dirt. It was not the fault of those guys that things went the way they did; it was the fault of our counterparts in various US Administrations over the years.
Thankfully, the light came on in the States, and as a result of that and some huge commitments by their Government, they now have the Veterans Health Administration, which works much better, possibly than anywhere else in the world. It is well resourced and provides a wrap-around service. When someone leaves the services they are provided with a mobile phone and are regularly contacted during the first year to see how they are doing. That might seem a simple thing, but it is vital for some of these people. Their education, housing, work and health needs are looked after.
We had the privilege of sitting in with a psychiatrist who was linked by CCTV to a gentleman who was 200 miles north in Arkansas. Because of benefit cuts, he could not afford to drive to meet the psychiatrist, but the Veterans Health Association had paid for the link. The gentleman knew we were there and to me it was one of the best things I have seen in my life. The guy was 65 years old and it was 40 years since he had left the services. He had worked in a mortuary in Vietnam. He had survived the trauma of that with a lot of black humour—people doing inappropriate things with body parts.
The veteran told the psychiatrist that 40 years later he was lying in bed trying to sleep, but could not. After 25 years of drug addiction he had managed to kick the habit because a judge had said, “If you come back here again, you are going to jail for life.” He had been clean for seven years and had got his dream job working in a golf club, but he said, “I am terribly fatigued because I go to bed at night and I can’t sleep, so I am going to work in the morning and I can’t concentrate, and I am terrified I am going to lose my job.” The psychiatrist said, “Look, we are going to bring you down to the hospital, monitor your sleeping patterns and monitor your medication, and make sure you can do what you want to do.” The veteran, who was a simple, old-fashioned working bloke, was delighted. That is the sort of thing we could learn from the people over there.
Another lesson from America involved the criminal justice system. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke—my hon. Friend—referred to people who have been in prison. One thing they are doing in the States that is really innovative, is to stop them going to prison in the first place. People who have been involved in low-level crime must, first and foremost, admit their guilt. A system was set up that was developed from drugs courts. Someone goes in front of a judge in a veterans treatment court, where every one of the staff and the officials has been in the services. Their motto is that no one will fail.
The experience of the court in Buffalo, which was the first veterans treatment court, was that of 300 people who went through the system there, not one went back to crime. It worked for the benefit of the individual and society. It was economic and there was low crime. I am not saying it is foolproof because nothing is foolproof, but we should look at that seriously in this House. My party is committed to that, on the back of the experience that we brought back from over there. There will be serious discussions. I know, from discussions that we have had in the main Chamber of the House of Commons, that as part of the review that was mentioned earlier, the Government are looking at that example as a way of developing support for veterans.
When we raised the matter in our local area, I went on the radio and was assailed by someone who said, “Hang on. If someone has committed a crime we should bang them up. Why should we treat them differently from a window cleaner, a bricklayer or whatever? Why should veterans be a special case?” Well, we are a special case because of what we do.
We ask these people to go round the world and be prepared to kill for us and be prepared to die for us. We ask them to do abnormal things. If someone starts shooting at us, we do not run towards them, we run away from them, but those in the services are not allowed to run away from them. We ask them to kill people and if they do not kill people they end up in jail, whereas if anyone else kills someone they end up in jail. So veterans are a special case and we owe them the best possible support we can give them. I hope that in future discussions —I hope they will be cross-party because we should all be able to agree on this—we can learn the lessons not just of what people have experienced over the last few years, and work closely with the Americans.
During our discussions with the Veterans Health Administration in America, someone said that they are seeing a tsunami of health-related issues coming at them as a result of what people have gone through, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. People were exposed to the pressures over there for 24 hours a day, which we have not seen in the past—those who served in Northern Ireland and so on. During the second world war and so on, the pressures were not there every waking moment of their lives, but for the men and women I am talking about they have been and we must give them the best support we can.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
I call Jim Shannon and gently remind him to leave sufficient time for the Minister to reply.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I will leave plenty of time for the Minister because it is important to have his response. I congratulate the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) on giving us the opportunity to speak about this matter. It is good to be able to participate in the debate. I commend him on his service in Afghanistan. It is good to have MPs of that calibre and experience in this House so that they can relate their experience to the rest of us.
Recently, I had the chance to be in the armed forces parliamentary scheme; I declare an interest as a former part-time soldier for 14-and-a-half years. The scheme gave me a chance as a Member of Parliament to meet today’s soldiers and to hear what they were about. Opportunities that we had in Afghanistan, at the training camps in Canada, Kenya and across all the places in the United Kingdom, on the mainland and elsewhere, enabled us to hear just what they were thinking.
We heard from soldiers getting sent back to the United Kingdom about the battlefields of Afghanistan—we heard strong memories of those—and about stopping over in Cyprus. That let them step down from the pressure that they were under while patrolling in Afghanistan and relax, and it got them ready for an ordinary life back in the United Kingdom. The armed forces parliamentary scheme gave us a better chance, as Members of Parliament, to see those things.
We also had a chance to speak not only to the officers, but to the soldiers. Sometimes we got two different opinions, but it is always good to hear what the men and women think, and we got that straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. Whatever issues they brought to our attention we then brought to the attention of the Minister.
In Northern Ireland, we have a tradition of service in uniform, and our level of recruitment is the envy of the rest of the United Kingdom, as Members know. Service in the Army could mean the full-time Army—the Regulars —or the Territorial Army, and our levels of recruitment in the TA and in the Reserve forces are the envy of many parts of the United Kingdom. We meet soldiers and their families every day in my office, and I want to make this point: sometimes we focus on those who served in Afghanistan and maybe we forget—not intentionally—and need to be reminded of those who served in Iraq.
A gentleman came into my office the other week, and Iraq had clearly had an impact on him. He was one of those who was vaccinated, which, as Members are probably aware, had a detrimental effect on some people. That was not the case with everyone, but it certainly affected him. When he returned, his life became very different from how it was before he went to Iraq. He lost his family, his friends and his health, and he now exists on benefits, but he is still a bright guy, which is good. At the same time, when I spoke to him, I realised that inside was a guy who was taking on the troubles of the world.
This is short notice, so if the Minister cannot answer today I will be happy to receive a response later, but what are we doing for the veterans of Iraq and those who had vaccinations detrimental to their health? It is so important that that matter is addressed. I know the Democratic Unionist party held a debate in the Chamber and the Minister responded, but none the less, today is an opportunity to hit upon that as well.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) referred to some of the good work being done in his area. I am amazed by the people who make the effort—the volunteers and organisations that give so much. Where would we be in this country if we did not have the thousands upon thousands of volunteers, in whatever sphere of life that may be?
In terms of the armed forces, in my constituency we have the Ards & North Down Phoenix Group, which has some 600 people on its books. It draws from those in the police, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Ulster Defence Regiment, and it does tremendous work—not just for them, but for the families. That is critical to integrating people back into society and to dealing with the issues that they have every day. Members have spoken about SSAFA, and those of us of a certain vintage know that organisation. SSAFA has been doing tremendous work for many years.
I want to take the opportunity to mention some of the people involved in this work in my town of Newtownards, in the middle of my constituency. Georgina Carlisle and Yvonne Ritchie are just two of the ladies who meet those who are coming back directly and who help those excellent volunteers. There is no money involved; they do that work because they want to, and we are greatly obliged to them.
There is the Royal British Legion as well. Today, there was a small reception here. I went to it because one of my friends in the Conservative party said, “It’s on today if you want to take a run down”, so I did. It was specifically for the MPs in southern England, by the way, but none the less, it was good to speak to people there and to hear what they wanted us to do. There is a wee issue there that can be addressed through the Department for Social Development and through the Minister responsible. It is a devolved matter and I would certainly be glad to take that up with them directly to make sure that we can address that issue. I believe it is important to do so.
In my area, there is a group called Beyond the Battlefield, an established charity in my constituency that does tremendous work for veterans. Rob McCartney and Annemarie Hastings are two people involved in that. Both of them do lots of interaction with veterans who return—mostly those with post-traumatic stress disorder and with serious problems. They usually fight appeals for veterans when it comes to getting pensions, disability living allowance and employment and support allowance, and they make sure that these people are looked after and not forgotten about when they come home.
When all the pressure is on veterans, the group helps them with financial, emotional and relationship advice. It is a tremendous effort. I know the Minister is coming to Northern Ireland, and I have invited her to my constituency. In advance of that, I offer to show her what the group does so that she can meet some of the people. I think she will be impressed by the group’s work. So many charities offer services, but Beyond the Battlefield is very close to my heart, because it provides help for veterans.
The extension of the military covenant to Northern Ireland will ensure a better and more constant level of support for veterans right across the Province. Over the last five years, I have had the privilege of participating in SSAFA’s coffee morning in Newtownards, and the good people of Newtownards have contributed some £15,000 to its coffers.
In terms of housing, benefits, employment and relationships, the military covenant is as important in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom. When we debated it in the House a few weeks ago, the Minister said that things were 95% in place in Northern Ireland. Obviously, we want to make sure that we nudge along the other 5%, but I am greatly encouraged by her efforts and by her response and that of the Department. None of us is unimpressed by our veterans—by those who serve today and those who have served in the past.
I come to my last point. Sometimes I look back and think of the repatriation of those who gave their lives in Afghanistan. One thing that brought it home to me and to the nation as a whole was Wootton Bassett, because that was a reminder of their sacrifice, and today, through this debate—through the support and rehabilitation of veterans—we can be reminded of the good work that they do.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bayley, and it has also been a great pleasure to listen to this debate. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) on securing the debate. However, I think we made a bit of a mistake, because really we could have done with a 90-minute Backbench Business debate. If any of my hon. Friends—everyone is now an hon. Friend in this debate—wanted to put that forward, we could exhaust 90 minutes quite easily.
I am grateful for the contributions that have been made and I hope to address all the points raised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will know, my usual rule is that if I do not respond to a particular matter, issue or topic, my officials will address it in writing. Members can be assured that my officials will address all the important points that have been made; I apologise if I do not cover them all.
I start by stating the obvious. We are all grateful for the service of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke and all those who serve in whatever capacity. We did a survey last year where we looked at why people were joining our armed forces. It was interesting to discover that they did so for the same reasons that people have always joined our armed forces: a sense of adventure and a desire to see new places and experience new things, as well as a recognition of the huge skills that they gain through their service.
We heard mention of Lord Ashcroft’s report. I pay full tribute to the noble Lord for conducting the review on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Lord Ashcroft explored all the difficulties with transitions. It was a very positive report. We know that the overwhelming majority of people have a good experience when they leave service and go into civilian life, but even though the number of people who do not have a good experience may be small, it is nevertheless an important number. The issue affects each and every one of them and their families. We often forget the sacrifices that the families have already made. It is imperative that we ensure that people transit into civilian life as well as they can and that, when they fall on difficult times, we have everything there to support them. We know that the transition does not work out for some people, and it is incumbent on us to do our best for them.
The covenant is, if I may say so, one of the best things that we have achieved in government. We have put it into statute. I accept that it does not have legal force, in that it is not a principle that anyone could take legal action on, but it is very important. I am delighted that it has been signed up to by all the local authorities, apart from those in Northern Ireland. For obvious reasons, there is a difficult situation there, but all the other local authorities on mainland UK have signed up to it. To repeat, it means no disadvantage for anyone who has served or is in service or for their families, and special consideration for those who are bereaved and for those who have been particularly badly injured in service.
We talk about how we are going to enforce the covenant, and my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke asked about its enforcement. We in the national Government have started to deliver on it, the decision about widow’s pensions being a very good example of that, but it is incumbent on all the local authorities, which have signed up, now to deliver on it.
That does not necessarily cost a lot of money. I pay tribute to the extremely good local initiatives that hon. Members have mentioned in this short debate, because it is at local level that we actually do the work. Yes, there is stuff that Government can do, but it is locally that it is delivered. There is a real role for MPs acting in their local area, as a constituency MP, and a real role for councillors. Let us be honest: there is nothing that a councillor enjoys more. Many councillors do not have the sort of responsibility, the ability to make a difference to their communities, that they want to have. That is perhaps a feature of modern life, but councillors really can start to deliver on the covenant. I do not care which political party they belong to. They should be able to say proudly on their leaflets, “This is what we have achieved as an administration” or “This is what I have achieved as a local councillor in delivering on the covenant.”
That is so important, which is why I will write to every leader and chief executive of every local authority to ask them, “Have you or would you appoint an armed forces champion and then will you test all your policies against the document that you have signed up to?” I think that asking those questions and making them see that they can do something without, as I said, having to spend a lot of money will mean that they willingly take up the challenge.
Jim Shannon
The Minister talks about speaking directly to all the councils. Given that this comes from Westminster, is that something that she would do for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? I think that it would be important that we did do that.
Anna Soubry
I intend to write to every single local authority, so that will include all the Welsh and all the Scottish authorities; I see no division there. However, I said, after the hon. Gentleman had to pop out of the Chamber, that I know the situation is different in Northern Ireland. We discussed that at length in the main Chamber. It was an excellent debate, and I look forward to my visit and all that I will learn.
I began this part of my speech by talking about Lord Ashcroft’s report, which looked specifically at the transition to civilian life. I think that I can sum the position up in this way; it is certainly a view that I share. It seems a bit perverse to say to someone on the day that they sign up, “We want you now to start thinking about the day you leave. Plan your service accordingly.” An 18 or 19-year-old will have some difficulty with that, but it is the standard that we seek to set. The view that we take is, “You are great when you sign up. That is obviously the case or we wouldn’t take you on. But by the time you come to leave the service, you will be even better, not only as a human being but because of the skills and the other things that we will give you.”
Jack Lopresti
My youngest boy is joining the military next year—he is hoping to be a paratrooper in the Army —but for more than a year now I have been trying to explain that when he chooses the branch of service, he needs to be thinking already about what he wants to do afterwards and to act accordingly, which is very difficult.
Anna Soubry
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend has said, as he did in his speech, all the things that I would want to say, so I will not repeat everything; he puts it far better than I can.
I join in the tributes paid by my hon. Friend to the big, national charities. We have talked about SSAFA. That charity is often forgotten, but it is a fabulous charity and does great work. We know the Royal British Legion. I am reminded of a study that it has just done. I am happy to share the results by way of a letter, because I cannot go through all the statistics now. It has done a big survey of veterans, and some of the things in it concern me. I am talking about the rates among veterans of, for example, long-term illness and depression. It says that they are higher, although if we look across the mental health piece, we know that actually our veterans, people coming out of service, do not suffer higher levels of mental health problems than the rest of the population. That does not mean that the issue is not important, but we have to set these things in context, because as the RBL says, there are a number of myths. One is that most people are damaged by their service. That is not true. The majority of our veterans enjoy good mental health, for example. We are told that many are homeless. We have heard the stats; it is only 3%. I know that 3% is still 3% too many, but 3% of London’s homeless population are ex-service personnel.
There is also the issue of the number of veterans in prisons, and I shall deal with some of the very good points made by my friend the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) in his excellent speech. We think that 3% to 7% of prisoners are veterans, but I heard the figures that the hon. Gentleman gave from his extensive experience in his own constituency.
I want to give a quick mention to Help for Heroes. It does a fabulous job, but when I go, as I have gone, to Tedworth House, I can see that it is a place that could take more people. I want us to get into the position whereby someone who is being medically discharged from service has the opportunity to go to Tedworth House, so that it can put them in the very place that the hon. Gentleman wants them to be in before they leave service. I want people, if they do hit troubles, bad times and all the rest of it, to have somewhere to go back to—an organisation to go back to that can then pass them on to a local charity.
Mr Anderson
The figures that I cited were not actually from the local area. They were from the rehabilitation advisory service, which works closely with the veterans project. The work involves going into prisons and talking to people; it is not just a case of writing to someone and saying, “How many veterans have you had here?” It is good evidence, and we gave it to the Minister’s predecessor.
Anna Soubry
I am very grateful. I would very much enjoy having a conversation with the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter further. I pay tribute to the work that he does and the knowledge that he has brought to this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke asked specifically about veterans’ accommodation. There is £40 million of LIBOR funding for that. Nine out of the 16 projects that have been successful have been announced; a further seven will be announced next month by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
There are schemes to support veterans involved in the criminal justice system. I was really interested in the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Blaydon. I have always been resistant to the idea of veterans courts, but he has begun to convince me. Certainly I am going to keep an open mind on it; he has persuaded me to keep my mind open to it. The danger, I am told, is that many of those who have served say, “Why should we be seen as something different or special? We do not need our own court.” My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke addressed that argument. My experience in the Crown court was that when a judge knew that someone was serving or had served, they took that heavily into consideration before deciding whether to pass a custodial sentence, because they recognised the sacrifice and the duty that the individual had performed by serving in one of our armed services.
In the time that remains, I want to deal with the some of the points that have been raised. In particular, I want to talk about mental health, which always comes up, and I know that it concerns so many people in this place and outside it. I give full credit to the charity Forward Assist, which the hon. Member for Blaydon has mentioned and of which, I believe, he is a patron. He brings to the debate insight and understanding. I think that the charity is a good example of how we should deliver on the covenant, namely through local delivery by a good local charity that knows the people who need help and knows how to go and find them. Knowing how to find such people is one of the big problems.
I have confidence, and I hope I am not overstating it, in where we are now. We have heard from the hon. Member for Strangford about Cyprus. We know that in respect of people who were involved in Afghanistan in the theatre of war, our armed forces have really woken up to mental health. As a society, we have woken up to mental health, and much of the stigma has been removed from it. In our armed forces, the rather macho attitude of “We do not talk about these things. Be a man and get on with it,” has given way to a much healthier attitude to mental health. It is seen much more as part of general health. People look after their weight, and they look after their head at the same time. Looking after their mental health is part of being fit for service. We are building resilience and we are encouraging people to talk about mental health. As the hon. Gentleman has identified, people go to Cyprus from Afghanistan, where they go through a period of decompression. They are encouraged to be open and to talk.
It is hugely significant that our former Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Peter Wall, chose to become president of Combat Stress when he retired, even though he had many charities to choose from. That shows that people are no longer afraid, and no longer feel that it is some sort of slight, to talk about mental health. People recognise how important it is that we get it right, and a lot of good work has been done. I am concerned about people—they are mainly men—who served in previous combats, such as Iraq, the Falklands and Northern Ireland, who did not have many of those facilities and do not come from that generation of service. I fear that they have slipped through the net. They may end up in trouble or in a bad place, and they may feel that there is nobody to support or help them.
That is where the fabulous local charities come into play, because they have the ability to scoop up such people at a local level and get them into the right place. In my constituency, there is a fabulous local charity called Forces in the Community, which is looking at schemes with the local police. If the police pick up someone who is drunk, misbehaving, or engaged in low-level crime and they discover that that person is a veteran, they do not go through the normal process of giving the individual a caution. Instead, they look sensibly and intelligently at doing things differently by, for example, placing the individual with an organisation such as Forces in the Community. If, for example, someone has a problem with drugs or drink, if they are homeless or if their marriage is falling to pieces, they are put together with local organisations that can help them. In such a way, we can deliver what we should be delivering for all our veterans.
The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned vaccinations in Iraq, and I will take that issue away and deal with it. Mr Bayley, I think I have enough time to talk quickly about the career transition partnership—
Anna Soubry
Two minutes. My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke asked about the partnership, which offers transition and employment support for up to two years pre-discharge and two years post-discharge. From 1 October next year, the career transition partnership contract will include all service leavers. I hope that that is good news.
I fear that there are all sorts of other questions that I should have answered and matters that I should have dealt with, but I am running out of time. I thank all who have contributed to this debate. As I have said, it could easily have taken up 90 minutes, and probably more, and we should have such a debate. I have certainly learned a lot, and if I have missed anything, I will write to my hon. Friends and cover those points in better detail than I have done.
Hugh Bayley (in the Chair)
I, too, have learned a lot. It has been a privilege to listen to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
EU Foreign Affairs Council (Pre Council Statement)
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)
My noble Friend the Under- Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Minister for intellectual property (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) has today made the following statement:
The EU Foreign Affairs Council (Trade) will take place in Brussels on 21 November 2014. Baroness Neville-Rolfe will represent the UK on all the issues on the agenda.
There will be two substantive items on the agenda:
Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the European Council amending European Council regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 on how to protect the European Union against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community. (Dumped goods are those imported into the European Union at unfairly low prices which cause significant harm to European competitors); and European Council regulation (EC) No 597/2009 on protecting European companies against subsidised imports from countries not members of the European Community.
The European Commission proposed a trade defence (anti-dumping, anti-subsidy) instruments modernisation package in April 2013. This comprises regulatory and non-regulatory proposals, on issues such as the period of notice of imposition of trade defence measures, reimbursement of duties paid by importers when measures are not renewed, and increased assistance to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the European Council making it easier for non-EU goods and services to enter the European Union’s internal market in public procurement, and procedures supporting negotiations to make it easier for European Union goods and services to enter the public procurement markets of non-EU countries. This is an orientation debate on a proposal that aims to restrict the access of non-EU countries to our domestic procurement markets where they do not open their markets to ours.
We also expect updates or discussions on the following non-legislative items:
The latest state of play with the World Trade Organisation’s Doha Development Agenda trade round (which aims to improve the trading prospects of all countries but particularly developing countries) in view of the agreement reached between the US and India on the decision on stockpiling for food security purposes; and the latest state of play on the implementation of the trade facilitation agreement (streamlining of customs and trade procedures) agreed in Bali in December.
EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) free trade agreement negotiations aimed at reducing tariffs and other barriers to trade between the EU and the US;
Negotiations on an EU economic partnership agreement with Japan aimed at reducing tariffs and other barriers to trade between the EU and Japan;
Negotiations on an EU-Vietnam free trade agreement aimed at reducing tariffs and other barriers to trade between the EU and Vietnam.
Defence Support Group
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)
I informed the House on 31 March that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) was launching the sale of the Defence Support Group’s land business. Following a strong competition, I am pleased to announce that Babcock Land Ltd has been selected as the preferred bidder. I will make a further statement to the House with final details of the transaction in the new year, after a contract has been signed.
I also informed the House in March that the MOD would be retaining the Defence Support Group’s air business, the Electronics and Components Business Unit (ECBU). I am pleased to announce that ECBU will become the Defence Electronics and Components Agency (DECA), a new MOD Trading Agency, from 1 April 2015.
DECA will continue to provide support to a diverse range of electronic, avionic and mechanical equipment for both fixed wing and rotary platforms. This will include the provision of a specialist avionics obsolescence management capability. DECA’s Trading Agency model, based on an executive agency, will allow it to continue trading with the MOD and industry customers in a similar way to how the ECBU currently operates within the Defence Support Group.
Grand Committee
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bichard)
Welcome to the Grand Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Social Security (Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance) (Waiting Days) Amendment Regulations 2014
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
To move that the Grand Committee takes note of the Social Security (Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance) (Waiting Days) Amendment Regulations 2014. (SI 2014/2309).
Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I am substantially discomfited by the fact that sitting on my right-hand side is the chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Next week she is chairing a seminar on how we deal with these orders, and I hope that she does not mark me down too hard.
These regulations are not new to us, and we as a Grand Committee have been considerably assisted in their consideration by the work done, as always, by the scrutiny committee, which identified—rightly, I think—that these amendment regulations raise issues of policy interest to the House. I am also indebted to the Social Security Advisory Committee, which—again rightly, in my view—engaged in a formal consultation on these orders. I think that that was the right thing to do. I am sure that, like me, colleagues have been able to read the orders carefully; they repay careful study, and a consultation was proper.
In passing, I would say that it is disappointing that we got advance notice of these regulations in 2013—I think it was in the Budget, or perhaps the Autumn Statement—and that was repeated in the Budget Statement 2014, but these regulations required some consultation if the policymaking was going to be done carefully, and there was a whole fallow year following their announcement with a flourish—and I am getting more and more nervous about social security announcements that are made with a flourish in Budgets. So, that time in the year 2013-14 could have been used to look at some of these things.
The evidence that the SSAC has uncovered is invaluable in the consideration of this policy. Indeed, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, the estimated saving is some £50 million in fiscal year 2015-16, and the savings will diminish thereafter. I guess that that is because we approach the introduction of universal credit in 2017-18, and I shall come back later to that important moment. The Explanatory Memorandum mentions the calculations done by the department, and these are useful for reference. Paragraph 3.10 of the SSAC report says:
“The … analysis indicates that for 2015/16, the number of new claimants likely to be most at risk of suffering financial hardship are around 245,000 in JSA and 35,000 in ESA … The estimated average loss of benefit to each claimant from this policy change is £40 for JSA claimants and £50 for ESA claimants”.
That is very helpful to know. The point that I want to raise more than anything else is the hardship that will be experienced by that client group—the 35,000 people on ESA and the 245,000 on JSA. That is the point of discussing this here today.
I am opposed to these changes. If I thought I had any chance of getting a Division that would successfully annul them, I would have tried that. I am seriously considering doing so, depending on what support I can garner from colleagues if restrictions such as waiting days are put on universal credit as we approach 2017. These are savings dressed up. They are pretty mean-spirited and hit the most vulnerable. They again concentrate cuts on the working-age population and take no account whatever of the environment of the past four or five years. A policy of this kind, if it were to be applied eventually to universal credit, would be much worse.
I therefore support the SSAC’s recommendations and need to continue the analysis. I understand and am grateful for the extra work that the department has put in as a result of the request from the Social Security Advisory Committee. The case for exempting ESA was strongly made but resisted by the Government, which is a shame. The case that the SSAC made for promoting short-term benefit advances as a way of trying to alleviate some of the hardship was discarded in a rather offhand way by the Government. Members of the ESA and JSA client group who are most at risk in 2015 and beyond will have to rely on STBAs because they do not have any other options to plug gaps in benefit. I clearly support the idea from the SSAC that communications must be absolutely crystal clear regarding what is happening to the client group so that they can understand the position in advance and get their claims in early. The recommendations of the committee were all well founded. I was pleased that the Government accepted some, but not all, of them.
I want to say a word about context because I get the impression that the department does not pay enough attention to the payment regime. The system of paying benefits to low-income households who operate on a weekly or fortnightly cash basis underestimates problem that some of these delays and reductions will bring. I remember the good old days before 1998, as will other colleagues, when benefits were actually paid weekly and everyone knew where they were. That changed in 2009 to payments fortnightly in arrears, and in 2018 we are facing the cliff edge of universal credit paid monthly in arrears. I do not think that the department fully appreciates the significance of the change in the method of payment. I point out the obvious fact that Social Fund crisis loans are no longer available and there is an uncertain labour market in which people are much more quickly churning in and out of benefits and work.
Yesterday I was made aware of a publication by the Institute for Fiscal Studies which reminded me that over the past four years we have been taking, and will take, £20,000 million out of benefit expenditure in every year of this Parliament. That is a huge amount and the vast majority is being focused on working-age benefits. In a wider context, although I might be out of order in terms of this debate, we need to think clearly about how the cuts are shared across any future attempts to reduce social security spending, 50% of which is now spent on the retired cohort of our population.
I want to say a brief word about the eight vulnerable groups who have been identified. I am sure that the categories are not new to any of us. They include 18 to 24 year-olds, the homeless, disabled people and prisoners—who are of particular interest to me as a non-executive director of the Wise Group. We have a Routes Out of Prison programme which tries to mitigate the fact that we send prisoners out on a Thursday morning from Barlinnie prison with £46 in their hands and next to no other support. Issues such as those contained in the regulations will make their lives and futures worse. Concerns about the vulnerable groups identified by the SSAC are all well founded, and we need to watch the impact of these regulations on these eight categories very carefully.
I want to make two other points. The so-called list of investments that we now have access to as a result of this £50 million saving being recycled was first adverted to by the Chancellor as part of the 2013 spending review. They are things like upfront work search, English language requirements, weekly work search reviews and annual verification. I may be missing something, but I thought all this happened anyway. If it has not been happening since 2013, I will be disappointed. I do not see that we can demonstrate clearly that these savings are going to make any difference whatever, which folds back to the point that I made at the very beginning—that this is actually a dressed-up saving. It is the departmental expenditure limit that will get the benefit of this £50 million and next to nothing else. This is why I want to press the Minister about evaluation. There is an undertaking here in the Explanatory Memorandum which talks about looking at the results of these new investments and how beneficial they will be. I am very sceptical about that and would like to hear a little more about it.
The SSAC report says that the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum that there was likely to be “no impact” on business or charities is “implausible”. It is being very polite. Anybody who knows anything about the 245,000 and 35,000 people in the client groups that we are dealing with realises exactly how important charities are to people in that situation. I do not think that the department is living in the real world. It is a laughable statement. This will lead to payday loans and all that they bring, which is potentially deeply regrettable.
With the funding available to local authorities also being reduced, these regulations are bound to increase hardship. It may not involve millions of people, but it will affect those whom it does affect severely. I want the Government, in evaluating how these regulations are implemented, to have very careful regard to the consequences and the effects on these families. I want them in particular to reflect very carefully about bringing forward similar regulations when it comes to introducing universal credit later in the next Parliament. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, for initiating this take note debate on a very important subject. I apologise if I repeat any of the points that he made, but they bear repetition because there has not been sufficient publicity about the implications of these important regulations. The SSAC, as we have heard, is very critical of them, especially of the lack of robust analysis of the costs and benefits. The impact assessment that the Government have produced in response is certainly an improvement. Whether it constitutes that robust analysis is another matter, but it does at least give us more information on those who are likely to be affected. I accept that it does give some credence to the original—unevidenced—claim that many affected would be,
“coming to benefits from relatively well paid jobs”,
as the lowest paid are more likely to have linked claims and therefore not be affected. Nevertheless, nearly two-fifths of JSA and three-fifths of ESA unlinked claims were from those earning less than £5,200.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkwood for giving us a chance to talk about these regulations, and I really do not think he needs any lessons from my seminar about how to do these things. He is an old hand at regulations of all kinds, particularly DWP ones. I fear that I shall echo much of what he and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, have said, although I do have a few further points to add.
As we have heard, the main recommendation from the SSAC is that a robust analysis of the costs and benefits should be undertaken and published before the regulations are proceeded with and ESA claimants should be taken out of the new rule. I echo the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, first by pointing out that although the Government say that they have complied with the first recommendation, it is not what any of us would call robust. Their main contention is that the numbers adversely affected by this change are comparatively small, although they do admit that it is not possible to establish the numbers or levels of hardship for specific vulnerable groups—for example, those who are homeless or have mental health problems. I shall come back to that in a moment. They also admit that there will be financial difficulties for these groups. As we know, if 82% of JSA claimants and 74% of ESA claimants are not on HB and 50% of JSA claimants are paid monthly, this still leaves a large number of claimants who are receiving housing benefit, possibly passported from JSA, and who are not paid monthly. These people are often on low incomes, paid weekly and have no savings. For them an increase in waiting days will make a significant difference with knock-on effects elsewhere in the welfare system, and I do not think we hear nearly enough about knock-on effects.
I am particularly concerned about those on ESA, even though this will only be 40% of ESA claimants. The Government’s reason for not excluding them from this change in the waiting days is that they say there is no evidence that those on ESA are at a greater risk of financial hardship than those on JSA and they do not want to encourage claimants to try to move from JSA to ESA. This surely will impact disproportionately on many disabled people, who are less likely to be claiming ESA through having left work and thus will not have a final salary to fall back on. In any case, disabled people take longer to secure work and move off ESA. They are also likely to be on fixed budgets and have few savings, so for them this change simply means a loss of benefit. Their only comfort is that we are told they can apply for this short-term benefit advance. However, I am absolutely horrified by the Government’s statement that disabled people could use their disability living allowance, if they receive it, during a temporary disruption to other income. This tightens the screws still further on disabled people and should not have been put forward. DLA or PIP is designed to help living with a disability, not day-to-day living expenses.
Here I want to mention another reason the department ought to be very careful before implementing this particular policy as it applies to ESA claimants. It was on the news at lunchtime that there is evidence that the DWP has carried out 60 reviews into suicides linked to benefit cuts in the past three years. This very serious matter has been uncovered by John Pring of the Disability News Service and I think we ought to hear more about this in the coming weeks. As for this amazing statement in the original impact assessment that changing from three to seven waiting days will not impact on local authorities or charities, I want to reiterate what the noble Baroness said about food banks. I suppose the Government tick a box without really thinking about it when they say that this will not impact on charities, because nothing could be further from the truth. Of course more people will turn to charities such as the Salvation Army.
Altogether I find the Government’s rationale for this change pretty thin. They say that they want to encourage claimants to look harder for work but claimants have to do this anyway. They do not appear to know how this change will work with UC or how it will impact on housing benefit. We are told that the savings generated by this change will be ploughed back into labour market measures to improve the English language skills of claimants. That is one thing I very much approve of. My noble friend said that I never say anything nice to him on these sorts of occasions. Well, here is one tiny crumb of comfort. If the money is spent improving free English language teaching, I shall be very pleased. The other thing it is supposed to do is to provide more resources to support lone parents to return to employment. I echo the point made by the noble Baroness that we would like to hear more detail about these measures.
It may be very tempting for the Government to say that their aim with this policy is further to weaken the culture of dependency because that is a popular message—we have to be honest about that. However, they must make sure that in so doing they do not cause considerable hardship to many thousands of people, with knock-on effects they have not even tried to factor in. The party opposite flirted with this policy some years ago but changed its mind and did not implement it in the end. I hope that the same will be true of this policy.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope, on moving this Motion which allows us to elaborate further on this pernicious policy. Like many others, I am still waiting for the rationale behind what the noble Lord described as a mean policy. I do not get the stated—or, rather, not yet stated—rationale behind it.
I would like to repeat some of the comments made by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It stated:
“DWP estimates that this change will generate savings of approximately £50 million in 2015-16, although these will decrease in subsequent years as Universal Credit is rolled out”.
Can the Minister say whether there has been any change in that estimate? If that is the case, I would like to hear what it is. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also says:
“DWP states that these savings will be invested in new measures to support people into work”.
Therefore, work must have been done on allocating money to these new measures to support people into work. I would like the Minister to indicate what new measures are planned and their estimated benefits.
The Social Security Advisory Committee has issued a report on this measure, which, again, has been referred to. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states:
“An Impact Assessment is now attached to the instrument which indicates that approximately 70% of JSA claimants and 40% of ESA claimants will serve waiting days ... reducing the value of their first benefit payment by an average of £40 for JSA claimants and £50 for ESA claimants”.
I fully understand why the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, described this measure as mean. There is no doubt that the country faces a difficult situation caused by the downturn initiated in America in 2008 to 2010 and that difficult decisions would have to be made by whoever was in authority. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, mentioned the Labour Party. We have repeatedly expressed concern about how the administration of universal credit will impact on those on low incomes. The reform represents a significant change in the rhythm of social security payments for a group for whom this is a main source of income and whose well-being will be profoundly affected by any delays or problems experienced in receiving it.
My noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, both referred to the role played by food banks and charities. Like many people, I am outraged that food banks have had to be established to deal with the society that we live in. This measure has not taken into account the dire straits that some people will find themselves in when trying to deal with it. The Labour Party convened a universal credit liaison committee which reported in June 2014 and made several recommendations on the payment of universal credit which we believe the Social Security Advisory Committee should have considered, including one on the scope of the regulations.
I ask the Minister whether consideration was given to making the first payment of universal credit earlier. If that was the case, it should be widely publicised. The cost of allowing claimants that choice of payment date, as with direct debit payments, should also be looked at. Has that happened or was any consideration given to it? Did the Government ever seriously consider implementing it?
In order to mitigate any hardship that may arise from the recommended move to a seven-day waiting period, we asked that sufficient attention should be drawn to the recourse available to claimants through short-term benefit advances. Noble colleagues have mentioned this aspect. In fact, the Social Security Advisory Committee itself recommended that the DWP should:
“Strengthen the existing process for highlighting the availability of STBAs and ensure that they are proactively and consistently signposted. In particular, it will be important to ensure that staff (through training and appropriately worded scripts) are encouraged to identify potential hardship and, where it has been identified, explain the process to the claimant. It is also important that the Department ensures that all supporting information channels, such as GOV.UK, highlight the existence of STBAs”.
Will the Minister give the Government’s response to that view and say whether they have given any consideration to implementing it?
The claimant should be made fully aware of budgeting advances and more discretion should be shown in order to mitigate any hardship that may arise from the recommended move. Attention should be drawn to the existence of budgeting advances and, in certain circumstances, we hope that discretion is given to advisers to waive the eligibility criteria whereby claimants need to have been in receipt of benefits for a period of six months in order to apply for an advance. I ask the Minister to respond and indicate what consideration was given to the measures that I have outlined or other measures from a variety of sources. The Minister has an overriding duty to explain the rationale behind the measure and go into detail about its implementation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their many helpful contributions to the debate. It is clear that this measure has generated a great deal of interest, not just within this House but outside among voluntary and public organisations, which have also presented their views to the Government. The principle behind this extension from three to seven waiting days is that benefits are not intended to provide financial support for very brief periods, for instance when someone is between jobs or during a short period of illness. This measure will generate savings of £125 million over five years. It is money that, as noble Lords have touched on, will be reinvested to help those most at risk of long-term welfare dependency. As noble Lords know, the measures will fund schemes including additional support for lone parents and improving literacy and numeracy skills.
To pick up the question from my noble friend Lady Thomas about any change in those estimates, they were based on departmental forecasts which themselves were based on OBR economic assumptions at the Autumn Statement 2013 and in Budget 2014 and there have not been any updates to this analysis since then, although we are, of course, awaiting another financial event quite shortly.
On the related question from my noble friend Lord Kirkwood and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about what and where these investments are, we are expanding on measures that are already in place. They will introduce more rigorous scrutiny on the hardest-to-help claimants. The English language provision is new and will ensure that claimants have the language skills for the workplace. Those methods should enable the claimants to enter the workplace sooner than they otherwise would, which means that they will be earning sooner and not receiving benefits.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord the question raised by SSAC. Is it likely that the people who are going to be adversely affected by this change will be the people who will be helped by these measures?
Lord Freud
Yes; I thought that I had made that clear—that the intention is to focus on the people with longer-term difficulties. So, yes, the intention is that it will be those people.
This measure means that many people who make a new claim for jobseeker’s allowance and ESA will see a reduction in their first benefit payment. However, we have measures in place through exemptions and the offer of advances and signposting advice to ensure that claimants who are most in need will continue to be protected.
I hope that I can pick up all the points that have been raised. On the point raised by my noble friends Lord Kirkwood and Lady Thomas on the exemption of ESA claimants, if there had been a differentiation between the two types of claimant there would have been a perverse incentive for people to self-certify sickness for a week and claim ESA rather than JSA in order to get an additional four days’ benefit. There is no evidence that ESA claimants are at greater risk of financial hardship than JSA claimants. Furthermore, to exempt ESA claimants to make that differentiation would be inconsistent with future proposals for universal credit, where our intention is that all ESA-type claimants will be placed in the all work-related requirements group and therefore subject to waiting days. Clearly, waiting days themselves have been a feature of ESA since its introduction in 2008. This measure has simply extended that existing provision for those who do not qualify for an exemption.
The point that my noble friend made about exempting vulnerable groups is clearly one into which we put a lot of consideration, particularly around care leavers, sufferers of domestic violence and ex-prisoners. Bluntly, they were exempted on grounds of practicability. It would have introduced an unworkable, three-tier system and these groups are already required to serve three waiting days, so the only other option would be a full exemption which would go beyond the scope of this change. Despite what my noble friend said about the UC provisions in this line, we are able to make an exemption for these groups in the UC-equivalent provisions. Perhaps that will leave my noble friend somewhat more relaxed about those.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry to intervene on the Minister. I was not asking about savings, because that is in the public sphere. My question was whether there was any information about people who come out of work in debt or arrears?
Lord Freud
I was coming on to that. The noble Baroness asked a series of questions. We do not currently have the information on the proportion of people coming on to benefit who are likely to be in arrears or debt. I am not aware of any published analysis that would allow us to estimate this quickly. All noble Lords who spoke raised the question of short-term advances. SSAC recommended that communications about them should be strengthened.
Lord Freud
A number of noble Lords raised the communications issue around short-term benefit advances. We have taken the recommendation of the committee and issued communications to all staff to improve staff awareness of benefit advances and to remind them of the circumstances in which an advance can be considered.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the report on food banks, I was not at today’s press conference but no one takes the decision to use a food bank lightly. The factors driving food-bank use are many and complex, as today’s report recognises. The report said:
“The immediate income crisis that predominantly led to food bank use was often one incident in a complex life story, in which several other factors had combined to leave people vulnerable and less able to cope with dramatic changes”.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I agree that we are talking about very difficult lives here, but it is very clear from this research, which is not a huge study but it is from a number of different places using a number of different methodologies, that benefit delays were a very important factor. Given that, does the noble Lord not accept that this measure could well make it worse?
Lord Freud
My Lords, I would be the last person to say that the current benefits system was easy to navigate. One of the things that has been driving the reform that we are introducing, universal credit, is the production of an in-work and out-of-work benefit that is easy to navigate. I started researching this area in some depth in 2006 and the irony is that benefit delays under the existing, rather complicated system have actually been improving. That is why I revert to the point that this is a complicated matter, as is acknowledged in today’s report and in other reports. That is the only point I want to make.
There was a series of questions on universal credit and the noble Baroness raised the point about TUC concerns about the length of time claimants have to wait for payments under universal credit. Clearly we have an advances process built in, but probably more important is the system that is now developing of universal support delivered locally, which is designed to work in the local community, both with councils and with voluntary organisations, to bring the support that is specifically required by vulnerable people. The estimated saving from increasing the waiting days in universal credit is £200 million per annum once it is fully rolled out, but this figure will be reviewed and updated with the Autumn Statement. I have talked about exemptions within universal credit.
The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, asked about our consideration of whether we add waiting days to the assessment period in universal credit or whether we have partial periods of universal credit. We spent a great deal of time considering that issue. Universal credit is an in-work and out-of-work benefit, paid on a monthly basis. That monthly basis is designed to help households to budget on a monthly income and eases the transition from and back into paid work. The one-month assessment period is therefore central to universal credit, and the waiting days in universal credit are days of non-entitlement. I need to remind noble Lords that because universal credit is an in-work and out-of-work benefit, one might not experience waiting days anything like the same number of times as, especially if one is moving from low-paid work to being out of work, one is likely to be consistently on universal credit. That is one of the safety features of universal credit in this regard.
With that I think I have dealt with all the questions raised today and thank my noble friend—
Lord McAvoy
I may have missed it, but I do not think I did. Does the Minister have any response to the point made by the Social Security Advisory Committee about short-term benefit advances?
Lord Freud
Yes, we have accepted the communications issue there and have already, on the basis of that recommendation, issued communications to our staff to improve awareness of the availability of short-term advances and remind them of the circumstances in which those advances can be considered.
As I say, I think I have dealt with everything. I thank my noble friend for the opportunity to discuss this important topic and to address all the concerns and matters that have been raised.
Jobseeker’s Allowance (18–21 Work Skills Pilot Scheme) Regulations 2014
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Freud
That the Grand Committee do consider the Jobseeker’s Allowance (18–21 Work Skills Pilot Scheme) Regulations 2014.
Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
These regulations were laid before the House on 13 October and I am satisfied that they are fully compatible with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Recent labour market statistics show that youth unemployment is moving in the right direction. The most recent figures from last month show that young people—those between 18 and 24 years of age—saw the largest annual fall in unemployment since records began, of more than a quarter of a million since last year. Excluding those in full-time education, there are now 468,000 unemployed young people. This is down by nearly a third compared to last year and is fewer than just before the recession. Clearly, this news should be celebrated, but we will not be complacent. Compared with other countries in the OECD, we in the UK still have a higher proportion of young people who are not in employment, education or training—who are NEET—and despite the general upturn in the economy, this remains a stubborn issue. Even in past better economic times, on average some 7% to 9% of young people have struggled to find work, and this is not a situation which the Government are prepared to accept.
Since coming to power we have done much to address the issue. We have expanded the apprenticeships scheme and launched traineeships to support young people who are not yet ready to apply for an apprenticeship. We have worked with business to create more than 100,000 work experience placements for young people. We have cut the national insurance contributions that businesses pay for young employees, and we set up a Cabinet Office review of all policies funding our provision for 16 to 24 year-olds who are NEET. Outcomes from this review include opening up the Jobcentre Plus network to 16 and 17 year-olds so that they can receive support and guidance from jobcentre work coaches, and a new careers guidance system is planned for 16 year-olds to help them make the best possible decisions about their future. Also as a result of the review, the Chancellor announced in the 2013 Autumn Statement the intention, which was reaffirmed in the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech on 27 February last, for the launch of two pilots of support for young people aimed at addressing the skills and experience gap that is holding so many of them back from joining and progressing in the labour market.
We know that a young person is twice as likely to be NEET if they have not achieved a level 2 qualification in English or maths by the age of 18—that is 19% compared with 39%. Young people are much more likely to remain unemployed for longer. Some 45% of the young long-term unemployed have qualifications in English or maths below level 2 as against 20% of the population as a whole. Moreover, two-thirds of JSA claimants do not have level 2 qualifications in English or maths. We also know from employers that English or maths skills are critical in the workplace and are paramount to the recruitment practices of many. Findings from the Employer Skills Survey 2013 suggest that where young applicants were not considered to meet the requirements of the role, the main reasons cited were lack of skills and experience.
The aim of the two pilots, or “phases” as they are described in the statutory instrument, is to test new approaches to the delivery of support for young people who lack the English and maths skills or work-related experience and skills that employers demand. It is not the aim of the pilots to deter young people from making a claim for JSA or to make the claiming of JSA harder. Through these pilots, we want to give young people the tools that will serve them throughout their working lives.
Under phase 1, we will require new claimants of jobseeker’s allowance aged 18 to 21 who do not possess level 2 qualifications in English or maths—the equivalent of a GCSE grade A* to C—to undertake learning in one or both of these subjects for up to 16 hours per week for up to six months. We will test whether the use of mandation is effective in securing participation in the learning, compare the two methods of learning in terms of effectiveness and cost, and identify the impact of the learning on job outcomes and off-flow from benefit. Under phase 2, we will require all 18 to 21 year-olds who are still claiming jobseeker’s allowance after six months to undertake an appropriate skills or work-related activity, if they are not already doing so. Doing nothing will not be an option for them. We will test the impact of mandation on take-up of provision, off-flow rates from benefit, job outcomes and skill gain. We also seek to understand how the new process is received by claimants, work coaches and employers, and the net impact of piloting this approach.
Phase 1 will be delivered in jobcentres within the Mercia, Kent, the Black Country, Devon, Cornwall and Somerset districts. Implementation is planned to begin this month, with the last referrals to learning taking place towards the end of 2015. Phase 2 will be delivered in Kent jobcentres only. It will also begin this month but is expected to end in the autumn of 2015, as we do not require as many participants to provide robust evaluation.
We believe that the pilots will have a positive impact on the skills and experience levels of young people, improving their competitiveness in the labour market and enhancing their wage-earning potential in future years. It will also give us the opportunity to gain more evidence of what types of support work best for young people, thereby informing future decisions on our approach to helping those claimants who are furthest away from the labour market.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing this matter to the attention of the Committee because it raises issues of public policy that are of some significance. As my noble friend has said, this policy seeks to deal with a difficult group of young people. It is an issue which has stubbornly refused to go away despite the many different approaches that have been taken to it. I must say that I agree with the definition of the problem, but I am not yet convinced that the solutions being proposed in these regulations are the right way to progress our knowledge, understanding and prescription for dealing with it.
At paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum the Government say that,
“there is no clear evidence of what methods would be most effective in improving the skills or enhancing the work experience of young unemployed people. For this reason, we wish to pilot the use of innovative approaches”.
I agree entirely with that, although there is a large body of research on the way in which these innovative approaches with young unemployed people can work. I must tell my noble friend that I am not convinced that what is proposed here will be successful—that is, the new approaches to tackle poor English and maths skills among 18 to 21 year-olds and the tests that my noble friend has described. The key word in all this is “innovation”. Innovation means something new, a new approach and doing things in a different way. The two approaches described in the regulations are a classroom-based activity and an online-based activity. They set out where the activities take place and what activities take place rather than the process of dealing with this very difficult group of young people.
Most of the academic research on this issue says that the two crucial issues you have to deal with are lack of self-esteem and lack of confidence. The early steps on the rungs of the ladder they have to climb to achieve qualifications are missing. The group of people we are talking about have probably failed at school. They have been absent a great deal and have not even sat some of the examinations at the end of their schooling. The big question is this: if these young people have failed at school, and school is mandatory, what will the innovative approach in these regulations and the pilot achieve?
Research on this issue and my practical experience indicate that you have to spend considerable time supporting these people outside the classroom environment in order to restore their self-esteem and confidence. To achieve an examination result, you need to improve their self-reliance, and self-reliance does not come simply from following a course or a training programme, no matter how it is constructed. Although the activities in the report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—the DWP was asked to provide a list of all the activities—such as webinars, group sessions, “Telekids”, learning groups and online chat rooms are very straightforward, they do not deal with the crucial problem of improving self-reliance and esteem, which requires personal support.
As a patron of a charity working with a large, modern high school where a large number of young people were failing in the way I have described, my experience is that taking them out of school activities and giving them lessons associated with the charity resulted in most of them gaining some GCSE qualifications and a portion of them eventually going on to further and higher education at the end of the two-year period. That was a big success story, but its success depended on the relationship with the trainers in the non-formalised activity. In order for this activity to work, it had to be different from activity undertaken in school. Therefore, I must ask my noble friend what is in these regulations that will convince me and other noble Lords that the approach is innovative and has not been tried before. What academic research has been taken into account in trying to understand how these problems are dealt with in our country?
My only other question is why this pilot is being undertaken in England alone. I suppose—this may presuppose what my noble friend will announce—that it is because the tools by which you might handle this, such as the training and formal education systems, are in the hands of devolved government. If you found an innovative approach that worked, the question would remain how you could undertake it in all parts of the United Kingdom. You would have to convince the devolved Administrations to work with it.
The relationship with the education, training, social and support sectors of our society are crucial to this. Can my noble friend tell us what level of activity there will be with local communities because that is necessary to creating the innovative changes that are crucial to resolving quite considerably this very stubborn problem?
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his very full exposition of the regulations. Twice I have heard him say that the number of full-time students has been extracted from the figures. To start off, can he give us the figures for those in full-time education this year and the previous year, if he has them available? If not, would he write to me? Secondly, I would like to follow up on an aspect of what the noble Lord, Lord German, had to say. I think the Minister used the term “deselected” for students who do not come up to scratch on the two aspects of education. Could he explain why information technology is not included in the subjects in this pilot? It would seem almost essential these days, even for my generation, to be fully competent in information technology. I do not see that that would cause too many complications. I would like to find out more about why information technology is not included. I also do not know whether he can find a better word than “deselected”, which is a bit harsh. Maybe he just has to have a sensitive side.
With some justification, the Minister has indicated that the proportion of young people not in education, employment or training is significantly higher here than in other countries. As has been pointed out, alongside the NEET figures referred to by the Minister—where there has been a reduction—there has also been a dramatic growth in the number of young people we just do not know about, as my right honourable friend Stephen Timms pointed out in the other place. Taking account of these issues, the position is perhaps worse than the NEET figures suggest.
I am also interested in finding out what happened to the review authorised by the Cabinet Secretary in September last year, now over a year ago, which intended to look at the Government’s approach to youth unemployment in the United Kingdom. As my right honourable friend Stephen Timms also pointed out, there does not seem to be any indication anywhere in Parliament of what happened to that review. I am certainly looking for an explanation as to why it was not carried out.
The Minister talked about sanctions. It is becoming clear across Jobcentre Plus that many people have no idea why they have been issued with their sanction. An explanation really needs to be given whenever sanctions are introduced, if we are not going to destroy totally people’s morale and belief in themselves, as the noble Lord, Lord German, pointed out. We are going to totally destroy people who are lacking in self-belief by wiping them out in this manner. That was not deliberately put across by the Minister, but it is certainly the intention.
I would also like to see more positive indications. Folk will quite rightly ask, “What alternatives have you got?”. Stephen Timms has announced that a Labour Government would take unemployed 18 to 21 year-olds who have not been in employment for a year and who have not yet achieved a level 3 qualification off jobseeker’s allowance and instead place them on a new youth allowance that would be dependent on participation in training. I can see elements of that taken account of —I will not say “poached”—in the proposals for these pilots. The proposal was, rightly, that the amount of allowance would be based on parental income on a similar basis to that used for assessing student maintenance. Positive suggestions have been made by Her Majesty’s Opposition but the concentration here is on the regulation put forward by the Minister.
I have no further questions other than about the number of full-time students; what considerations were taken into account before information technology was disqualified from being included in the exams; and, finally, what happened to the review which the Cabinet Secretary was supposed to carry out. I would not like to think we have armchair or sofa government at No. 10, so there must be a reason why that review was not carried out.
Lord Freud
I thank noble Lords for those two contributions. There is a consensus here that we need to do everything we can to reduce unemployment in young people, increase their opportunity for sustained employment and get their earnings to the maximum possible level. One of the key elements underneath the academic research—most dramatically that undertaken by Professor Wolf—is that English and maths, at the levels required by employers, are at the heart of successful vocational education. That is exactly what this pilot is designed to look at.
I remind noble Lords that this pilot is about whether we can make something work which is very difficult to achieve. We are trying to find evidence of whether systematically mandating young adults to blended or online learning works, and we need a randomised control trial to provide an evidence base to determine whether that is the way to go. If my noble friend will accept the innovation here, it is about finding out what actually works. There have been various tests abroad—in California and Chicago—of whether this kind of model works for people who have not been able to get these skills or qualifications through the educational process. There is sound evidence elsewhere and some academic research so it really is worth testing the proposition. We clearly need the pilot to find out the most cost-effective and best method of delivery for learning and to ensure that the claimants are engaged and supported to complete their learning aim. The last thing we want to do is roll out, on a national basis, something for which we have not established the costs and benefits.
The question from my noble friend Lord German was: how on earth will six months of this kind of activity succeed where 11 years of compulsory education has failed? The reason is that the form of learning is different; it is more flexible, more attractive, focused on work and largely online in both the different types—the blended and the pure online. The providers involved will address learners’ needs, such as a lack of confidence, through their training. They are registered further education providers with experience of working with these types of learners.
The other question asked by my noble friend was: why is this taking place in England alone? He answered his own question with far greater precision than I ever could. As he knows, skills is a devolved matter and any pilot activity in a devolved Administration would require consent from the respective Governments. We will, of course, be sharing our findings on these particular pilots with these Governments to inform their own policies in this area.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, about the number of people in full-time education who are looking for work. The number currently unemployed is 737,000 of whom 489,000 are not in full-time education, so the number of people looking for work who are also full-time students—I wish I could do sums in my head—is 248,000. This is really taxing my mathematical competence without a calculator so I will send the noble Lord the equivalent figure from last year before I collapse in a heap.
Lord Freud
I know the noble Lord would enjoy that more than anything but rather than do that let me go on to talk about the Heywood review, which he admired so much in public for which we are very grateful. In addition to these pilots there is also the 16 to 17 year-olds’ NEET initiative by the DWP in partnership with local authorities which provides personalised job advice and support through Jobcentre Plus. In the Autumn Statement the Chancellor announced a further range of pilots around changes to benefit rules surrounding traineeships, and in February the Deputy Prime Minister announced changes to careers advice and a new UCAS-style system for 16 year-olds. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be further announcements in due course about additional support for young people. I know that he will claim that they were all ideas generated by his own party but I think he is stretching credulity with that claim.
On the question of why information technology is not included, it is almost a logical impossibility, if we are testing online capability with these tests, to get English and maths learning over. It is a completely different proposition to look at online proficiency. It presupposes online proficiency, which is what we understand to be the most important thing, but English and maths are important. We may have to have a look at IT skills as well, as I suspect the noble Lord is suggesting, but that is not what this pilot is about. However, I take his point under advisement.
I am infuriated that I have just been given the figures but no sums have been done, so some of my team are as mathematically challenged as I am. No, I have been given the calculations too: I can confirm the figure of 248,000 in the three months to September 2014, which was down 62,000 over the year. I think that that has addressed all the issues raised, and I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee.
Pensions Act 2014 (Consequential Amendments) (Units of Additional Pension) Order 2014
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pensions Act 2014 (Consequential Amendments) (Units of Additional Pension) Order 2014.
Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, as both the Social Security Class 3A Contributions (Units of Additional Pension) Regulations 2014 and the Pensions Act 2014 (Consequential Amendments) (Units of Additional Pension) Order 2014, as they are snappily called, deal with class 3A contributions, it seems sensible that they should be debated together. I can confirm that in my view these statutory instruments are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
I shall begin with the regulations. The Pensions Act 2014 introduced a new class of voluntary national insurance contributions called class 3A. These new voluntary contributions are aimed at existing pensioners and people who reach state pension age before the introduction of new state pension on 6 April 2016, and who have an entitlement to a UK state pension. It will allow them to make class 3A contributions in return for units of additional state pension, which will increase their weekly state pension. We have called this scheme as a whole “state pension top-up”.
The regulations set out the pricing of class 3A contributions. They specify the contribution rates for class 3A and the maximum number of units of additional state pension that a person may obtain. The contribution rate for state pension top-up will be set at the specific amount that each age group will need to pay in order to obtain £1 per week of additional state pension. For example, it would cost a 65 year-old £890 to gain £1 per week of additional state pension, whereas for a 70 year-old the cost would be £779.
The scheme will be open for 18 months between 12 October 2015 and 5 April 2017. It is the intention that the scheme will open on the same day in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, the scheme will not be commenced in Northern Ireland until the legislation necessary to set the amount that a person will receive in return for their contribution is in place. That is because this is a devolved issue, but we anticipate that that legislation will be in place. The intention is that the extra amount of additional state pension will be subject to an overall cap of £25 a week. As the extra pension obtained will be additional state pension, it will be uprated by the consumer prices index and be inheritable in the same way as SERPS. People will also be able to defer it, in line with existing rules.
These affirmative regulations have been made jointly, as HMRC will handle applications and collect payments for Class 3A contributions while the Department for Work and Pensions will administer and pay the extra amount of additional state pension. The intention is to deliver these changes as far as possible within the existing national insurance and benefit framework so as to keep administrative costs to a minimum.
We believe that state pension top-up will be particularly helpful for groups who have little or no additional state pension—for example, women and the self-employed whose social and economic contributions were not captured in SERPS and not fully reflected in the state second pension. We have conducted two online polls to gauge interest in state pension top-up. On the basis of the first poll, which we conducted in June of last year, we estimated that around 140,000 people would take up the scheme. The second poll was carried out in February of this year and suggested interest in state pension top-up had increased to an estimated 265,000 people who would take up the scheme. We gave more detail in the second poll, which demonstrates the power of advertising. This scheme will provide people with an opportunity to boost their state pension income in a secure, inflation-proof way, with the added advantage that it provides survivor benefits. However, people will need to consider whether state pension top-up is the best option for them.
I should also point out that existing class 3 voluntary national insurance contributions, which allow people to cover gaps in their contribution record for basic state pension, will remain unaffected by this measure. The DWP and HMRC will put in place administrative arrangements to ensure that individuals applying to make new class 3A contributions are made aware that they should also check their eligibility to make class 3 contributions. I should stress that class 3A contributions will be actuarially fair and, as a result, will cost more than the heavily discounted class 3 national insurance contributions. As an example of this, in 2014-15 a person paying £723 in class 3 contributions would obtain £3.77 per week in basic state pension. On this basis a person can effectively recoup their money within four years of reaching state pension age. A different approach was required, and has been taken, for class 3A contributions to ensure that the arrangements do not become a burden for today’s national insurance contributors—hence our decision to base class 3A on actuarially fair rates, as advised by the Government Actuary. In keeping with this, the cost will be adjusted to reflect the age of the pensioner at the time they make class 3A contributions, as I pointed out in my earlier example.
I now turn to the order. We did not want people to take up class 3A contributions only to have their newly acquired additional pension clawed back by rules designed for other parts of additional pension policy. To this end, the order amends primary legislation to ensure that a person’s state pension or disablement pension entitlement is not reduced by obtaining or inheriting units of additional pension acquired from class 3A contributions. The order also applies the existing rules on inherited SERPS to the newly acquired additional state pension. This means that people will be able to inherit the class 3A top-up in the same way as they can inherit SERPS—up to 100% if the deceased spouse or civil partner reached state pension age before October 2002, tapering down to 50% minimum if they reached state pension age since October 2010.
In closing, I reiterate that state pension top-up is an entirely voluntary scheme. It will provide people with a one-off opportunity to boost their state pension with a secure, index-linked income for life, ahead of the introduction of the new state pension. I reiterate that it is actuarially fair. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its earlier consideration and analysis of these regulations and order. We have taken on board its comments in relation to the Northern Ireland situation. I seek your approval of the regulations and order, and commend them to the Committee.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full exposition of the regulations. I welcome him to what I think is his first appearance as a DWP Minister. He is very welcome to join this club of aficionados. I am sure that his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, has given him a fair idea of what to expect.
These regulations are broadly uncontroversial and there is no difficulty in accepting them, but I thought that while I was here I would ask some questions that arise. We welcome the fact that the Government have undertaken more research, as we asked for collectively in Committee on the Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said that the Government would,
“look to consider qualitative research to find out what sort of barriers there may be to taking up class 3A contributions”.—[Official Report, 13/1/14; col. GC19.]
It is not clear to me—or, I think, to others—how the research undertaken is qualitative in this sense. It seems to follow the previous research and to gauge only the level of interest. If the Government have undertaken that qualitative research, would the Minister share its results and tell us what he thinks the barriers are to people taking up class 3A NICs?
There is also the question that was raised in Committee by my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton about winners and losers. The only factor that will be taken into account in pricing a class 3A contribution will be age. No account will be taken of any regional or occupational differences in life expectancy. Have the Government done any work on the likely distributional effects of the scheme? Given that the scheme is actuarially fair in pricing, and the proposal is that over time the policy will be broadly cost-neutral, as far as the Government have said, if some people are getting a good deal, is it the case that others must be losing out? Presumably, those who lose out will be those with shorter than average lives, but have the Government done more work on this? Who do they think the winners and losers will be?
In addition, we also asked in Committee—I know that the Minister was not involved but I assure him that we did so—for a proper estimate of the number of people who may take up the offer, based on the latest research. The Government now estimate that around 265,000 people may take it up. The Minister does not need to answer because he has indicated that that is the case.
Will advice be provided—and if so, what kind—to ensure that people can make an informed decision on whether making class 3A contributions is the best option for them? There are significant considerations for individuals, such as their life expectancy, that may be significantly affected by where they live in the United Kingdom, by whether they are married or in a civil partnership or likely to be so, and by any other income or savings they may have.
When the Bill was in another place, the then Minister said that the Government would,
“put in place administrative arrangements to ensure that individuals who apply to pay class 3A contributions are made aware that they should first check their eligibility to pay class 3 contributions”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/3/14; col. 578.]
How in practice will that be put in place? In its recent briefing, the Pensions Advisory Service said that this is complex and many people will not know whether it is worth paying voluntary NICs until the DWP can provide a single-tier pension statement. Can the Minister give us a response to that?
I know that there are a number of questions here but pensions are quite important to a lot of people, and it is essential that we take the opportunity in this House to clarify things. The Government have mentioned a cooling-off period of 90 elapsed days during which people can change their mind. How have the Government arrived at that number, and how will that interact with the guidance—or the lack of it?
I appreciate that I have put a number of questions whose answers might be complex and detailed. While I hope the Minister is in a position to answer them today, it is certainly acceptable to receive a reply in writing.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, for his comments and his kind introduction to the aficionados’ club. I look forward to discussing these issues with him over the months and years ahead—with us in Government and his party in Opposition, I trust. I am very grateful also for his general support for these regulations and the order. I will try to deal with the issues that he has quite reasonably raised.
The first related to the barriers to class 3 contributions and who was likely to take up these opportunities. As he rightly acknowledged, I gave the figure of 265,000. What research and evidence we have is in general terms, but it seems to be more attractive to women who have had career breaks and the self-employed who have not contributed to SERPS and a second state pension. He is also right about it being actuarially fair and cost-neutral.
The noble Lord talks about there being winners and losers, but that is not how it is seen by either potential beneficiaries or the Department for Work and Pensions. This is an entirely voluntary scheme to help people who have taken advice. We will stress, both on the website and on a hotline service that is going to be available in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, that people should take advice. Every situation is going to be different. He is right to suggest that it would not be so attractive to people who are not married or in a civil partnership or to people with a lower life expectancy; that is true. Online there will also be—my noble friend Lord Freud would benefit from this—an instant calculation of how much is payable by a person at a given age. The advice that we will be giving to people taking up class 3A contributions will be to check their eligibility for class 3 contributions to see if it is right for them.
Lastly, in answer to his question about why the cooling-off period is 90 days, I think that is a common period. If I am wrong on that, I will write to him. I do not think there is any particular science to it but it is standard practice in these matters to have a 90-day period, and I think that is fair. With those comments, I hope that I have dealt with the questions that the noble Lord raised. I thank him once again for his contribution and support, and I commend these regulations and the order to the House.
Social Security Class 3A Contributions (Units of Additional Pension) Regulations 2014
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security Class 3A Contributions (Units of Additional Pension) Regulations 2014.
Relevant Document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2014
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2014.
Relevant document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I will speak also to the Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme Order 2014 and the Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2014.
The Committee will be aware that individual electoral registration was successfully introduced on 10 June in England and Wales and on 19 September in Scotland. For the first time ever, people in Great Britain can apply online to register to vote. To date, some 67% of the 3 million people who have applied under IER have done so online. The draft instruments before the Committee today will make some further refinements designed to improve the operation of IER.
As noble Lords will remember, this is one of a long series of statutory instruments in this process. The process is being taken through with considerable care. Our aim is to ensure that the largest possible number are registered as we make the transition and that the integrity of the register is maintained as we do so. So far, the process has gone well. The matching process has been more successful than we expected, but we are concerned to maximise the number all the way through and we will be maintaining our efforts until the next election and beyond.
The Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme Order 2014 will establish a pilot scheme, enabling information about entries in electoral registers in 24 areas in England, Wales and Scotland to be compared with information held by the Secretary of State for Transport about individuals’ driving records and vehicle registration documents. The current IER system involves matching data against DWP records, and we are keen to see if there are other public data sets that could be used as well to increase the completeness of the electoral register. The order will require participating EROs to disclose their registers to be matched, including the use of the IER digital service, against name, address and, where held, date of birth information to be provided by the Department for Transport and the Department for Work and Pensions.
The Committee may recall noble Lords’ support for using DVLA data during the passage of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act, and will be pleased to see this practical scheme to pilot the use of this data. In 2011 a small-scale pilot indicated that using DVLA data, in addition to the match with DWP data, might increase the confirmation rate by a further 10%. The pilot scheme established by this order will test whether DVLA data will indeed add significantly to the confirmation match rate. The scheme will also allow for the piloting of data matching using DVLA data to identify potentially eligible individuals who are not currently registered. The pilot scheme will end on 30 June 2015.
I have heard, anecdotally, that people—particularly young men—who move very frequently do not on the whole bother to inform the state agencies with which they interact of their new address, including not reregistering with doctors. However, we are told that they do ensure that their driving licence is up to date and the right address is on it, so the DVLA data may help us in teasing out one of the under-registered groups in the population: young, unmarried men living in rented accommodation.
The Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2014 and the Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment No.2) Regulations 2014 will enable Crown servants and British Council employees living abroad to register online. The current electoral registration process for Crown servants and British Council employees relies on a paper-based declaration sent via the individual’s organisation, as well as an application to register. This means that these individuals cannot currently apply wholly online. The changes set out in the draft regulations enable them to do so. The figures that I have already given showing the high percentage of people who have registered online in recent months suggest that it would be very advantageous to enable them to do so. The regulations also replace the requirement to send the declaration via the employer, with a requirement for people, as part of their declaration, to supply their staff number or payroll number. The electoral registration officer will then be able to check with the employer that the applicant is entitled to register by virtue of a declaration.
In addition, EROs will be required where necessary to send a second reminder to people, such as overseas electors or service voters who are registered by virtue of a declaration, that their declaration is about to expire. Noble Lords may recall that in May the House approved regulations that disapplied the follow-up process for overseas and service voters, and may wonder why we are now being asked to apply it again. The answer is that we are not proposing to reinstate the previous process that would have required EROs, after the expiry of the declaration, to send an invitation to register to special category electors, followed up by two reminder letters and, theoretically, a visit by a canvasser. That process would have been expensive and impractical in the case of many special category electors, and it is right that it is no longer a mandatory requirement. Instead we are introducing a requirement for EROs to send just one further reminder to those special category electors whose declaration has not yet expired but which is about to do so. I am told that in a large number of cases, online addresses are available and it will be possible to do this online. This is a relatively simple step to take, without the need for the more protracted subsequent process that we rightly removed earlier in the year. The regulations also make minor updates to statutory references to registration appeals.
The Scottish regulations will also extend to Scotland one of the provisions on data sharing by local authorities for electoral registration purposes that were introduced for England and Wales in May. These allowed for the disclosure to an ERO of information contained in records held by the authority by which he or she was appointed, provided that a written agreement was in place between the authority and the ERO as to the processing of the information.
The different local government structure in Scotland rendered a provision for two-tier area data sharing, as set out in the legislation introduced for England and Wales, unnecessary. At quite a late stage in the drafting of the England and Wales legislation it was decided to provide additionally that the ERO’s own local authority may disclose its data to the ERO, provided that a written agreement was in place covering the use of the data. It appeared that such a change might also be relevant to Scotland but we undertook to consult EROs and local government organisations in Scotland about that before we sought to legislate. That has now been done. Here, therefore, is the regulation.
The Electoral Commission is content with the provisions of these instruments and the Information Commissioner did not consider that they raised any new or significant data protection or privacy issues. The three statutory instruments before the Committee will each play a part in the continued successful implementation of individual electoral registration in Great Britain, and I commend them to the Committee.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak particularly to the second statutory instrument in the group, which relates to the pilot scheme to which my noble friend referred in the early part of his remarks. He quite rightly—and I welcome this—spoke of the whole context of this transition to IER. Those of us with the battle scars of a number of debates in Grand Committee over many years, going back to the previous Government—IER was a previous Administration’s initiative—will recall that this context has caused quite a bit of controversy, and rightly so because, as he emphasised, the register is a critical foundation stone of our whole representative democracy. The present Government, the coalition Government, have not changed the transition in any substantial way but accelerated the process. So my noble friend has rightly referred to the extent to which the Government are determined—I think the phrase he used was that they intend to take “considerable care” in how this transition proceeds. It is in that context that these orders are so important.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I have no issues with the orders or regulations before us today. They are part of a series that have been coming to Grand Committee for consideration as we move towards individual electoral registration. I do, though, have concerns that I have raised many times before in Grand Committee regarding the speed at which we are moving—the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, referred to this—and the risk of people dropping off the register. I do not believe that the Government have given sufficient weight to this as part of their preparation for the switchover. I have never understood what the rush was about on the part of the Government and why they would risk the system being brought into disrepute, all for the sake of a bit more time and planning. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, this was originally an idea of the Labour Government. I am a big supporter of IER but the Government’s speedy approach to it worries me.
We have never had an over-registration problem in the UK; rather, we have an under-registration problem. Much academic research states that 6 million or up to 9 million people are not registered to vote. The Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2014 and the Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2014 are sensible moves enabling the declaration made by overseas Crown servants and British Council employees to be made online, along with a requirement that EROs must, where necessary, send a second reminder to people who are registered by virtue of a declaration when their declaration is about to expire. It is also sensible that Crown servants and British Council employees are able to use the online service in the same way as overseas electors and service voters.
I looked at the consultation list and would welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, saying a bit more about it, particularly who the members of the Cabinet Office panel of experts in electoral administration are, how someone is appointed to this body, who chairs it, and what its remit is. I think that a wider policy community could be consulted on matters of electoral policy. I note that the Government consulted the Electoral Commission as part of bringing this order to your Lordships’ House, as required by Section 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I am talking generally rather than specifically about this order, but if the Government are not going to consult the political parties directly, I suggest it would be good practice for officials to ask the Electoral Commission whether this issue has been brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Parties Panel set up under the Act, which is formally required to be consulted. I was a member of that body for many years before I became an electoral commissioner and I do not believe for one minute that its full potential has ever been reached. The panel has election experts from all the parties who can give a very practical and down-to-earth view of what things are like on the ground. I think that is sometimes missing from our discussions here.
The Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme Order 2014 is a sensible move and I am happy to support it. However, will the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, tell the Grand Committee what work is going on to identify other departments and agencies that could be brought into scope to assist in getting eligible citizens on to the electoral register? As I said, at least 6 million people are not on it. The noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Tyler, referred to the fact that young males do not always go on the register. That is an important point, but the same could be said of people living in social housing and the private rented sector, and of ethnic minorities. Whole groups of people are not registered to vote. If we get to the point where fewer people are registered to vote when the measure comes fully into operation than was the case previously, that would be a terrible position to be in and a matter of much regret. It would be bad for democracy in this country and for our reputation both nationally and internationally, so we must avoid that.
Have the Government thought about speaking to large organisations such as Experian which hold vast quantities of data on everybody—Experian has more data than anyone else—and have the whole unedited electoral register, so they know where everyone is? I am sure that those organisations could very easily give every ERO in the country a list of everybody in an area who is not on the register. That would be a fantastic way to identify these people and get them on to the register. I think that it would be a very positive move. The data exist and these organisations could provide it. In addition to getting more people on to the register, which is good for democracy, some relevant people would dramatically improve their credit rating because that is affected by not being on the electoral register. Perhaps the Government could look at this issue. I would welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, commenting on that point, perhaps not today but in the future.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their helpful and intelligent comments. I start by reminding them that in another area of the Cabinet Office, we are much concerned with data sharing, digital privacy and the whole question of public and private data. Concerns about data privacy have been one of our inhibitions about moving in this area. Unfortunately we have not managed so far to bring forward a Bill to harmonise and update the laws which apply to different government departments on their collection and maintenance of data, many of which were put into effect long before cloud computing and two or three generations back in terms of the use of computers. The terms under which some government departments hold data are significantly different from those of other departments. I am sure I do not need to tell noble Lords that the sensitivities of the privacy organisations are such that we move with care in data matching, certainly in disclosure, both between different central government departments and between local authorities and central government departments. This is one reason why we have moved with all deliberate speed on this, using, first of all, the DWP database and moving on from there to the DVLA database. When we started out on this process there was some hesitation within the Department for Transport as to the terms under which the DVLA database ought to be made available for these purposes. We are in a very sensitive area in terms of data privacy and data sharing.
Lord Tyler
Before my noble friend leaves that point, is he saying that there was actually some legislative, statutory problem with the DVLA which did not apply to the DWP? If so, I totally understand the delay, but three years of delay because of some administrative, bureaucratic decision making within the Department for Transport is more depressing. I accept that good progress has been made and I hope my noble friend has not taken my contribution as being in any way negative about the overall process. However, this particular episode is not a very happy one since we were raising these issues more than three years ago.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, makes a very fair point. We are all looking back with care: we understand that we have to be right and proper, but it comes with a bit of a spring in your step at the same time. There is a question of care and there is also just not moving very quickly. I think we need to get on with it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
We understand that but I stress that there are other major issues. I happen to have been involved in some of the discussions about changing the system of legal protection for government collection and sharing of data. Noble Lords may remember that there were discussions early in the coalition Government’s period of office about whether or not we could do without the census next time round because all the material collected in the census is actually collected by the Government in the process of normal procedures, year by year. Some of the data are collected by local authorities, such as those about children going to primary school, which is one of the best indicators of the changing social and ethnic basis of a local community. If we were able to put all the data together, much of what we get from the 10-yearly census would be provided. However, if we put all of that material together—including health records and NHS data—we would be in an area in which ordinary citizens and those concerned with data privacy begin to be extremely upset. This is part of the reason why the good progress we made with the DWP data gave us a feeling that we could move along in that way. We are now extending this by looking at the DVLA data. I am told that the pilot will start in December or early January and should be completed by 31 March. It will not be too late for late registration for some of these people. As I said in my opening speech, I stress that access to the DVLA database is not merely a matter of matching but also of discovering people who are entitled to be on the register but who are not registered. The unmarried young men category in particular, which we are all familiar with as a weak area, would enable us to make the electoral register more complete.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that Experian has a symbiotic relationship with the electoral register because it uses it for a great many things. If you are not on the electoral register, you are often not on the Experian database. Another area we are concerned about is the overlap between public and private databases. When discussing the issue with various people who are concerned about it, I have explained that there is no clear boundary between some public and private databases. For example, when I renew my car tax online, the first thing the DVLA does is check the private insurance database to ensure that my car is insured. That is an example of the public going to the private and coming back. These are all part of what is changing as public and private databases become much easier. The Government—whichever Government they may be—hope that an enormous amount of time, effort and money will be saved by moving more and more of these kinds of data online.
The problem is that this has huge implications for individual privacy and we have to be concerned about it. When talking in Bradford nearly two years ago about why so many people are not on the register, I was told vigorously by local councillors and officials that those people do not want to be registered. They do not want the state to know who they are and where they are. That is part of the issue here.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The noble Lord is absolutely right on the point about the merging of public and private databases, and indeed it is the point I was trying to make. So much information about people is now being held by Experian and a host of other bodies that I cannot believe it is beyond the Government to talk to Experian and others, saying, “We are not looking for people’s medical records or driving licences. What we are after is the data matching that is taking place for you being provided to local authorities. They can then see that in a certain street there are three people who are not on the register but they do actually exist. We know that because we have their bank details and driving licence particulars and we know where they shop”. All we would ask for is that Experian should give the council the name and address; it is as simple as that. I get the privacy point, but my worry is that we will end up with fewer people on the register than we have ever had before, and that is a terrible place to be. I think that the Government should do everything possible to make sure that that does not happen.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I would mark that after the next election, we will have a major debate and a draft Bill on the question of data sharing. If we were to access the Google and Amazon databases, I am sure that that would go a good deal further to identifying those who are not on the register, but the Government do not have the legal right to do so, and again, it raises huge questions of privacy.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who raised the question of an additional door-to-door canvass in the spring of 2015. When I visited the ERO for Wandsworth a couple of years ago—I should mention that the Wandsworth ERO is a member of the Government’s consultative panel—he told me that given the mix of sheltered social housing and new apartment blocks at the top end of the market, the borough of Wandsworth now has some 25,000 homes that are behind locked doors. The problem of gated accommodation, which all of us who deliver leaflets are painfully aware of, is making it more and more difficult to conduct the door-to-door canvass that we used to think was such an important part of the exercise. That is why we have to do all these supplementary things as far as we can. We intend to complete a door-to-door canvass as far as possible, but that is becoming much more difficult as we go on.
I will have to write to the noble Lord about precisely who was on the advisory panel of EROs. I have met a number of EROs during the last three years of the process, and have much enjoyed talking to them about the particular issues with which they are concerned. I will happily write on that.
There were a number of other questions. Why has it taken us so long to get round to data matching? I have explained that DWP records actually took us a very long way, and we are now seeing what we can do to gain further completeness. I was asked whether it was a cross-section of 24 areas—incidentally, it is 24 areas but 21 electoral registration officers, because in Scotland the electoral registration system covers several local authority areas. The areas range from Harrow, Southwark and Trafford to the City of Edinburgh, Bournemouth, Coventry and Newport—a fairly good mixture. I have marked one or two areas which have a high concentration of students and several inner-city areas. It includes the City of Edinburgh, for example, as well as Stratford-on-Avon. It is a pretty good cross-section of the country.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, rightly keeps pressing us—as I hope he will continue to—on how confident we are that we will come out with a higher rate of registration than before. I can say only that we are continuing to work towards that objective. We have made some extra funds available to local authorities for this and we are now considering whether further additional funds would be helpful. From what has happened in the last two or three elections, we all know that late registration produces a great boon. We will not know how successful we have been probably until the middle of April 2015, because a lot of the target groups will not have got round to filling in their online forms until the campaign is upon them.
The Government will continue to stress the importance of registering and of people being involved. We are working with a number of non-governmental organisations. I spoke at a Bite the Ballot conference a couple of months ago. Bite the Ballot is working very hard, as are a number of other organisations, with particular vulnerable groups—in its case, young people. However, it is a matter for all of us, in all political parties and beyond, to keep up the momentum as we approach the election of saying that it is very important that you register to vote and that you do vote. That is the final dimension of trying to capture the maximum number of people.
I have two other things to add about the overseas dimension.
Lord Tyler
I am sure, from the long experience that my noble friend will acknowledge, that the best possible way to get people to register and to vote is to have a very close election, as was demonstrated in Scotland, of course. When I got a majority of nine, I managed a turnout of 83% on a very wet and cold night in Cornwall. When my majority went up, the turnout went down. I do not know how he can achieve a close result in every constituency in the country, but that is the ideal way to get a good turnout next May.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
I will not have to organise the next election. Many of us fear that it will be very disorganised in this respect and that the competition among four or five parties nationally, which will quite often be a competition between different pairs of parties in different constituencies, may make for an extremely confusing election campaign. I spoke at an annual general meeting in Yorkshire and said that I thought we were going to have what would feel much more like a series of by-elections across the entire country. It will be very different constituency by constituency when it comes to it, but let us hope that it does raise the interest.
On the question of overseas voters—
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. I know one or two local authorities. One of them is Manchester, where there has been a catastrophic drop-off in some areas in terms of registration, and that needs addressing. I also know of a local chief executive who was embarrassed to tell us that he sent letters out saying, “You haven’t been matched”, only to get one himself. He lives in the borough that he is the ERO for, and he himself had not been matched. He is not someone who has moved around very often; he has lived in the borough for many years and I assume that he has a bank account and stuff, but he did not match at all. There are one or two places where there has been a catastrophic drop-off. That is really bad. Perhaps the Minister could get his officials to talk to some of these local authorities. In certain pockets there are problems bubbling away.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
We are well aware that one of the reasons why the electoral registration business is a local one is that the pattern varies so much from one place to another. The debate now going on about whether additional funds should be made available would of course be concentrated in those areas that have found the greatest difficulties. Again, we are well aware of that.
I will just pick the noble Lord up on one of the things he said. He said that we have never had an overrepresentation problem in the UK. I think I would agree with him that we have never had an overrepresentation problem in Great Britain, but those of us who know something about Ulster politics know that there have been interesting issues in Ulster over the past 50 years.
We are exploring further measures to increase student registration ahead of the general election. We are, for example, looking at emerging evidence from pilots undertaken in Sheffield and Manchester that tested the scope for integrating electoral registration with university enrolment. A lot of these things are under way but we do not quite know where we are.
On the question of overseas voters, we will be having a debate on this next week so we will return to it then. Overseas registration, as I think noble Lords will know, is an extreme example of the extent to which the number of voters registered more than doubles in the run-up to a general election and then falls off afterwards, so again we may anticipate that. The extent to which we can encourage more overseas voters on to the register will be assisted by this measure because the easier it is to register online, the more that overseas voters are likely to do so. I hope that I have answered all the questions and points that have been made, and I beg to move.
Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme Order 2014
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme Order 2014.
Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2014
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That the Grand Committee do consider the Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2014.
Relevant Document: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Business Improvement Districts (Property Owners) (England) Regulations 2014
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Business Improvement Districts (Property Owners) (England) Regulations 2014.
Relevant documents: 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will know that business improvement districts provide a mechanism for the local business community to come together and agree to fund improvements to its local trading environment.
Introduced in 2004, business improvement districts have proved to be a popular tool, with more than 180 now in operation across England, many of which are now in their second or third term. However, only the occupiers of property—the business ratepayers—currently can vote in a ballot to establish a business improvement district levy to determine what improvements will be made and agree the funding arrangements. Property owners can contribute but only on a voluntary basis and only after the business improvement district has been established. Not only does this mean that property owners do not get an opportunity to influence the activities or services provided by the business improvement district, but the arrangements are arguably inequitable, because all property owners benefit from the business improvement district’s activities but only some contribute financially
Through these regulations, therefore, we are proposing to give property owners the opportunity to promote their own business improvement districts, where primary legislation allows. I say “where primary legislation allows” because noble Lords should note at this point that property owner business improvement districts can currently exist only where there is a ratepayer business improvement district in operation and where a business rate supplement is being levied. This is because the enabling powers are contained within the Business Rate Supplements Act 2009. As the only business rates supplement currently in operation is in London, to fund the delivery of Crossrail, a property owner business improvement district could be established for the time being only in London. We will, of course, certainly consider rolling out the powers more widely once we have had the chance to review the first schemes.
The case for property owner business improvement districts was recognised during Mary Portas’s 2012 review of the future of the high street. This highlighted the role of property owners in the regeneration of town centres, and she recommended that the Government should legislate to allow landlords to become high-street investors by contributing to their business improvement district. The Government accepted this recommendation and in 2013 consulted on the introduction of property owner business improvement districts. Consultation responses supported the principle of establishing property owner business improvement districts and the detailed approach the Government proposed. That approach was that the rules and procedures for property owner business improvement districts should, as far as possible, mirror that of the successful model adopted for ratepayer business improvement districts. These regulations enshrine that approach.
As with ratepayer business improvement districts, these regulations give a large degree of discretion to the business improvement district proposer. The size and location of a BID, the identification of those liable for the levy—and therefore eligible to vote in the ballot—the amount of levy and the activities or services to provided within the BID are all matters to be determined locally and must be clearly set out in a proposal document. Importantly, it is also for the proposer to set out the type of owner who should be liable for the proposed levy. So, for example, that may be the freeholder or long leaseholder, as the proposer sees fit, taking account of local circumstances. The proposal document should also identify the ballot date, the commencement date, a statement of any existing baseline services in the area and a map and description of the geographical area of the business improvement district. The ballot will be organised and run by the ballot holder, who will be the returning officer for elections for the relevant local authority. The ballot holder will be responsible for issuing the ballot papers and announcing the outcome of the ballot. In doing this, the ballot holder is required to state the total number of votes cast, the aggregate rateable value of each property class identified as being eligible to vote, the total number of votes cast in favour of the question on the ballot paper and the aggregate rateable value of each property class cast in favour of the question on the ballot paper
A business improvement district can be established only if the outcome of the ballot confirms that a majority of both the number of persons voting and the aggregate rateable value have voted in favour of the proposals. This mechanism provides protection against the setting of excessive levies. Once a property owner business improvement district has been established, the relevant billing authority will be responsible for issuing bills and collecting the levy, thereby maintaining consistency with the existing ratepayer business improvement district and business rate supplement. The authority will also be required to hold a separate business improvement district revenue account. The billing authority can also veto the establishment of a business improvement district where they feel the activities of the business improvement district conflicts with any of their policies or where they consider that there is a significant and inequitable financial burden on a particular class of property owner.
Noble Lords may also wish to note that there is a right of appeal against the ballot where a material irregularity appears to have occurred. A request to the Secretary of State to declare the ballot void must be made within 28 days of the notification of the outcome of the ballot and can be made by the billing authority, the business improvement district proposer or a person representing at least 5% of those eligible to vote. These regulations allow for the creation of property owner business improvement districts, which I believe will offer a welcome addition to tools this Government have provided to regenerate the high street and help businesses to grow, and will do so via a set of rules and safeguards built on tried and tested ratepayer business improvement district regulations. I commend this order to the House.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I should make it clear that we support the proposition of property owners, the business community and local authorities working together to improve the local trading environment. BIDs themselves have a cross-party pedigree in that it was the Conservative Government who commissioned research in 1997 to assess how they might be established and it was the former Labour Government who legislated for their introduction. I was going to ask the Minister how many BIDs are currently in existence, but the noble Baroness answered that question. I think there are more than 180, with some in their second and third term.
BIDs were driven by a ballot of all non-domestic ratepayers in a proposed area. The idea of a property owner BID is driven, as the name suggests, by the ownership of property rather than its occupation, although a person could qualify under both. Property owner BIDs have developed from the Portas review of high streets. It is understood that the legislation will allow a property owner BID only for areas where there is both a ratepayer BID in place and a business rate supplement being levied. The noble Baroness confirmed that in introducing these regulations. A business rate supplement can be levied by upper-tier authorities in order to fund economic development projects. The Explanatory Note and the Minister today remind us that a business rate supplement is being levied at present only by authorities in London for Crossrail, so it would be possible to have a property owner BID only in London at the current time. Can the Minister say more about why the BRS is seen as a prerequisite for a property owner BID? What does she see as the timing of looking at developing this so that other areas of the country have an opportunity to undertake the same sort of investments? Are there any proposals for the BRS to be levied elsewhere? If not, it would seem that the rest of England is missing out. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us what the position in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales is in this regard.
I have a number of other questions. Where the property ownership involves a freeholder or a leaseholder, or possibly a sub-lessee, as well as a tenant, who will have the right to vote in a ballot for a property BID? As I understand it, the noble Baroness suggested that it would be for the proposer of the property owner BID to decide who should be on the electoral roll for these purposes and subject to the levy, but it would be helpful to have some clarification of that. Would it always have to be the same type of ownership? Would it be possible for a proposer of a BID to say that it would be freeholders in some instances and long-leaseholders in other instances who would be involved in these arrangements?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his constructive comments and questions and for the interesting history that has led to this on a cross-party basis, which is always good. The noble Lord’s first question was why BRS was a prerequisite. It is because that was how the legislation was framed back in 2009. He also asked whether it would be possible for the proposer to decide to levy only on leaseholders or freeholders. The answer is yes: it is at the discretion of the BID proposer to decide who should be levied.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Could I clarify that with the Minister? Can the promoter of the property-related BID choose that it is a freeholder in one case, long leaseholders in another and a sub-lessee in another? What sort of information is expected and on what basis will those judgments be made?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will get the answer to that in a second. I am guessing that it would not be possible for him to discriminate against somebody because they were a freeholder and that it would be in relation to the types of property that were in the BID.
The noble Lord’s other question was what would happen if there were outstanding contracts when the five years were up. The BID body is expected to manage its business while recognising the potentially limited timeframe in which the BID will exist. It is a short timeframe but it can be renewed. The noble Lord also asked about conflict.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the answer to the question of whether the proposer can differentiate between leaseholder and freeholder is yes, but he has to give a reason why in the proposal. I am sorry, I have completely lost my stride, but I am sure the noble Lord will tell me if I have missed any questions out.
There was also a question on multiple ownership and what would happen if more than one person was levied and voted in the ballot—that is, a leaseholder and a freeholder both have an interest in the property. There could be more than one property owner in respect of the same hereditament. The legislation provides that in those instances the rateable value is divided between the owners for the purposes of calculating the result of the ballot.
On the question of what happens if a BID conflicts with an existing ratepayer BID, the only conflict that could occur would be around what each BID is doing. In practice, we would not expect this to happen and would expect proposers of a property owner BID to be talking to an existing BID company about the value that they could add.
The noble Lord asked whether there are plans to levy business rate supplements elsewhere. Not that we are aware of. We have addressed the question of outstanding contracts and when the five years are up. I think that I have answered all the questions but I am very happy for the noble Lord to intervene if I have not.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am grateful to the Minister for a good set of replies. Can I come back on the issue of multiple ownership? Let us assume that there was a person who owned two freeholds and each was occupied directly so the divvying up of rateable values was not an issue. When it comes to a vote, you look at the numbers of voters and the aggregate rateable value. If someone owns two properties, are they counted twice for those purposes or only once?
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I want to make one final point on the issue of terminating arrangements. Say you had a property owners’ BID—which might be expected to last for three years if there are two years gone of the other one—but the ratepayers’ BID was terminated early for some reason, that would automatically bring to an end the property owners’ BID. Obviously, if that was prior to its expected end, there could be contractual issues. How might that be resolved? Have those situations arisen under ratepayers’ BIDs?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am guessing that they would follow the same legal arrangements as any contractual arrangements and be dealt with in the proper legal way—breach of contract, for example.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
House of Lords
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Income Tax
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wood of Anfield
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the level of income tax receipts so far this financial year.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the Office for National Statistics’ latest estimate for income tax and capital gains tax for the period April to September 2014 is £71.5 billion.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that precise answer. As today’s alarming ONS figures confirm, this Government are presiding over a recovery in which wages, far from recovering, have continued to deteriorate. As a result, the public finances are getting worse and social security spending targets are being missed by over £15 billion. The deficit continues to rise. Will the Minister tell us why this is the case, and say whether he agrees that in the light of this, the Prime Minister’s promise in October of further unfunded tax cuts lies somewhere between heroic and reckless?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, and the House, that growth in the UK is the highest among the G7 countries; that unemployment has fallen by 324,000 in the past year; and that the other piece of news today, which he omitted to mention, is that the gender pay gap has fallen to an all-time low.
Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)
Does my noble friend not agree that the most important point is that 3 million people at the bottom of the earnings pile, including 1.8 million women, have been taken out of income tax completely? At the same time, the Revenue’s take has increased by some £5.1 billion over the past year. Is that not a classic example of a stronger economy and a fairer society?
Baroness Nye (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister say whether the Government are planning to raise VAT again to fill the hole in the tax receipts?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government have absolutely no plans to increase VAT.
Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)
My Lords, is it not a bit cheeky for the noble Lord, who is the eminence grise of the party opposite, to talk about recklessness, when his party’s policy is to increase the deficit even more?
Lord Newby
My Lords, it is not always that I agree with my noble friend—but in this case I do.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, how will the deficit be reduced if wages continue to fall, as they have done for 71 out of 74 months, and if, as has happened for virtually the whole of this Administration, wages fall in real terms, so that less tax is paid?
Lord Newby
My Lords, wages have fallen, but they have started rising in real terms. The OBR and every other forecaster that has made projections of real wages for the next few years in the British economy are firmly forecasting consistent real-wage growth.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend tell us what the effect of cutting the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p was? Did revenues go up or did they go down? What was the effect of putting up the capital gains tax rate? Did revenues go up or did they go down?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the impact of the reduction in the 50p tax rate was about £100 million, when all the secondary effects were taken into account. In respect of capital gains tax, I will need to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
Did the Minister see the research recently which said that paying a living wage encouraged people to be more productive and raised the level of income tax? Why do the Government not just do it?
Lord Newby
My Lords, paying the living wage is something that the Government support but, as we have discussed before in your Lordships’ House, there is a balance between rising wages and unemployment. That is the basis on which the minimum wage is set. I gave an example from the Dispatch Box the last time we discussed this: having spoken to people working in the textile industry in Leicester, they demonstrated to me that a big increase in the wage that they were paid would mean that fewer of them would be earning it, because they would be out of the job.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, is it not the case that income tax should be a good deal higher, particularly if those in the higher ranges of income paid their full amount of tax? What are we doing to tighten the receipt of income tax from all who should pay it?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the amount of income tax paid by the top 1% is now 28% of the total income tax revenues, which is the highest proportion it has ever been. That is because this Government have put substantially more money into fighting tax avoidance and evasion—far, far more—than the previous Administration.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard various Ministers refer to government employees in terms of paying the living wage. It appears to be a sort of “This ministry does, this ministry doesn’t” situation. Why does not the whole of government do that, particularly given that some of the people who work in those government departments live in London, where the cost of living is very high?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government support the principle of paying the minimum wage. A number of government departments are already doing it and others are considering introducing it.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, what progress are the Government making on multinational corporate taxation to ensure that UK-domiciled companies are not discriminated against in terms of international and UK markets?
Lord Newby
My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, at the G20 last year the Prime Minister had this issue at the top of the agenda, since when the OECD has produced a whole raft of measures aimed at ensuring that companies pay their fair share of tax. Noble Lords will have seen the end of what was called the “double Irish” tax avoidance scheme in Ireland, and there are currently European Commission probes against tax avoidance in the Netherlands and Luxembourg. There has been a real tightening-up in this area, which was reinforced at the recent G20 summit.
Lord Hughes of Woodside (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister reflect on what he has just said? If I heard him right, he said that most government departments were paying the minimum wage and that some are considering introducing it. Was that a slip of the tongue? Surely, no government department is paying less than the minimum wage. Did he mix up the minimum wage and the living wage?
Lord Newby
I am not sure, my Lords, but what I meant to say was that while all government departments obviously pay the minimum wage, a number are paying the living wage and we are encouraging more to do that.
EU: Reform
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Maclennan of Rogart
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with European Union institutions about proposed reforms of the European Union.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, Ministers regularly discuss EU reform with counterparts in the EU institutions. The appointment of a new Commission offers a new opportunity for continued engagement on this subject. The Foreign Secretary held discussions with the European Commissioners’ first vice-president on this subject only two days ago. We will continue to take every opportunity to work with our European partners to achieve the reforms that Europe needs.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. If the Government wish to see constructive and democratic reforms introduced into the governance and operation of the European Union, why are they not more open about their proposals? Would they not be more likely to succeed if they were to seek to initiate a new convention on the future of Europe which could achieve consensus about reform rather than threatening the other 27 member states with possible break-up?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we have been very transparent about the reforms we want. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister have set out publicly their vision for a more competitive, flexible and democratically accountable EU, with fair treatment for those within the eurozone and those outside it. That is in the interests of all member states. My noble friend refers to the potential for a convention. The only convention to date that has examined extensive revision of the treaties is the one in which my noble friend served some while ago. It compromised 105 full members, including Heads of State, members of national Parliaments, MEPs and Commission representatives, and the process took two and a half years. As a mature organisation, Heads of State are capable of talking to each other and coming to mature decisions.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that Sir John Major commands enormous respect on all sides of this House. Will she therefore endorse very clearly what he said last week about our membership of the European Union: that despite the frustrations of membership, which are many, and despite the reforms that are needed, which are many, there is absolutely no doubt—without equivocation—that our interests lie in remaining a member of the EU? Do this Government agree with the former Conservative Prime Minister?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I admire Sir John Major. I know the work he did as Prime Minister and within European matters, and the struggles that he faced. He above all people knows what is involved. I agree with what he said, which was that our future is within a reformed European Union. The Prime Minister David Cameron has said that, too.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that successful and fundamental EU reform, which is badly needed, requires two things: first, a very strong alliance of the peoples and the Governments of the European Union, many of whom are longing for really radical reform to bring the EU into the 21st century and, secondly, a deeply thought-out strategy for the kind of EU model we need to work in the 21st century, which is at present lacking? Will she assure us that at the highest level these matters are being given very strong attention and are being pursued vigorously?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I can. The contribution made yesterday by the German deputy Finance Minister on “Newsnight” made it clear that strong and productive discussions are afoot.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that once the opt-back-in to the 35 measures is complete, the UK will be in a strong position to push for reform in the areas of policing and criminal justice and civil liberties, including reform of the European arrest warrant, which is needed, as well as staying within the instrument itself?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, this Government have already reformed the process of the European arrest warrant. It is different from that which this House passed in 2004. The Government are strongly of the opinion that further reform is necessary across all aspects of EU activity to make it more flexible, competitive and democratically accountable.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister reflect a moment longer on the Answer she gave to the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, about the idea of a convention, which was echoed to some extent by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford? It is not just a question of Heads of Government making decisions; it is a question of Heads of Government being able to convince their Parliaments about what is necessary in a reformed Europe. To do that, we need a wider coming together of the various political groupings in Europe. I think the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, is on to something and I ask the Minister to reflect again on that.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I agree that the European Union needs to be more democratically accountable, and any changes within the European Union should therefore involve the participation of national Parliaments. There is much that can be done to ensure that national Parliaments have a stronger role to play. We now have a new Commission and a new head of the Commission, and there are prospects for a very constructive discussion about how we take these matters forward. In the first instance, it takes leadership and that is what the various Governments throughout Europe are showing now.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the championing of the single market under the Single European Act 1986 was one of Margaret Thatcher’s great achievements as Prime Minister, aided by a Member of your Lordships’ House, Lord Cockfield? Does she further agree that, about 30 years on from that date, there will inevitably be a number of areas where adjustments can and should be made in the interests of all member states without undermining the basic principles on which the single market is based?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, yes, I agree with my noble friend. I have tried to argue over the last four or five weeks that the single market is, indeed, a British success story—my noble friend makes an important point. The United Kingdom has played a leading role in shaping the single market. We have been instrumental in driving its continued liberalisation, particularly in services. My noble friend is right; this is 30 years on, so while the single market is Europe’s greatest success, it must reflect the needs of the 21st century, with a stronger market, particularly in services, both digital and in energy. Further reforms are needed and we can lead on that.
EU: Migration
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lea of Crondall
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have made any proposal to other European Union member states, either severally or collectively, which would limit (1) the right of United Kingdom citizens to live and work in other European Union member states, or (2) the parallel right of citizens of other European Union member states to live and work in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have regularly engaged with other member states on the issue of free movement, the Home Secretary has consistently pressed for action on abuse and the European Council has recognised that this issue needs to be tackled. The Government have also started a debate on reforming the transitional controls for new member states and will engage constructively with other member states in discussion on how best to achieve change in this area.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his reply, which means no. The reason it is no is that it has obviously dawned on the Government, belatedly, that this would require reciprocation by all the rest of the 28 member states.
I have two supplementaries. First, does the Minister agree that there is a broad balance at the moment, not by design but by the facts on the ground, between the number of Brits living over there, in the EU, and the number of Europeans coming here? Roughly 2.2 million gain a living there and there are a few more here. Secondly, is the Minister aware that it is not exceptional to have this arrangement in Britain? Does he agree that, for example, there are far more people from the rest of the EU living in Germany—not least from Greece and Romania—than are living here in Britain?
Lord Bates
First, my initial Answer was yes not no. It was that we have been engaging with Europe. The European Commission has endorsed this approach. The noble Lord referred to Germany. The German Government are passing legislation through the Bundestag to restrict the benefits of those who come to Germany when they are not genuinely seeking work. It was tested in the European Court of Justice. These are exactly the types of reforms and reviews which we have been pushing, from our side, and which are getting greater support across the other member states of the European Union.
Lord Deben (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that tone is very important in these issues? We should show quite clearly how much we benefit from the large number of people from the rest of the European Union working here, and how much the rest of the European Union benefits from people from the United Kingdom going there. If we talked a bit more cheerfully about this—the greatest peacetime achievement that has happened in Europe—perhaps people would be more willing to listen to our comments.
Lord Bates
I totally agree with my noble friend about tone. The British people have a reputation for hospitality and tolerance and have welcomed people who are making a positive contribution to our society. However, that of course has its limits and we need to be mindful that there is great concern about unrestricted, uncontrolled immigration into this country and the impact it has upon social cohesion and our public services.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the reputation that this country has for hospitality. Is he aware of an associated issue: the difficulty that members of the Commonwealth face in obtaining a visa even to visit, let alone to work and live in this country, which seriously hampers a lot of very important overseas links with dioceses, including my own—so much so that my friends in Tanzania were unable to be present at my wife’s funeral earlier this year? Is that sort of impediment government policy and, if not, can he assure us that it will be addressed?
Lord Bates
We very much encourage people to come to this country, whether to study or to work. We want to encourage the best and the brightest to come to this country, as well as tourists; there are many people we want to encourage—but there is a difference between that and people who significantly abuse the system in coming here because of benefits.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, the very useful statistics on the numbers of EU citizens here as opposed to British citizens living in the EU brought forward by my noble friend Lord Lea—it is about exactly the same—and given the statement the other day by the director-general of the CBI, who does not know of a company in this country that is not in some degree dependent on immigration, will the Government agree that free movement of labour, apart from being a most valuable human right, is actually a factor of considerable economic importance in this country?
Lord Bates
We totally agree with that. I have to say that the figures that I have are that there are 2.3 million EU nationals living in the UK and 1.4 million British citizens living in the EU. Those are very important for the success of the single market, which has already been referred to. Of course we welcome people who genuinely want to come here to work, study or visit.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has a proud record of campaigning for the enlargement of the EU and bringing our eastern colleagues in Europe into the fold of the European Union. We have had great credit for that in the past. Is it not a great shame that through our rhetoric we are turning those countries that came into the European Union in 2004 from friends into people who resent our attitudes towards them?
Lord Bates
I do not accept the premise that we are alienating people. People recognise that there are legitimate concerns here; if proper transitional arrangements are put in place, that can aid relations between both countries, such as the ones that we have used in the case of Croatia, which will remain in place until 2019.
Baroness Sharples (Con)
My Lords, is it not the fact that the number of children coming into school with English as their second language has risen from 6% last year to 16% this year?
Lord Bates
My noble friend is absolutely right, and that is one reason why we have said that it is a condition of immigration that the English language must be an important part of that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will have heard the disappointment and concern on his side of the House that the Government do not seem to be building workable relations with other countries in the European Union. That makes any change much more difficult. Could the Minister tell me specifically which member states have backed the Prime Minister’s proposals to restrict free movement within Europe?
Lord Bates
We are not talking about restricting the free movement of labour—we are talking about restricting the free movement of benefits. I have already listed a number of countries, and Germany is a prime one, which have particular concerns on this that are shared. That includes some of the Nordic countries as well. Some of those countries also had transitional arrangements put in place when we enlarged with the A10 countries in 2004, which the previous Government did not put in place. That led to the major problem that we are now living under.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, in the context of this Question, and the previous one, how do we reform the European court?
Lord Bates
I was going to say that that is a question for another day. That will of course be part of any wider negotiation, but let us recognise that in the case brought by the German Government before the European court about benefit tourism—the Dano case—the court actually upheld the decision, which is something that we and the German Government welcome.
Alcohol: Sale to Children
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Baroness Williams of Trafford on 17 November, in what manner the proposal to repeal the restriction on the sale of liqueurs to children formed part of the public consultation on the Deregulation Bill.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the proposal to repeal the offence of selling liqueur confectionery to those under the age of 16 is part of the Government’s Red Tape Challenge, which seeks to remove unnecessary burdens from businesses. A public consultation led jointly by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Cabinet Office asked businesses and members of the public for their views on deregulating a wide range of regulated activity.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for at last answering the questions I raised on that, but I find her Answer quite unacceptable. I have before me the policy guide to the Deregulation Bill, published by the Cabinet Office for the Minister responsible, which says under the details of consultation only:
“The proposal has not been part of the public consultation, but was suggested by business”.
That was produced by the Cabinet Office. Why do the Home Office, the Ministers and others concerned not know what is happening on this?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, it is my understanding that the consultation was open to both businesses and members of the public.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is my noble friend aware that I sat on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee for the Deregulation Bill, and that it was made clear to the members of that committee that, yes, each department was asked to put forward proposals, and anybody— an organisation, an individual or any party that had validity in the United Kingdom—could make representations? Indeed, in some areas huge numbers of representations were received. My noble friend is absolutely right. Representations did not come just from business; it was open to anybody who wanted to make a submission on liqueur chocolates to do so.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That is indeed my understanding. I thank my noble friend for his clarification.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Does the noble Baroness agree that it might have been a better hallmark of responsibility and of trust towards young people had there been an investigation by health authorities of the possible injurious effect of the ingestion of alcohol in any form on young people; and that that would have been much better than surrendering to the blandishments of business, which might not be entirely free of self-interest?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, it is my understanding that concerns were not raised by any health bodies on the matters that we are discussing today.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I would press the noble Baroness on this, because there is some confusion. In Committee, when this was discussed, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who was answering for the Government, said that it was not a matter for business and business had not asked for this. He thought it was a retail issue. However, the consultation policy briefing document from the Cabinet Office says:
“The proposal has not been part of the public consultation, but was suggested by business”.
Given that there are some concerns, which may or may not be justified, about deregulating the sale of liqueur chocolates to children, would it not be better, as the noble Lord said, to consult those who have an interest in public health and are concerned about alcohol misuse, and ask what their views are? Would that not be the more sensible way forward on an issue that is becoming controversial?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, obviously I was not there on the Deregulation Bill, but it is my understanding that this consultation was open to anybody who wished to respond to it. It was widely advertised on the government website and, as I just said to the noble Lord, health bodies did not raise concerns about liqueur chocolates on this theme of restricted goods.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, did the Government take or seek advice from the BMA, Alcohol Concern, the Institute of Alcohol Studies or any other organisation concerned with the huge problem of alcohol harm in children?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am sorry, but I did not catch the last bit of my noble friend’s question. As I have said, I understand that those bodies did not raise concerns on this element of deregulation.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
I regret having to come back to this but we must get to the truth. This was not part of the consultation. Indeed, this document has been taken down from the Cabinet Office website. Why, when the health of children is affected, have the Government not consulted their Chief Medical Officer, who is opposed, Public Health England and all the other health authorities that have a view—a view that they have so far not expressed because they have not been invited or asked to consult?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I can have a note sent to the noble Lord about why specifically health bodies were not consulted. In seeking to get the truth, I can assure the noble Lord that I am not evading it, but answering with the best information that I have.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, may I seek clarification? The Question refers to liqueurs; the Minister has referred to liqueur chocolates. Which is it?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think that the noble Lord is referring to liqueur chocolates.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, is not the issue that there was a general consultation, which asked, “Do you have any ideas for deregulation?”. That is how, on licensing, the idea of deregulating liqueur chocolates came into being. That is the issue and the truth. The truth is that the idea of carrying out this precise measure was never put to anybody else. Health authorities would probably never even dream that somebody would be daft enough to include that in the Deregulation Bill.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally agree with the first part of the noble Baroness’s question, which she put very clearly—it was all part of the Licensing Act and general deregulation. As I said, there has been no response from health authorities on concerns over chocolate confectionery, but it was covered by the general strand of restricted goods.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, is not the most dangerous ingredient in liqueur chocolates sugar?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Judging by the unfortunate times when I have had to eat them, yes, it is.
Insurance Bill [HL]
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to the Special Public Bill Committee on the Insurance Bill [HL];
L Ashton of Hyde, L Carrington of Fulham, L Davidson of Glen Clova, Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L Lea of Crondall, L McNally, L Newby, B Noakes, L Woolf (Chairman);
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the evidence taken by the Committee shall, if the Committee so wishes, be published
Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chairman of Committees
That Lord Trimble be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, resigned.
Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 5) Regulations 2014
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 October be approved.
Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 17 November
Broadcasting (Independent Productions) (Amendment) Order 2014
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 8 and 21 July be approved.
Relevant documents: 8th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 6th Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee, considered in Grand Committee on 17 November
Infrastructure Bill [HL]
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Infrastructure Bill, has consented to place her interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Amendment 1
Baroness Kramer
“General duties of a strategic highways company
(1) A strategic highways company must, in exercising its functions, co-operate in so far as reasonably practicable with other persons exercising functions which relate to—
(a) highways, or(b) planning.(2) A strategic highways company must also, in exercising its functions, have regard to the effect of the exercise of those functions on—
(a) the environment, and(b) the safety of users of highways.”
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Kramer) (LD)
My Lords, I agreed on Report to come back with amendments on two aspects over which noble Lords had concerns. I tabled Amendment 1 in recognition of noble Lords’ preference for the strategic highways company’s duties to be stated in legislation. It places a duty on the company in relation to the environment, safety and co-operation, noble Lords having expressed the strongest concern that that should be made clear. We have already made considerable change in taking on board concerns that were raised in Committee and on Report. It is the Government who must set broad policy on the environment and road safety and noble Lords will be aware that we have already amended the Bill to include an obligation on the Government to have regard to the environment and safety of users of the highway when setting or varying the road investment strategy. We are now taking this further by placing a duty on the company to consider those matters, meaning that the company itself is obliged to consider the impact of its operations on environment and safety.
Moreover, your Lordships will know that we have made changes to the powers of the monitor—the ORR—to hold the company to account and to measure and report on the company’s performance and whether it is meeting its duties, including on the environment and safety. I remind your Lordships that, in parallel with these high-level duties, we are using statutory directions and guidance from the Secretary of State to steer the company in the way it exercises its functions. We have extensively redrafted these prior to Report to reflect your Lordships’ concerns and these same issues are covered in great detail there.
In addition, your Lordships will note that we have also done even more than relying on statutory direction or guidance to ensure that the company co-operates. It now has a clear duty to co-operate in the areas of highways and planning with local authorities, devolved Governments, operational partners—such as the police and emergency services—other transport operators, and other bodies with a significant stake in the long-term development of the network.
I tabled Amendment 16 in recognition of your Lordships’ concern that there may be more than one strategic highways company provided for in Part 1 of the Bill. I have explained to the House that the Government have no plans to create more than one company and that the Highways Agency—in its new status as a government-owned company—will be the only company appointed when we bring these provisions into force. I recognise that further reassurance is needed on this point and therefore propose an amendment requiring parliamentary approval if the Secretary of State wishes to make an appointment order under Clause 1 which involves moving away from a single company structure. This strikes a balance in providing the flexibility for future Governments to move to a different structure—for example, a regional structure—should it be needed or desired, without the need for further primary legislation on the point, while meeting your Lordships’ desire for further discussion and approval by Parliament on the detail of how a multiple company structure would work in practice before allowing it to proceed. I hope that this provides a sensible compromise between your Lordships’ concerns and our desire to maintain a potentially useful option for the future, and for this reason.
In summary, I hope your Lordships recognise the effort we have made to ensure that there can be no doubt about what responsibilities the company has or how it will be held to account and that we have advanced considerable changes to meet the views expressed in this House. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for these amendments, which certainly improve the Bill. I congratulate the Minister on the way she has conducted herself at the various stages of the Bill and on bringing forward these amendments in response to the arguments put forward in Committee. Those arguments were put forward particularly forcefully by my noble friends Lord Whitty, Lord Faulkner and Lord Berkeley. As the Minister will know, we started off with a great many reservations about the nature of the Bill and we are very pleased that the Government have gone some of the way towards making it slightly more difficult for multiple strategic highways companies to be set up. Amendment 16 ensures that Parliament will have a say on this, which is very much to be welcomed. I particularly appreciate Amendment 1, which ensures that the strategic highways company has regard to the environment and to the safety of users of the highways. These were issues about which we were very concerned on the Opposition Benches and we are pleased that the Minister has seen fit to propose amendments to the Bill as it then was.
However, it is still the case—as I am going to speak only once I hope the Minister will forgive me for moving a little further on—that there are questions which the Government have not adequately considered. An example is the needs of local roads in dealing with the challenges of huge numbers of potholes and the projected increase in traffic. The fact is that it is not the strategic system which creates the majority of problems for road users but local roads. The same applies to safety, where the Government have presided over a large reduction in road safety budgets and further action may be required. Among others, I obviously mention the issue of cyclists. That may seem marginal in a Bill that is predominantly concerned with strategic highways but, if one is talking about safety, one has to look at the growing use of cycles on our roads. That is greatly to be welcomed in many respects—provided that cyclists obey the law, I hasten to add—but we must also ensure that we do not get the kind of significant increase in cycling accidents that we have seen in recent years.
Baroness Kramer
Baroness Kramer
I shall speak also to Amendments 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12. Maximising the release of surplus public sector land is critical to supporting the Government’s ambitions to reduce the deficit, increase the number of houses being built and help to drive economic growth.
The new public sector land programme from 2015-16 will mean transferring a significant amount of surplus and developable land from government bodies to the Homes and Communities Agency and, in London, to the Greater London Authority. Disused government land can and does already transfer to the Homes and Communities Agency but the process is often more bureaucratic than is necessary. Clause 26 is about simply increasing the rate of delivery and efficiency by streamlining what essentially is an internal government procedure.
As I believe the House now largely accepts, the intention behind Clause 26 is not and has never been to sell off the nation’s forests. In recognition, however, of the strength of the House’s concern about the future security of the public forest estate, my noble friend Lord Ahmad committed on Report to table an amendment to make it clear in law that the public forest estate will not transfer to the HCA. The amendment we have tabled will prevent transfer of the public forest estate to both the Homes and Communities Agency and the Greater London Authority.
We have gone further than the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. Our amendment additionally seeks to address an oversight we have now identified in the original Housing and Regeneration Act 2008, which was passed under the previous Government. Section 51 of that Act makes it possible for land owned by central government to transfer directly to the HCA. The public forest estate is, of course, owned by central government and not—as we have repeatedly made clear when asked about these clauses—by an arm’s-length body. Needless to say, since the Labour Government introduced powers to transfer the public forest estate to the HCA six years ago, we have not used them. I am sure the fact that the legislation allowed this was an oversight rather than intentional, so we are now amending the 2008 Act to prevent any transfers under these existing powers. This now covers any transfers from a government department to the HCA where the land is part of the public forest estate.
I also make it clear that our amendment already covers the contingency that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, seek to address. Our amendment will prevent the transfer of any land that is held by the Secretary of State and has been acquired, or is treated as having been acquired, under Section 39 of the Forestry Act 1967. This definition, therefore, covers all land that is under the management of the forestry commissioners at any given time, as well as land that is not being used for afforestation or purposes connected with forestry. I trust that this amendment will provide the comfort that noble Lords have sought on this issue.
In the same debate on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, raised a query about the potential scope of this clause, asking whether the definition of “public bodies” is too broad for the stated aims of the clause and whether it could, for example, allow for the transfer of land owned by charities. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has written to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, to set out why we think this clause is not likely to extend to the transfer of land from charities. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, we wish to make it clear in the Bill that transfers to the HCA or GLA using this power may happen only with the consent of the transferring body. I trust that this will allay any concerns that there would be any potential for a future Government to misuse this power. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 5, 7, 11, 13 and 14. I thank the Minister for coming back with the government amendments. I know that campaigners who have fought to protect our forests are also pleased that the Government have responded to their concerns. I am also grateful to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and their officials for the work they have put into ensuring that the exemption of the public forest estate from the Infrastructure Bill is in the Bill. However, while I accept what the Minister is saying about an oversight, her line of argument appears contradictory to statements at previous stages of the Bill when it was said that transfers of the PFE under this legislation could not happen. However, that is history.
I have tabled amendments to the government amendments with one aim—to make sure that the entire public forest is given the protection that noble Lords and campaigners have asked for throughout the passage of the Bill. However, I am still concerned about forest waste. Forest waste—in the forest that I know best, the Forest of Dean—is usually taken to mean land within or on the margins of the forest, not planted or used for forestry purposes. Forest waste is of great value in terms of biodiversity, ecology, amenity and recreation. Within the Forest of Dean there are a number of gales—shallow workings mined by free miners. These mines are clearly not used for afforestation or in connection with forestry, but they are a central part of the history and character of the Forest of Dean.
I am concerned that this forest waste may not be included and there could be some ambiguity as to whether it is suitable for afforestation or purposes connected with forestry. My disquiet is principally due to the part in brackets in Amendment 12 that states:
“(power to acquire land which is suitable for afforestation or purposes connected with forestry)”.
That does not include,
“together with any other land which must necessarily be acquired therewith”,
which is in Section 39(1) of the Forestry Act. I would be grateful for clarification from the Minister on that point. Will she confirm that forest waste is exempted from the Infrastructure Bill? In which case, I hope that she will accept my amendment as confirmation that this is the case.
Once again, this reflects the key message that arose repeatedly in our debate on Report on the need for the Government to legislate through a forestry Bill to protect the public forest estate. As the Woodland Trust said in its briefing ahead of Third Reading, for which I am grateful:
“We hope that the Third Reading debate, any subsequent further amendment—and scrutiny in the Commons—will ensure that protection is as strong as possible. Whatever the outcome of the Bill’s passage, however, it has to be said that this is a row of the Government’s own making through not bringing forward a Forestry Bill as promised. Indeed, this assurance within the Infrastructure Bill cannot be deemed a substitute for the bringing forward of legislation for the Public Forest Estate; a specific Forestry Bill is still needed to settle the future of the PFE and for the avoidance of any future doubt or confusion as to its status. We want to see that legislation brought forward at the earliest opportunity after the election”.
I strongly echo those sentiments. Again, I thank the Minister, but I also pay tribute to the campaigners, particularly those from HOOF who, through their dedication, care and passionate love of the forest, have fought time and again to ensure that it is protected for future generations.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. I take her point about forest waste. Equally, I am very grateful to the Government for the way in which they brought forward these proposals. On the face of it, they take us further forward and appear to give us greater protection.
I am delighted that the Government managed to find a weakness in the 2008 Act but it is very important that the assurance that I think the Minister gave today was that it included all land managed by forest commissioners. That is very important because, in recent years, we have had joint initiatives and joint ventures with the private sector that are not forestry—the provision of forest cabins, car parks, and so on. I remind the Minister that the Wildlife and Countryside (Amendment) Act 1985 required statutorily the Forestry Commission to manage economic forestry with environmental interests.
My noble friend referred to forest waste, which is vital. The Lake District, for example, includes a great many of the highest mountains in England, and is owned by the Forestry Commission but trees will not grow there and are not planted there. We must have an assurance that those areas of land are covered by the protection that the Minister seems to have brought forward today.
Lord Jenkin of Roding (Con)
My Lords, I do not begin to claim the same amount of expertise as the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, who of course is a former chairman of the Forestry Commission. We listen to him with huge respect on these matters.
I was puzzled by the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and was not quite sure about its precise aim until she explained. I was under the impression that when my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon undertook to bring back amendments at this stage, he greatly satisfied the House. A very strong case had been made by the noble Baroness and by other noble Lords that there was a real need to declare in the Bill the protection of the public forestry estate. I supported that and I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Ahmad at the end of the debate recognise the strength of feeling in the House and undertake to come back at this stage with the amendments.
Lord Judd (Lab)
At earlier stages of the Bill, I drew attention to the widespread and spontaneous concern—quite unprecedented in some ways—that had come from people right across the country about the precious and special nature of our forests. I think, therefore, that among a lot of people, there will be a great sense of relief at the amendment that the Government have introduced. Credit should be paid to them for the very commendable way in which they listened to the argument, went away and came back and responded to what the House said.
As for my noble friend’s amendment, I totally see the logic and importance of it. If we have just said that the other amendment is essential because of the very special nature of the forests—let us not be afraid of these phrases: the atmospheric nature of the forests, the spiritual nature of the forests, the physical and recreational nature of the forests—it really is important that intrusions, by carelessness or deliberate action, which spoil that special nature should be dealt with in a way that preserves the special characteristics of the forest. The two amendments go completely together. I hope that the Government will be able to take very seriously what my noble friend has argued and accommodate it.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
I congratulate the Minister on listening to the points that a lot of us in this House made. As a rider to what has been said, a very important part of forestry—speaking as someone who has some—are those strips of land where you can extract timber to cut it up and prepare it to go to the timber mill or wherever it is going. This area that we talk of as waste is vital. To people in the country, it is not unlike those elements that you get at the sides of fields that are often put to set-aside or for biodiversity. The amendment makes a very good point and I am sure that the Minister will reassure us on it.
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I think that we are all at the same place on this. My argument against the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is that they are unnecessary, because the issue is entirely covered in the language that I hope we will be bringing into the Bill through amendment, if your Lordships agree. The amendments prevent the transfer of any land held by the Secretary of State that has been acquired—remember, this is government-owned land—or is treated as having been acquired under Section 39 of the Forestry Act 1967. As I said earlier, that covers all land that is under the management of the forestry commissioners at any given time—whether by freehold or leasehold—and includes any land that is not being used for afforestation but is still under the management of the forestry commissioners or is not being used for purposes connected with forestry.
The provision is widely drawn. Not only does it include forest waste, it includes the kind of ancillary facilities that many noble Lords have pointed out are necessary. Indeed, there is not even a necessary test: it simply has to be under the management of the Forestry Commissioners. I am sure that that is exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the various campaigners were attempting to achieve.
We think that we have done this rather effectively because one of the challenges of writing legislation is to make sure that we do not include another unintended loophole. We think that this approach is rather effective. I hope that noble Lords will understand why I will resist the amendment because I believe that its principle is well incorporated into the amendments that we introduced.
This may be the last time that I have the opportunity to speak in the House on this phase of the Bill before it goes to the other place. The last group of amendments will be led from the Government’s perspective by my noble friend Lady Verma. I want to say that, in a sense, this last discussion reflects what has been an extraordinary quality of this Bill, for which I thank the whole House. So many Members of the House have taken responsibility for raising issues of concern, strengthening the Bill, looking for ways to make it more effective and recognising the underlying purpose and intent. The collaborative attitude of so many Members of this House—I include the Opposition in that—has led us to a Bill that will serve its purpose even better than the Bill that we originally drafted.
At the same time, I want to thank the most extraordinary Bill team who have facilitated and made all of that possible, and the staff from the many departments that have contributed to the Bill. They have shown an exemplary service in making sure the legislation reflects the genuine intent of this House. I thank the House for allowing me to proceed with this as well. The last group of amendments will be led by my noble friend Lady Verma.
Baroness Kramer
“(4A) The Secretary of State may not make a scheme under this section unless the specified public body to which the scheme relates has consented to its provisions.”
Baroness Kramer
“(4B) A scheme under this section may not make provision in relation to land which is held by the Secretary of State and was acquired, or is treated as having been acquired, under section 39 of the Forestry Act 1967 (power to acquire land which is suitable for afforestation or purposes connected with forestry).”
Baroness Kramer
“(2A) In section 51 (property etc transfers) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) A scheme under this section may not make provision in relation to land which is held by the Secretary of State and was acquired, or is treated as having been acquired, under section 39 of the Forestry Act 1967 (power to acquire land which is suitable for afforestation or purposes connected with forestry).””
Baroness Kramer
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make a scheme under this section unless the specified public body to which the scheme relates has consented to its provisions.”
Baroness Kramer
“(3B) A scheme under this section may not make provision in relation to land which is held by the Secretary of State and was acquired, or is treated as having been acquired, under section 39 of the Forestry Act 1967 (power to acquire land which is suitable for afforestation or purposes connected with forestry).”
Baroness Kramer
“(5A) In section 408 (transfers of property, rights or liabilities to the Greater London Authority etc) after subsection (8) insert—
“(8A) An order under subsection (1) above may not make provision in relation to land which is held by the Secretary of State and was acquired, or is treated as having been acquired, under section 39 of the Forestry Act 1967 (power to acquire land which is suitable for afforestation or purposes connected with forestry).”
(5B) In section 409 (transfer schemes for transfers to the Greater London Authority etc) after subsection (8) insert—
“(8A) A scheme under subsection (1) or (2) above may not make provision in relation to land which is held by the Secretary of State and was acquired, or is treated as having been acquired, under section 39 of the Forestry Act 1967 (power to acquire land which is suitable for afforestation or purposes connected with forestry).””
Baroness Verma
“(4A) A person (“L”) who owns land (the “relevant land”) is not liable, as the owner of that land, in tort or delict for any loss or damage which is attributable to the exercise, or proposed exercise, of the right of use by another person (whether in relation to the relevant land or any other land).
(4B) For that purpose, loss or damage is not attributable to the exercise, or proposed exercise, of the right of use (in particular) if, or to the extent that, the loss or damage is attributable to a deliberate omission by L.
(4C) There is a “deliberate omission by L” if L, as owner of the relevant land, decides—
(a) not to do an act, or(b) not to allow another person to do an act,and the circumstances at the time of that decision were such that L would not have had to bear any of the costs incurred (whether by L or any other person) in doing or allowing the act.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, the UK stands to benefit enormously from the safe and effective development of the offshore shale gas and oil and geothermal industries. The Government have introduced provisions into the Infrastructure Bill which provide a right to use deep-level land 300 metres or more below the surface for the purposes of exploiting petroleum or deep geothermal energy.
I explained on Report that I had listened to the concerns expressed by stakeholders and by noble Lords that the right to use deep-level land could disadvantage landowners if claims were brought against them in connection with petroleum or deep geothermal operations. While the existing regulatory regime is robust, I agree that we can do more to reassure landowners. We need to be clear that these sorts of claims—brought by a third party against a landowner whose land is accessed through the right of use clauses—cannot be made against a landowner who has done nothing wrong. To this end, I committed to table an amendment to address this issue.
The amendment will provide protection for landowners against claims made by third parties for any loss or damage caused by the exercise of the right of use provision. It does, however, ensure that landowners—including persons with an interest in land, such as persons licensing the land—will not benefit from the exemption if they deliberately fail to act, or decide not to allow someone else to act. To make this fair to landowners, we also propose that a landowner would not have to do anything that would ultimately involve them in bearing any costs. This means, for example, that if a landowner prevented an operator from accessing his land to remediate any damage caused, despite the landowner not having to bear any costs, that landowner could be deemed liable. If, by contrast, the landowner allowed for the damage to be remediated, this amendment ensures that, as well as benefiting from existing protections, the landowner would not be liable to claims from any third parties for loss or damage.
This amendment will complement the existing comprehensive statutory and regulatory regime by protecting landowners, while allowing this source of home-grown energy to develop in a way that is fair to communities. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for having explained that amendment. I must admit that, when I went through it, I was not at all clear what it was trying to get at. I wondered whether this mystery person “L” would be listening to the debate or appearing in it. We have a number of such letters in this Bill.
My noble friend Lady Kramer has already thanked a number of people. I am not sure whether I am in the right area to do this but I want particularly to thank my noble friend Lady Verma for the work that she has done on this Bill. It has gone through everything from community energy to fracking to this whole area of oil. It has been a pleasure to work with her. We have our disagreements more in DCLG areas rather than here, but the Bill when enacted will make a number of things in the area of energy much better.
I also thank my noble friend Lady Kramer for guiding a Bill through the House when only about 10% included her departmental responsibilities. She has been present for a lot of our proceedings even when matters far from her department’s responsibilities were involved. Of course, I support the amendment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
My Lords, while agreeing with everything that my noble friend Lord Teverson said, I would like to make particular mention of my noble friend Lady Verma’s readiness to listen to the arguments on Part 4 concerning the community electricity right. The concession that the Government made on the timing of the power to introduce regulations has been widely welcomed by the renewables industry. It was very wise, and I was extremely grateful when my noble friend signalled that there would be an amendment on Report; I said so at the time.
I, too, thank both Ministers for their part in the Bill and, in his absence, my noble friend Lord Ahmad, who played quite a notable part in the whole question of planning and other responsibilities that fell to his department. I also echo what was said earlier by my noble friend Lady Kramer about the Bill team. They have been extraordinarily helpful. I do not mind at all if, when one raises a point at a private meeting, one receives a very good explanation from one of my noble friends’ staff. Although it is always nice to get letters from one’s noble friends who are Ministers, to have such an authoritative statement from an official is equally helpful, and I thank them very much for that.
This has been a remarkable example of the House of Lords at its best in its role of scrutinising and revising legislation. There are still one or two issues which are not fully resolved, but it is with some relief that we will send the Bill to another place where, perhaps, they can be aired again.
As many noble Lords will have learnt, it is my intention to retire from the House shortly, and I am making it clear to anyone who cares that this will be the last Bill on which I will take an active part. I have enormously valued the opportunity to do that, and I look forward to what is now being called the valedictory speech—which is not today, it will come later—that retiring Peers will be entitled to make under the provisions of the report of the Procedure Committee. I have enjoyed it; I think we really have made a difference; and I think that that is what this House is for.
Lord Davies of Oldham
My Lords, as the House is in congratulatory mood, I briefly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. I first met his formidable intellect, advantages and knowledge on energy Bills a decade or so ago, when we went through a very long energy Bill. From what I can recall, he was present for virtually every minute of a Bill that went through 13 days or so in Committee, to say nothing of the extensive consideration elsewhere. Others will have the chance to congratulate him later, but with regard to this Bill, he has displayed his usual insight and talent to improve the legislation. I also, of course, second his point about congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, and the Bill team—although I may say that they have only started the long road. I predict challenges yet to come on all parts of the Bill but in the area of fracking, I think that they will have quite an interesting time in the other place.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords for their participation in our proceedings on this Bill, particularly our discussions outside the Chamber, which have been very helpful. I end by thanking my noble friend Lord Jenkin for being there throughout all the energy Bills that I have worked on. He has provided a stream of information and expertise, and I have learnt a great deal from him in the past two and a half years at the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I wish him well. His forensic examination of legislation has made us all realise that this House has such excellence to offer that we should never underestimate the expertise among those who sit here.
Baroness Kramer
“(1A) A statutory instrument which contains an order under section 1—
(a) appointing a strategic highways company for an area other than the whole of England, and(b) which is the first exercise of the power in respect of such an area,may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(1B) A statutory instrument which contains an order under section 1—
(a) appointing a strategic highways company for an area other than the whole of England, and(b) which is a subsequent exercise of the power in respect of such an area,is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Baroness Kramer
My Lords, I owe the most extraordinary thanks to two of the most brilliant colleagues, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, and the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. I also regret the fact that, sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, may not be here again on another Bill. We shall desperately miss him. I beg to move the privilege amendment.
Consumer Rights Bill
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
16:34 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 176 / Noes: 244 - Amendment 1 disagreed.
18:50 - Division on Amendment 13 - Ayes: 183 / Noes: 171 - Amendment 13 agreed.
“Consumer credit: bill of sale
(1) Where a person is a purchaser of goods subject to a bill of sale, made in connection with a regulated agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, in good faith and without notice of the bill of sale, title to those goods shall pass to that person.
(2) A creditor is not entitled to enforce a bill of sale made in connection with a regulated agreement by recovering possession of the goods except through an order of the court.
(3) If goods are recovered by the creditor in contravention of subsection (2)—
(a) the bill of sale will be treated as invalidly made; and(b) the debtor shall be released from any outstanding liability under the regulated agreement.(4) If the creditor has disposed of goods taken in contravention of subsection (2), the debtor shall be compensated to the value of those goods.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
The amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. I declare my interest as retiring chair of the charity StepChange. Your Lordships’ House will be well aware of the considerable influence that it has had in curbing the explosion of high-cost credit that has so disadvantaged consumers in recent years. However, there is more to do.
The purpose of the amendment is to level the playing field on logbook loans by requiring the lender to obtain a court order before repossessing goods being repossessed by this archaic system, which uses legislation first introduced in 1878. A logbook loan is a bill of sale securing a loan on an asset, often a vehicle, and it gets its name from the fact that the lender retains the vehicle’s logbook or vehicle registration certificate, the V54, until the loan and any outstanding interest are repaid. Logbook loans are another form of very high-interest credit, and share with payday loans the use of unfair terms and conditions. They tend to be used by people who have bad credit ratings but need cash quickly. If you check them out on the internet you will find that an application for a logbook loan can be completed in as little as 15 minutes.
Recent research shows that logbook loans secured by a bill of sale are generally for amounts ranging from £500 to £2,000; the average is about £1,000. They are typically repaid over a six to 18-month period. The APR varies, but tends to range between 200% and 500%. These are not cheap loans.
It is the use of a bill of sale that causes the most difficulty. The legislation governing such loans, which dates from Victorian times, means that, uniquely in the high cost credit market, the lender can repossess the debtor’s asset—the vehicle—without a court order. We need to change this, to level the playing field. Bills of sale are already illegal in Scotland. Should we not take a leaf out of its book?
The history of this is interesting. After reviewing the position in December 2009, the previous Government proposed to ban the use of bills of sale for consumer lending, but, after the election, the coalition Government decided not to go ahead but to rely on a voluntary code of practice. Recent research by Citizens Advice shows that there is likely to be a 60% increase in bills for sale registered from 2011 to 2014. We believe that it is now time to stamp out this arcane practice. The Victorians had much to commend them but this legislation is not their finest monument.
When we raised this issue in Committee, the Government response was twofold. First, the Minister confirmed that the Law Commission has agreed to a request from Treasury Ministers to look at how best to reform bills of sale. This is indeed somewhat ironic, given that we had a debate only yesterday on Schedule 20 to the Deregulation Bill, when the Government were rather limply trying to defend their decision not to ask the Law Commission to review acres of what they call “legislation no longer of practical use”. However, this process will take time and unless the noble Baroness has some more information to share with us, it seems highly likely that this issue will not get into the next Law Commission Bill, which is unfortunately not due until 2016. The Government also pointed out that the FCA is in charge of this sector of consumer credit and mentioned that it had defined logbook loans as “higher risk activities”. That is certainly not wrong but when, oh when, will they get around to doing something about it?
As we found with payday lenders, it does no harm to give the regulator a bit of a push when you think that it may not get to the right place quickly enough. Consumer detriment is happening now and it ought to be stopped, so our amendment follows the approach that the House took to capping payday lending, as a sort of regulatory push. As well as welcoming the promised robust action by the FCA, we think it is appropriate to hasten it on its way. If loan book lenders have to use the courts to repossess goods, it will level the playing field with the other consumer credit operators and make it more likely that many will exit the market. That would be “job done”. I do not believe that the actions being proposed by the Government are sufficient to outlaw this scourge in good enough time. Our amendment will strengthen protections for consumers using logbook loans. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, before turning to Amendment 1 in detail, I would like to take a step back and set out why the Government do not believe that this Bill should be the vehicle for addressing issues in consumer credit and financial services more generally.
First, as noble Lords will be aware, the Government have introduced a major package of reforms to strengthen regulation of financial services markets. In the Financial Services Act 2012, we replaced the flawed system of financial regulation that we had inherited. We created the Prudential Regulation Authority to take the lead in ensuring that our banks and our insurers are safely and soundly run. We also set up the Financial Conduct Authority—FCA—as a consumer protection and market conduct regulator.
To ensure that the FCA has a clear and comprehensive remit covering all consumer financial services matters, we transferred the responsibility for regulating consumer credit from the OFT to the FCA. This means that the FCA’s statutory objectives, such as consumer protection, apply to the regulation of consumer credit. It also means that the FCA’s comprehensive and flexible rule-making powers can be used to help protect consumers from bad practices in the consumer credit market for the first time. For example, the payday lending rules introduced by the FCA have meant that the volume of payday loans has shrunk by 35% since the FCA took over regulatory responsibility in April 2014, demonstrating the strength of the regulatory regime. The Government therefore consider that the Consumer Rights Bill is not the place for making amendments to the law on consumer credit.
I turn to the detail of the amendment. Across government, we share concern about the risk to consumers from logbook loans, which were well described by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The Government believe that people should be able to borrow and should have the tools to make an informed decision about which credit products are right for them but that consumers should be confident that they will be treated fairly when things go wrong. As I have said, responsibility for consumer credit regulation, which includes logbook lenders and the associated arrangements, transferred from the Office of Fair Trading to the Financial Conduct Authority on 1 April. Consumers are far better protected under the stronger, well resourced FCA regime.
Like payday loans, the FCA defines logbook loans as “higher risk activities”, as has been said, so lenders face closer supervision. Logbook lenders are subject to a range of binding FCA rules, including requirements to provide precontractual explanation to borrowers of their rights before any agreement is signed. The Government have ensured that the FCA has a wide enforcement toolkit to take action where its rules are breached. There is no limit on the fines it can levy and, crucially, it can force firms to provide redress to consumers.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very full and positive response. I am glad that she reaffirmed that the FCA is doing all it can in this matter and that the Law Commission, even at its somewhat leisurely pace, is going to be moving in on this area. Clearly the field is moving, and that is a good thing, but is it not the case that although the FCA can do all it can about companies, their balance sheets, their terms of trade and their operations, it does not have the power to make primary legislation, so it therefore cannot abolish bills of sale, nor can it require that any lending agreements should introduce court orders? We have a gap, a lacuna, between now and when the system kicks in, during which time the playing field is not level, the lack of a court order creates a significant imbalance between the consumer and the lender, consumers have fewer rights, and logbook loans will continue to cause severe consumer detriment. It is time to act. I wish to test the option of the House.
Baroness Jolly
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, the Bill’s provisions on consumer contracts for goods build on existing legislation, such as the Sale of Goods Act, and on court- developed common law. Government Amendments 2, 4 and 6 are to ensure that the greater clarity the Bill provides does not override an existing common-law distinction between severable and entire contracts. A severable contract is divisible into parts, which are intended to be independent of each other, so different parts of the payment can be assigned to different parts of the trader’s performance. The amendments make it clear that, where a contract is severable, the consumer may have the right to reject those faulty goods or they may have the right to terminate the whole contract. That will depend on the nature of the goods and the fault and the details of the contract. In some cases, it will be quite right for a consumer to reject all the goods under a contract, even if it is severable. The existing common law recognises that and the amendments are to make it clear that the common law on this applies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked in Grand Committee whether these amendments could create a new incentive for traders to try to make their contracts severable. I hope I have given reassurance that the amendments refer to an existing concept. A contract will not be severable simply because it is described as such but will depend on the genuine agreement and arrangement between the parties in the circumstances. The guidance to the Bill will cover when a contract is severable and when a consumer might be entitled to terminate the whole contract. As I have explained, these amendments are to ensure that the consumer’s clearer rights in Clause 20 should not override the common-law position for severable contracts.
Clause 20 reflects the equivalent provision for Scotland in the Sale of Goods Act—that is, Section 15B—and in related legislation. Therefore, for Scots law, Clause 20 is intended to restate the existing provisions without altering the common law. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for agreeing to give us some extra time to look at these amendments, which of course were not seen in the Commons or in the Select Committee. Having had time to consider them, and in particular with the reassurance that has now been given by the Minister and the clarity that will be in the forthcoming guidance on the Bill, we are content with the amendments.
Baroness Jolly
“(7A) Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them.”
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, the Bill sets out key remedies for consumers but the Government recognise that it is also important that consumers are not discouraged from exercising them. These amendments relate to the costs of returning rejected goods to the trader. It is important that such costs do not put consumers off rejecting goods. We debated this issue at some length in Grand Committee.
We listened to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and agree that it does make sense to make it clear on the face of the Bill that the trader bears responsibility for the return costs. These two amendments provide that clarity and set a sensible balance. The trader is responsible for any reasonable costs of the consumer returning rejected goods. This would apply whether or not there is an agreed requirement for the consumer to return rejected goods. The amendments do not cover the costs of the consumer returning the goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them. We think that these are sensible amendments that meet the needs of consumers by making the law clearer without a causing significant burden to business. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for accepting the words that we used when we proposed the amendment the first time around. It does not happen very often; I will relish this experience. It is a curious irony that, in Committee, in the place where I had to sit in the Moses Room—I am sorry to take up the time of the Chamber in this way—the Minister responding was framed against the television on which, as noble Lords may now remember, those little swinging bells had just been introduced. It struck me that it was Christmas: it felt like Christmas. However, her words did not say, “Christmas”; they said, “No, go away; this is silly; this is already in legislation”. Now she has changed her mind and come back. I am so pleased.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(19) Subsection (20) qualifies the application in relation to England and Wales and Northern Ireland of the rights mentioned in subsections (1) to (3) where—
(a) the contract is a severable contract, (b) in relation to the final right to reject, the contract is a contract for the hire of goods, a hire-purchase agreement or a contract for transfer of goods, and(c) section 26(3) does not apply.(20) The consumer is entitled, depending on the terms of the contract and the circumstances of the case—
(a) to reject the goods to which a severable obligation relates and treat that obligation as at an end (so that the entitlement to a refund relates only to what the consumer paid or transferred in relation to that obligation), or(b) to exercise any of the rights mentioned in subsections (1) to (3) in respect of the whole contract.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(7A) Whether or not the consumer has a duty to return the rejected goods, the trader must bear any reasonable costs of returning them, other than any costs incurred by the consumer in returning those goods in person to the place where the consumer took physical possession of them.”
“(12) Where section 20(20)(a) applies the reference in subsection (1) to the consumer treating the contract as at an end is to be read as a reference to the consumer treating the severable obligation as at an end.”
Lord Clement-Jones
(a) ”
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I was clearly sitting in the wrong place in Grand Committee, because I did not see any Christmas bells, and that is why I am returning to the fray on Clause 23 on behalf of the motor industry.
The amendment today differs from Amendments 20A and 20B, which were tabled in Grand Committee, by the addition of a new proposed subsection (9). This additional subsection would set a time period for completion of the process of repair to give the repairer the opportunity of a further attempt or attempts at repair. This directly addresses the concerns voiced by the Minister, my noble friend Lady Jolly, and, indeed, the Opposition Front Bench. My noble friend said in Grand Committee:
“The Bill is clear that a repair is an attempt to bring the goods into compliance with the Bill’s requirements. One repair is complete once the trader returns the goods to the consumer in response to the consumer’s request for a repair”.—[Official Report, 15/10/ 14; col. GC 118.]
For the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, acknowledged that the repair need not be done “in one go”.
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify “one repair” in law, permitting a process of repair to take place. This is to address concerns from industry that the Bill as currently drafted does not provide traders of complex consumer goods, such as motor vehicles, a fair opportunity to repair. This is an issue because complex products may show a fault that requires more than one repair, involving, for example, more than one visit to a garage so that a car’s fault can be diagnosed and tested, and causes ruled out. In addition, a repair may appear complete, but the fault may reappear—as can be the case with electrical faults—and a second or subsequent repair may fix the problem.
My previous amendment regarding this issue, moved and withdrawn in Committee, met with concerns from my noble friend as it was thought that the consumer could become locked in a never-ending cycle of repairs. This revised amendment addresses this very issue while still giving scope for a process of repair to take place. This is through the addition of a determinable end-point for the process of repair, which would be commenced on the occasion that the consumer had to return to the trader for a second attempt at the repair. At that point, the trader would have to complete the process of repair within the requisite time, to be set down by the Secretary of State.
Viscount Simon (Lab)
My Lords, it had been my intention to speak. However, I, too, have been briefed by the SMMT, so I shall not repeat what the noble Lord has spoken about.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones makes an interesting point about extending the law to allow multiple repairs beyond repair one but within a defined period of time. It is still not entirely clear what this time period would be. I noted that he said that it would be a determinate end-point of repair.
It is a laudable proposition but for the fact that it could put undue cost burdens on small businesses. I give the example of a local business selling a complex piece of machinery. It comes in for repair once and then on a couple of other occasions before it dawns on the trader that the repair is as a result of the customer perhaps not using it properly or misusing it. However, up until this point, it is the trader who by law, under my noble friend’s amendment, would bear all the costs of the transport and the re-repair.
Therefore, although the trader could make the sale contractual to pre-empt or prevent this, I believe that it is more proportionate and less prescriptive to retain the one-repair proposal as laid down in the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, following the discussion my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones described in Grand Committee, I recently met representatives of the motor industry to discuss their concerns about the issue of one repair and we had a constructive discussion that included other amendments. I am very pleased also to hear from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about his discussions with the motor industry and, of course, to see my esteemed predecessor, my noble friend Lord Younger, making a very good point about the costs on traders.
I understand—although I am not a huge fan of motor cars—that motor vehicles are very complex goods and there can be a tendency for faults to reappear after repair. However, a limit of one mandatory repair or replacement sets an important and appropriate balance. The Bill provides key simplifications, as we all know, which we expect to benefit both consumers and traders, including the motor industry. The Bill sets a 30-day period for consumers to exercise the short-term right to reject, whereas in the past, claims have been made in relation to motor vehicles some months after the car was bought. The amendments we have laid on deduction for use, which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones referred to, recognise the particular nature of motor vehicles, being complex and subject to rapid depreciation. He also noted in Grand Committee that the issue of one repair is pertinent to the final right to reject. I am grateful to my noble friend for going away and amending his amendment.
To the extent that the Bill’s provisions regarding one repair may impact on the motor industry, I think that being able to apply a deduction for use in the first six months mitigates against that and is an important and complementary protection. I am not blind to the needs of the industry, but the revised amendments go too far. They would undermine both the consumer protection and the clarity that the Bill provides. The limit of one mandatory repair or replacement before a consumer is entitled to some money back follows consultation by both the Law Commission and BIS, both of which identified that approach as being the preferred option. The Law Commission recommended that there should be greater clarity as to when a consumer can move from repair or replacement to access some money back. The Bill’s one repair or replacement provision gives that clarity and I am concerned that it should not be undermined. Importantly, the Bill does not prevent the consumer from agreeing to further repairs. I think consumers—certainly a consumer like myself—tend to act reasonably with a motor trader, especially if they are treated reasonably in return. As long as the trader keeps them well informed I think most people would be willing to accept further repairs. If, however, the relationship breaks down, the consumer should, and will under the Bill, have the right to exit the contract if the trader has tried and failed to fix the fault.
I also feel that a time limit set by the power included in the amendment would fail to provide the necessary safeguard to protect the consumer fully. There is a real risk that such a time limit would become the default, leaving consumers stuck waiting. Without the certainty of being able to ask for money back after one failed repair, consumers would have to show that a repair process had caused them significant inconvenience or taken more than a reasonable time. While these are important protections within the Bill, we do not think they are sufficient alone for goods. This was the very issue on which the Law Commission recommended that there should be further clarity. The evidence submitted to the Law Commission’s consultation showed that it is unclear when the point of significant inconvenience is reached, allowing considerable scope for dispute.
All of these concerns are compounded by the fact that these amendments are so broad in scope. We believe that as drafted they could apply to all goods, even a table that needed more than one repair. Essentially, the amendment seems to cover both complex faults in simple goods and simple faults in complex goods. It would be unclear whether or not the consumer had to make the goods available to the trader more than once. It would also be all too easy for an unscrupulous trader to argue for repeated repairs—even on simple non-complex goods if they claimed that the nature of the fault justified it.
My noble friend mentioned guidance and perhaps, without commitment, I can come back to him on that issue.
Lord Clement-Jones
Perhaps I can interrupt my noble friend to see what her reaction is before I respond. Does she accept that there is a conflict between what Ministers have been saying about the one repair concept and what is in the guidance? If so, clearly she could go further in undertaking that the guidance should be revised.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My advice is that there is no conflict, but as my noble friend has raised the issue, I shall certainly take a look and write to him. The amendments cut across the simple, clear provision set out in the Bill, so I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
I detect in a mild kind of a way that that is a no—a fairly firm no. The motor industry will be very disappointed by that response, and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, for his support. I am somewhat surprised by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, because this amendment is heavily supported by dealers and manufacturers. It is designed for their benefit; it is certainly not designed to add to their woes, which I believe Clause 23 has the capacity to do. It will bear unduly harshly on dealers, in particular, but I recognise a stone wall when I see one. I very much hope that my noble friend will undertake to review the guidance on page 39 and the conflict between what on the face of it seems to be a completely contrary statement to what is in the guidance. Perhaps we can make progress in that respect. In the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and to speak in support of others in this group. We will not be pushing our amendment to a vote as what it proposes and what our Amendment 21 in Committee asked for is now almost completely achieved in the Government’s Amendments 10 and 12. While it remains the case that a car salesman can deduct some of the price of a new car when taking back a faulty vehicle in accordance with its second-hand value, we are delighted that this will not apply to other faulty goods, which was our concern, and which the Bill’s original wording would have allowed.
I thank the Minister—there is a lot of that going on today—for considering so carefully our case made in Committee and for accepting perhaps 70% of it. It is a sort of advent present rather than a Christmas present but we are delighted with it all the same. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her kind words and acceptance of my amendment. I thank her for not wishing to press her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister for clarifying that she will be supporting Amendment 11 in my name, to which she has added her name, and moving her own Amendments 10 and 12, as we get to them. We will move our Amendment 11 in its place. I know that the Minister has put her name to it, but I think she will probably be moving Amendments 10 and 12 in their place. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 9.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(a) the goods consist of a motor vehicle, or(b) the goods are of a description specified by order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(13) In subsection (10)(a) “motor vehicle”—
(a) in relation to Great Britain, has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1988 (see sections 185 to 194 of that Act);(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (SI 1995/2994 (NI 18)) (see Parts I and V of that Order).(14) But a vehicle is not a motor vehicle for the purposes of subsection (10)(a) if it is constructed or adapted—
(a) for the use of a person suffering from some physical defect or disability, and(b) so that it may only be used by one such person at any one time.(15) An order under subsection (10)(b)—
(a) may be made only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so because of significant detriment caused to traders as a result of the application of subsection (10) in relation to goods of the description specified by the order; (b) may contain transitional or transitory provision or savings.(16) No order may be made under subsection (10)(b) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Lord Moynihan
“Secondary ticketing platforms: seller profiles and ticket information
(1) Secondary ticketing operators must, on the website on which tickets are offered for sale or transfer, provide information concerning the sellers of tickets so that sellers may be easily identified.
(2) Information provided by virtue of subsection (1) must include, but is not limited to—
(a) the name of the seller;(b) if the seller is an undertaking, its registered number, jurisdiction of registration, registered office address, and if registered outside the United Kingdom, a valid address for service; and(c) the VAT registration number of the seller, if applicable.(3) Information provided under subsection (1) must be—
(a) accurate; and(b) prominently displayed before a buyer is able to complete the purchase of the ticket.(4) Secondary ticketing operators must disclose clearly and prominently where the seller of a ticket is—
(a) the secondary ticketing platform or a subsidiary undertaking or parent undertaking of the secondary ticketing platform;(b) a person or persons employed or engaged by the secondary ticketing platform;(c) other persons connected to employees, directors or shareholders of the secondary ticketing platform, or any of its subsidiary undertakings or parent undertakings;(d) the event organiser or an agent acting on its behalf;(e) any other party connected to the organisation of the event.(5) Where a ticket is offered for sale or transfer through a secondary ticketing platform—
(a) the seller must provide all relevant information about the ticket;(b) the secondary ticketing operator must publish all relevant information about a ticket in a prominent and clear manner; and(c) the secondary ticket operator must immediately remove the ticket from sale when it is informed by the event organiser that the information provided is inaccurate or incomplete.(6) Information to be provided by the seller and published by the secondary ticketing operator for the purposes of subsection (1) must include, without limitation—
(a) the face value of the ticket;(b) any age or other restrictions on the user of the ticket;(c) the designated location of the ticket including the stand, the block, the row and the seat number of the ticket, where applicable; and(d) the ticket booking identification or reference number.(7) Where tickets are being resold in contravention of the terms and conditions agreed to by the original purchaser, this must be stated prominently by the secondary ticketing platform at every stage of the purchasing process.
(8) Information provided by virtue of this section must be—
(a) accurate; and(b) prominently displayed before a buyer is able to complete the purchase of that ticket.(9) For the purposes of this section—
“secondary ticketing platform” means an internet-based facility for the resale of tickets to events in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the owner of the service is registered;
“secondary ticketing operator” means, in relation to a secondary ticketing platform, the person (whether incorporated or not) operating that secondary ticketing platform;
“ticket” means anything which purports to be a ticket, including any item, tangible or intangible, which grants the holder the right to entry to an event;
“event” means any sporting, music or cultural activity taking place at a specified time and place for which tickets are issued and required for entry or attendance;
“event organiser” means the person responsible for organising and holding an event and receiving the revenue from the event;
the term “undertaking” has the meanings given in section 1161 of the Companies Act 2006 (meaning of “undertaking” and related expressions);
the terms “subsidiary undertaking” and “parent undertaking” have the meanings given in section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006 (parent and subsidiary undertakings);
the term “person” refers to a natural person or a body corporate.
(10) This section will come into force no later than six months after this Act is passed.”
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the time that she has devoted to this issue. She shares the passion for sport and the arts of the movers of the amendment and has spent many hours with the governing bodies of sport, as well as event promoters and colleagues hearing our case. Before I speak to the amendment, I will set out the scale of the problem and then address the current legislation, which I will argue has been proven to be ineffective. I will then explain the rationale for this amendment. At all stages, I will draw on the position taken by the Minister at Second Reading and in Committee and look to match the arguments so e1oquently made then by my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lady Heyhoe Flint, the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson.
The size of the problem is well documented. I refer the House to an extract from the National Fraud Authority’s Annual Fraud Indicator of 2013—the National Fraud Authority was then the executive agency funded by the Home Office. The report states:
“Online ticket fraud £1.5 billion … Online ticket fraud occurs when victims purchase tickets for an event such as music, sport, theatre or a performance, which do not materialise. These tickets are often purchased from fake ticketing websites and through online auction and shopping sites … Research carried out by the OFT in September 2009”—
three years after the passing of the Fraud Act, which was meant to deal with these issues—
“identified that 1 in 12 of those surveyed admitted to being caught by scam websites. The survey also showed that about eight per cent were a victim of online ticketing fraud, having bought music, sport or theatre tickets from a website that appeared to be genuine … The NFA has calculated an annual fraud loss estimate using the prevalence rate identified in the OFT survey multiplied by an average fraud loss of £637 per victim identified by Action Fraud in relation to online ticketing fraud during 2012 … Based on this data, an estimated 2.3 million people fall victim to this type of fraud each year, resulting in losses of £1.5 billion”.
The Government are on record as saying that this is not a major issue. I would argue that £1.5 billion lost to consumers is a major issue requiring urgent action.
One can look simply at the evidence of the past 12 months and take some random examples. On 23 February last year, 80 people arrived excitedly at the O2 Arena to see One Direction only to find out that the tickets they were holding were not going to let them in. Of the 80 tickets, 40 were sold through viagogo. The next biggest source was Seatwave and the rest were bought through GET ME IN! and eBay. In July last year, Stuart Cain, head of ticketing at Birmingham’s LG Arena said:
“On a big show where there are a lot of e-tickets you can get up to 100 people a night affected”.
In November 2012, fans of Mumford & Sons were left disappointed after the tickets they bought from controversial secondary ticketing seller viagogo for a gig in Portsmouth turned out to be fake. I am sure that noble Lords will have examples from their own experience of this serious issue.
I turn to current legislation. There was all-party support and agreement with the International Olympic Committee to deal with ticket touting for the 2012 Olympic Games. Under Section 31 of the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006, it was an offence to sell a ticket or anything that purported to be a ticket for an event held as part of the Olympics or Paralympics in a public place or in the course of a business without the written authorisation of LOCOG, the event managers. There was no secondary market and a fine up to level 5 on the standard scale—some £5,000—for anyone convicted of such an offence. With all-party support in both houses, we tackled the problem of ticket touting by making the secondary market illegal. In 2011, there was further legislation. The fine was upped by Parliament to £20,000, again, with all-party support and no requirement for this latter measure from the International Olympic Committee.
What were the lessons learnt from the Olympics on this subject? My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones reminded us in Committee that the Metropolitan Police did a lot of work and reported through Operation Podium after the Olympic Games the need for an open and transparent system for ticket reselling with clear and appropriate regulations. Secondary websites, the Met argued, should be required to publish details of the ticket being offered including the original face value, seat number and location. They should identify the seller, state whether the seller has the permission of the originator to resell the ticket and declare whether the tickets have been listed by the event organisers. That was the position of the Metropolitan Police. The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ticket Abuse recommended amendments to the Bill along the lines of those before the House today.
Our amendment addresses the reselling of event tickets usually, but not always, for profit. It specifically does not pursue the route followed, with all-party support, for London 2012; namely, the criminalisation of the secondary market while leaving the primary market completely unregulated. I believe that we need a secondary market. Everyone speaking to the subject in Committee emphasised the importance of an effective secondary market. There are often prima facie reasons why a “real fan” may feel the need to pass on a ticket. That includes the obvious scenario of when the purchaser has a spare ticket for which they cannot get a refund and so have no option other than to sell the ticket on the secondary market to recoup their expenditure. The Minister states that the consumers are protected by the Fraud Act 2006 and the Government have issued guidance on the 2013 regulations, specifically on tickets.
The Minister is also concerned that we would be regulating consumers. I agree with the Minister and would be the first to resist obtrusive consumer regulation. While it is wholly appropriate for, let us say, health and safety, it would not be here. That is why we propose, as your Lordships will have read, an amendment with a very light-touch approach which all genuine consumers should welcome for the transparency and empowerment that it would give them.
Just four, short, key facts are required. All that is now proposed is the name and location of the tickets and/or booking number, together with a tick box of whether resale complies with the terms and conditions. This takes about 15 seconds to type in—fractions of the time compared with what we have to go through to establish our profiles and register with a secondary selling site—but it gives the consumer the information he or she needs to check the validity of the ticket. Of course, it will not completely cease counterfeit activity but professional event organisers and all the sports governing bodies widely agree that this information will substantially reduce fraudulent activity in the £1.5 billion industry that is so damaging to consumers.
Having reviewed the Minister’s contribution to the early stages of the Bill, I believe that the Government may be unclear as to the distinction between a trader and a consumer. Surely anyone selling their £50 ticket for £500 on a website is no longer a consumer; they are automatically defined in law as a trader. It is not, as we have been told, relegislating. At present the information required in the regulations is only for traders and is only set out in guidance, not in the Bill. As I shall demonstrate, it is woolly, to say the least, and it is easily avoided. A review of thousands of tickets today on the online sites shows none complying with 2013 regulations. No one who has put their name to this amendment seeks to abolish the secondary market. We all seek to improve its operation in the interests of consumers, placing key best practice obligations in the Government’s 2013 regulations on the face of this consumer legislation.
I turn to the regulations on which the Government rely. I regret to say that you can drive a coach and horses through them. The fact that there is a £1.5 billion fraud market demonstrates that this is the case. As I have mentioned, the regulations apply only to sellers, who are defined as traders, and not to consumers selling to other consumers, as happens so often and is the business model for the secondary ticketing sites. Schedule 2 to the regulations lists the information you must provide to the consumer. Information on the main characteristics of the tickets and their total price, including delivery costs and other charges, must be given in a clear and comprehensible way before the consumer purchases the ticket. The main characteristics include—and here are the four key words, “if known to you”—the date and time of the event and its content; for example, who is performing. For a ticket associated with a particular reserved seat—say row A, seat 1—the seat number is a main characteristic that should be given to the consumer—if you know it. You do not have to find it out; you simply put it on there if you know it. That is fine, if you know it but, “Sorry, guv, didn’t know the date; sorry, guv, didn’t know who was playing; sorry, guv, didn’t know which seat it was or where it was in the stadium”. “I didn’t know” is a let-out clause as wide as the Blackwall Tunnel and as congested, full of unscrupulous ticket resellers. That is why the 2013 regulations are ineffective, as witnessed by their inability to impact the market and, in practice, are as good as being voluntary. That is why we need to address the £1.5 billion market that exists today.
One of the strongest arguments against the position that my noble friend took in Committee is that all the amendment would largely do is enforce what is currently set out in the guidance. It removes the loopholes that I have just mentioned and makes sure that it applies to secondary selling sites. If the Government feel that the guidance is sensible and required, it must follow that the Government cannot object to making the key elements of the guidance enforceable.
The Government argue that regulation of the marketplace is not needed, as these regulations provide effective legislation and that, if we legislate today, we would most likely push sales back underground and away from these legitimate marketplaces. However, as we are proposing only that four key elements of the existing regulations already approved by the Government should now be in the Bill, I can deduce only that the Government must believe that, if the regulations were properly followed, we would push sales underground. In other words, they must have been introduced to be ineffective. If so, we can only congratulate the Government on achieving this objective.
Baroness Heyhoe Flint (Con)
My Lords, once again, I return to the subject I raised at Second Reading and in Committee by speaking to Amendment 13, to which I have added my name. I also have to declare an interest to the House: I am a board member of the England and Wales Cricket Board.
Like so many of my colleagues on both sides of the House, I want the very best for sport and entertainment and their fan bases. I make this address feeling a bit like Mrs Echo of my noble friend Lord Moynihan. As the House has heard, this is a redrafted amendment. It is shorter, sharper and has absolute clarity. It is designed to empower consumers by placing extremely light requirements on the reselling of tickets. Crucially, it does not in any way prohibit or ban the resale of tickets. It seeks to replicate the standards that the Government intended—I stress the word “intended”—to introduce through the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.
Frustratingly, the regulations are not working at all. I have now studied many online ticket sales sites, as have the major sports groups mentioned by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. We can find no sales at all complying with the stated regulations. In meetings with officials working for the Minister, they, too, have been unable to cite evidence of the consumer contracts regulations having any effect. The regulations are clearly ineffectual. That is why I plead from my sporting heart that we need the amendment. It clarifies matters by placing in legislation key characteristics that must be provided by the seller when a ticket is resold, rather than the existing vague guidance and confusion about what constitutes a trader and what constitutes a consumer. That creates a huge loophole that can be exploited by the unscrupulous leading to, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, a £1.5 billion racket.
I hope that all sides of the House will support me when I emphasise what we are trying to achieve. Those who buy a ticket from a secondary seller should be provided with the same information and protection when they buy that ticket as they would expect to receive when purchasing direct from the event organiser. It is as simple as that. But you would not think so, judging by the anguish that sports governing bodies are having to suffer in seeking a satisfactory resolution with this amendment.
If the amendment is made, every purchaser will be told the original face value of the ticket, the location of the seat in terms of block, row and seat number, whether it has restricted vision, and whether it is a seat for a child or senior citizen being sold at what I think is called a top-whack price. It will also allow people to check with the venue that the ticket is genuine. Importantly too, they would be told the original terms and conditions relating to the ticket purchase, and whether the resale was in breach of those original terms and conditions.
As has already been said, it takes only a matter of seconds to provide this information online. Remember that anyone who sells online has to create an account with a secondary seller or website in any event. This is an infinitely longer process than just providing three key details when selling a ticket. If you are extremely modern, you could even take a photo of the ticket and upload it.
Those facts are material for the consumer in making an informed decision about whether to purchase a ticket. I assure the House that this is not an unnecessary burden— and it would certainly not seem like a burden to the 150 or so very angry fans who were refused admission to the Ashes test at the Oval two years ago because they had been sold invalid tickets online. Club officials were angrily confronted, and are probably still recovering from the onslaught, but they had no armoury in legislation to solve the problem. In some circumstances there is no block, row or seat number. That is why the amendment offers the alternative of citing the seat booking reference number.
If the Government intend to continue to defend a status quo that is patently failing, I have three questions for the Minister. First, does she accept that the amendment, if accepted, would place very little burden on the seller? Secondly, why does the Minister not agree that is important to empower consumers by giving them key information about the tickets they have bought, and to protect them from being mis-sold or, even worse, turning up at the event and not being admitted because the terms and conditions have been breached? Thirdly, does she accept that the 2013 regulations are not working, because they rely on guidance alone and are too imprecise about how a trader is defined? Surely individuals who buy tickets with the sole aim of selling them on at inflated prices to make a profit are trading, so should be classed as traders.
I am sad to tell the House that there are very many people doing just that. Only yesterday I went online to research the issue. Across the sites of major secondary sellers such as viagogo, Get Me In!, Seatwave and StubHub—they have been vigorously lobbying against the amendment; well, they would, wouldn’t they?—I found more than 5,000 tickets being sold for next summer’s Ashes test series. This is flabbergasting. These tickets have only just gone on sale. It is inconceivable to me that such a large number of tickets have been bought by consumers who now find, eight months in advance, that they cannot go to the tests. How very strange and coincidental is that? These tickets are being hawked around for profit. Every single one of them is being sold in breach of the 2013 regulations, because they have been put there by opportunistic traders, colloquially known as touts; they are not put there just for fun, or by individual consumers exploiting the system. It is naive to think otherwise and to believe that those actions are acceptable.
Is this how we want to showcase our international sports and entertainment events in this country? Is this how we want to go about protecting a nation of sports fans? Before us is a Bill about consumer rights, so please let us give those consumers the right to know that what they are buying is genuine and is what it purports to be.
I have in the past been regarded as a rebel with a cause in fighting for fairness in sport. Speaking in support of this amendment, I am once again revealing my rebellious nature—old habits die hard—but I am merely seeking fair trading for all. I hope that the Minister is now ready to accept this amendment or at least prepared to offer some room for negotiation before Third Reading. The MCC’s “Spirit of Cricket” project, which engenders fair play, should be adopted for secondary selling of tickets so that all consumers are protected from those who seek to prey on their enthusiasm and desire to acquire genuine tickets.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, as the third signatory to the amendment and as someone who tabled amendments in Grand Committee, in the face of the superb introductions by my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lady Heyhoe Flint, I intend to be extremely brief. I bow to the knowledge, expertise and passion which they bring to the amendment today and I will simply emphasise four points.
First, this amendment is not intended to create a ban on secondary ticketing and would not do so in practice. It is not designed to inhibit the legitimate exchange of tickets on secondary platforms. The target of the amendment is those who are using the lack of transparency to mislead or defraud consumers; it will benefit all those wishing to buy tickets on the secondary market.
Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, some of our biggest national governing bodies of sport, such as the FA, the ECB, the RFU and the LTA—I am sorry about the initials but there are plenty of them—as well as the organisers of events such as Wimbledon, England 2015 and the London Marathon, are calling for this because they believe that their consumers, the sporting enthusiasts, are being harmed by the lack of transparency in the secondary market.
Thirdly, as has been very clearly illustrated, the current consumer contract regulations are too narrow and capture only traders. Yet no one selling on the secondary market identifies themselves as a trader. Furthermore, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan said, the obligation to list the main characteristics applies only if they are known. I thought that “Honest, guv” was an extremely good way of putting it. They can say, “I don’t know the characteristics or the ticket number”, and so on. The consumer contract regulations are pretty ineffective. It is quite clear that none of the main ticketing platforms has put anything additional on its website as a result of them, so in that sense they are completely ineffective. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out, there is a minimal amount in the regulations themselves; the rest is in the guidance, which is not binding.
Fourthly, my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint gave us a number of illustrations. There is a very recent illustration from the rock world with the Fleetwood Mac tour. Something like 12,000 tickets for that UK tour are available on the secondary websites. Have all those enthusiastic Fleetwood Mac fans really decided, having bought those tickets in the first place, to put them on the secondary market because they are washing their hair one day? That is a completely incredible scenario and it only illustrates the need for far greater transparency in the ticketing world. I very strongly support the amendment.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare a total lack of interest in the sense that I neither buy through the internet for sporting occasions nor for the sort of musical occasions of which we have heard involving various persons with attractive names. However, somebody ought to speak in this debate on behalf of normal customers, who do not happen to have a big enthusiasm for it. However, I do have an enthusiasm for honesty and straightforwardness and I start by saying that if it were good enough for the Olympics, why the blazes is it not good enough now? The Government do not have a case because if they needed to do that to protect Britain’s reputation for the Olympics, they need to do it to protect Britain’s reputation for every other sporting activity and the like. That is the first thing and it seems perfectly obvious.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but I want to point out two things. First, the noble Lord spoke warmly about newspaper proprietors and what a wonderful thing it is that we have a rule in this country that editors should always be named so that they can be sued for libel. That has just been deregulated. Secondly, it was a Conservative Government who introduced the requirement to regulate chocolates.
Lord Deben
There may be regulations which, when people did not do it, you need. I think that if the Daily Telegraph took its address off, we would be able to find it. We would not be in too much difficulty with newspapers today. The problem here is that these websites are in the same position as newspapers were in those days, when there were a very large number of them, they were run off by hand and people did not know whence they came. I think that that explains the difference between now and then: the world changes and it moves quickly. I used the example of liqueur chocolates because it was always silly to have liqueur chocolates under the rules. I do not know which party proposed it, but whoever it was should be ashamed.
I finish with the real reason I wanted to stand up and talk about this. Britain is increasingly the centre of a very large tourist trade. London is the only world city, in a real sense. We have the glory of the most diverse society with the most wonderful opportunities. We should be saying, every day, “Thank goodness we live in this great country and in this great city”. Therefore, we must ensure that we protect the brand. I do not want to be vulgarly capitalist, but let us protect our brand.
I want us to be a major force in the European Union, where we are properly at home, but I want people coming from the rest of the European Union to feel that we protect them when they buy tickets here, when they buy them from abroad and when they come in from the EU and beyond—I want our American and Australian friends to feel that they can do this safely. The Government have a very simple way of doing this, which is to accept the amendment. I very much hope they will.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, in supporting the Government on this amendment I feel a bit like Pietersen, the cricketer, taking on the cricket establishment, but since I have always admired his bravery and foolhardiness, I shall have a go. I think there is a dangerous presumption in this debate that the secondary ticketing market is a bad thing and that people would like to do without it. Balancing that, I accept, there is a genuine belief that by increasing regulation, by demanding more information, we will eliminate fraud. I think that approach is misguided. I do not think that you necessarily end fraud by increasing regulation.
The secondary ticketing market fulfils a very useful purpose for people, particularly those who buy tickets and are often made to buy them a year ahead of the event. When they do not want to use them, they can dispose of them appropriately; 70% of people buying tickets want that secondary market to continue. We should be supporting recognised and established brand leaders that work in this market and do all that is required. They guarantee their tickets, and people should use them; we should encourage more people to use those established brands. If they did that, the market would work better; that is how to attack fraud.
If you are attacking fraud, where else do you look? You look first of all at the computer-operated systems that enable people to buy mass tickets. That is where you ought to direct your attacks, and there are some encouraging signs there. But you also need to question the sports operators. Too many of them are greedy. They give their tickets to people in hospitality, who then do not need them and try to dispose of them through secondary markets. If the sports operators want an improvement, the first thing that they could do is to improve the affordability of their tickets, so they are not forcing the price up, which encourages this sort of fraud.
Ticket sellers are already subject to the regulations, as we have heard. Is it a good Conservative or Liberal principle that, if the regulations are not working, you add to them? Surely you question them. Are we really saying that just adding a name to a ticket will eliminate fraud? I do not believe that either. We should encourage established secondary sellers, so that they can help us to undermine the bad sellers of tickets—the touts, if you like. Online selling and ticketing is actually a huge improvement in terms of control on the old idea whereby tickets were sold by street traders. So instead of having an emotional look at this issue—and I accept that there is a lot of emotion about it—we should look at it frankly and in great detail to see what we are doing here, rather than adding to regulation that is not working and not actually looking at the real areas where fraud is being perpetrated.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, has said. I was unable to be present for that part of Committee that focused on the emotive issue of secondary ticketing, but I have read Hansard, and my first point is that I have some sympathy in reading the anecdotes and anomalies raised, notably by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, as well as my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lady Heyhoe Flint, among others.
I admit that there is a range of frustrating issues over the sale and resale of secondary ticketing, which have been cited. I also note that the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, is in his place; he noted in Committee that these matters have been debated over 20 years, which shows that they are not easy. I was pleased to meet my noble friends Lady Heyhoe Flint and Lord Moynihan to discuss these matters, when in my role on the Front Bench, so I am aware of many of the issues.
I start by stating the obvious. As a principle, we should not legislate or regulate when either there is existing regulation in place—and I note the comments from my noble friend Lord Deben that that means good legislation—or there are solutions coming from the market. The question is whether safeguards are in place and whether they are being utilised. In the case of business-to-consumer sales of tickets, the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 set out clearly as a list what information must be provided on tickets. There are more than 20 pieces of information requirements to which the consumer has access, and there is guidance for consumers on how to apply them to tickets. If there is a breach, the whereabouts of your seat is important—for example, if you are unexpectedly placed behind a pillar when you are watching a cricket match. Here you have redress under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Other potential breaches can come under the Fraud Act, as mentioned today, as an offence. The sanctions including fines or imprisonment are in place. Given the comments of my noble friend Lady Heyhoe Flint about the law being ineffectual, I would however ask the Minister if it would not be a good idea to do more, such as better publicising the sanctions and advertising warning notices for those traders, or traders posing as consumers, who might be minded to commit such offences. Of course, more offenders caught will act as a deterrent—or should do.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, it is such a shame when a fan of sports, or theatre, or music, has their enthusiasm exploited, and is ripped off. But I do not think that the amendment would do what it intends to do. It is designed to allow sports grounds to cancel tickets not sold by them. When people hear of a secondary market, they think of shady touts selling fraudulent tickets on the street corner. They think of sportsmen, officials or media pundits who are offered freebies, and then choose to sell them at inflated prices. These things will not be stopped by this amendment. They are not what proper secondary markets are about.
A proper secondary market will allow people to trade tickets among one another; to allow supply to meet demand, with the market doing exactly what it is supposed to do—arriving at the right price for both parties. Using a safe secondary market on the internet is safer than using a tout. If someone were to purchase a ticket for an event, and closer to the time realised that they could not go, then it is only fair that they should try to find a buyer for the ticket. If information such as seat numbers, transaction numbers and the names of sellers is required for resale, then sports governing bodies or theatres could cancel the tickets without a refund. So the person who bought the ticket originally would be out of pocket. Then the incentive is there for sellers to lie about their name.
With this amendment, we will find that Mr D Duck is a top ticket dealer. Or the seller may even list an adjacent seat number. Imagine the problems that could be caused when the wrong seat is cancelled. If your ticket was cancelled because a tout said he was advertising it, you may eventually get a refund after a struggle—but you will certainly miss the show.
Someone hoping to sell a ticket could also just try to sell it on an offshore site—or indeed sell it to those malicious touts outside the venue, helping to fuel more fraudulent activity. However well intentioned, I think this is one of those laws that will make sensible people do silly things. People use secondary ticket markets quite happily as they currently operate. The majority of users want a safe space to resell tickets online. People are very concerned about privacy online too. They know that scammers are out there looking for personal information such as names and addresses. Asking for this level of information for an online secondary market will worry users.
When we hear about the astronomical prices quoted for a ticket, quite often in newspaper reports, they are usually just the advertised price. That does not mean the ticket will sell for that much. Buyers are as canny as sellers. They know that they can wait for a while, until the date of the show gets nearer, to see a drop in the price. Again, this is the market determining the right price between grown-up consumers. And why do we not celebrate high prices? Surely this just shows that the lucky fans who purchased at face value have got them themselves a bargain.
We have seen what it is like when there are no secondary ticketing markets in the UK. The Olympics were a success in so many ways, but it was disappointing to see banks of empty seats at many exciting events. It was a condition of our bid for the Games that there was no secondary market and the results spoke for themselves—empty seats. We should also look elsewhere to see if another country has introduced these kinds of regulations, and what the effect has been.
In France, the legislation seems to have had little impact, and has done exactly what I alluded to earlier—sellers have moved to selling tickets on offshore markets. Canada and states such as Michigan have introduced legislation like this, and then had to remove it. There is a thriving secondary ticket market elsewhere in America—for baseball games and American football matches. The prices are wildly different at times, and they simply reflect the demand for a ticket. You can get a ticket to a baseball match starting that same afternoon for less than $10. But a big football match is likely to be more expensive on the secondary market. Overall, though, transactions are safe and demand meets supply. We seem to be five years behind in considering legislation like this. So we should take this opportunity to make sure that we do not follow bad examples but copy good ones.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
I rise briefly to prove that we on this side of the House can also have fun and go to concerts and rugby and football matches. I want to support those who tabled the amendment—obviously my noble friend has yet to speak. I believe that this is a very sensible but extremely light-touch proposal—it is feather light. We are not asking for criminalisation, as in the case of the Olympics. We are talking about the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, made demanding equality of treatment for consumers of both original tickets and secondary tickets. That is a very simple demand to make in this extremely light-touch amendment.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
I support the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. I have a number of interests in sport, which are declared on the register. We might be here a long time if I went through them all.
We have been discussing this for longer than I have been involved in sport—and that is at least 30 years. As an ex-athlete and a sports fan, of course I want people to be watching and supporting. It is important to say that this is not a ban on secondary tickets; it would not be so in practice. This is about those people who hide behind the lack of transparency to mislead or defraud.
We should not take lightly the number of governing bodies which are in agreement on this issue. Again, in the length of time I have been involved in sport, it is very unusual for so many to agree on a single issue. They believe in this because they feel that it is very harmful to what they are trying to do. This is a pragmatic step that empowers consumers. It will not inhibit the legitimate exchange of tickets on secondary platforms. It will just make government policy much more effective.
I would like to come back to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, on the Olympics and the Paralympics. It was briefly in the media about seats not being filled, but my understanding was that that was part of the contract with the IOC: it was IOC members who had to have those seats available if they wanted to watch the sport. It was not a case of tickets that had been sold and not used—it was a very specific area. Every Olympics and Paralympics Games have to set a number of those seats aside. I feel slightly embarrassed talking about that with the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, in the Chamber. He was much closer to it than I was.
With the Olympics and Paralympics, the legislation that was in place meant that people felt very confident, knowing that when they went to events they would get tickets. I have been to events where I have seen parents standing outside, explaining to their 10 year-old why the ticket they have is not valid. They might have paid over the odds for it, but the pressure from children to see One Direction and all those other people is huge. As a parent you might pay more, because you want to give that experience to your child. You do not spend lots of time checking out different methods of buying tickets on the internet; you buy the ticket because you want to be there. This is about protecting those people and making sure that they know that those seats are protected.
This is pragmatic. Nobody loses out from this proposal apart from those who seek to make huge profits by mis-selling or defrauding consumers. I strongly support the work that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is doing in this area, because it is vital that we do this.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I will start with a couple of apologies. The first is for arriving a few seconds into the speech of my noble friend Lord Moynihan. That was partly to do with the excellent speed of the Minister in marshalling us through this, while simultaneously being due to a slight go-slow on the part of my guide dog in getting here this afternoon. I also apologise for not being able to speak to this amendment in Committee; it was my birthday, and I wrongly prioritised a celebratory dinner ahead of speaking on that occasion.
What are we trying to achieve with this? It is not complicated; it does not say anything negative about the concept of a secondary market for tickets. It is simply about this: if we can improve, we will get more tickets into the hands of more sports fans for more events, and we will drive a far more efficient ticketing operation across sport, art, culture and music.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised a very important point: what is a ticket? That question was not taken up by the Minister on that occasion, so I will tempt her this evening into perhaps going into it in her response, because it is a key point. If we are talking about tickets, it makes sense for us to consider what a ticket is, and crucially, off the back of that, it seems reasonable to consider what a ticket could and perhaps should be. That involves consideration of the physical, the electronic ticket, its commercial and legal characteristics, and what is set around it as regards transferability and negotiability. It seems to be quite sensible to think, debate and discuss all those elements so that we are all clear as regards what we are talking about.
If I am lucky enough to get a ticket for Centre Court at Wimbledon, but then a week before I am struck down with a late spring flu, it seems perfectly reasonable and absolutely right that I should be allowed to resell that ticket to somebody who was not lucky enough to get it in the primary sale. Similarly, it seems absolutely reasonable that I should not be able to make a profit on that ticket, and should be able to get back only its face value. Even more so, if from the outset I pitched into the ticket market with no intention of going anywhere near Centre Court and SW19, it seems absolutely reasonable that there should be no proper purpose in the deriving of profit from that purchase.
The ticket is not a piece of real property; it is a licence—an opportunity. It is the chance to sit on one of those hallowed seats at Centre Court, not something to put away and deal with as if it was some property that can be sold to the highest bidder, who perhaps has nothing to do with sport.
At London 2012 we probably had the most discussions around the senior leadership table about ticketing, because it matters. We knew that whatever we did, most people would not get one of those tickets to the greatest show on earth. We had to be absolutely clear and robust in how we structured that ticket offer so that, even if people were unlucky and did not get a ticket, they could at least see exactly what we did at every stage and see that it was transparent, fair and that there was no secondary market.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
My Lords, this has been a marvellous debate. I have heard so many wonderful, emotional things, and now I have to pull myself down and say, “Actually, fraud is already illegal in this country; we do not need any more law—we have enough of that”. We need what we have heard about today from my noble friends Lord Stoneham and Lord Younger of Leckie. The secondary and primary movers in this area need to improve access, and need to do what we need to do for consumers all the time.
What a consumer needs more than anything, first and foremost, is choice. Secondly, we need access to the choice—where do I get the ticket? Do I get it from a reputable source? Therefore we need a choice, access to it, and information about it, all of which has been described here today. I am talking about facts that we have known about for ever. Trading standards has already spoken; it stands for the same six rules for consumers. We want equity; we want it to be fair; and at the end of all that, we want redress. If it goes wrong—if there is cheating—we need that. If we push this underground by trying to tinker with the legislation we already have, then we will have no way of helping the poorest, the least informed or the most overexcited, who will not get their money back and will not get anything. It is stupid to even consider doing it: this is an emotional appeal. I can imagine that on sports tracks it all sounds wonderful, but if you want to get the job done right, the answer is to do it the other way: get the sports operators and the secondary markets right so that we can read about it and understand what we are doing so that no child turns up with a ticket that is a wrong ticket. We will not do it by trying to reinvent the law. We already have a law of fraud.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an occasional West End producer who tries to flog a few tickets here and there. The secondary market has been with us for many years. I well remember in my youth assisting in a Royal Variety performance and my job was to get the artists lined up on the stage to be greeted by Her Majesty after the performance. I stuck particularly close to the late and rather wonderful Tommy Cooper, who was somewhat uncontrollable; he was told very clearly—as all the artists were—not to speak to Her Majesty until the conversation was opened by her good self. Of course, however, as Her Majesty approached Mr Cooper, he jumped in and said, “Your Majesty, do you like football?”. Her Majesty replied, “Actually, not terribly, Mr Cooper”. He said, “Can I have your Cup Final ticket?”.
Whether this is an early example of the secondary market, I am not sure; but what is clear to me from listening to this debate is that the secondary market is alive and well and needs to be encouraged. The proponents of this amendment are seeking not to attack the secondary market, but to encourage it and legitimise it, and to help the sports bodies and promoters who create the events for which there is demand for tickets to manage them so that there is not £1.5 billion-worth of fraud. This is an attempt to attack tickets that do not exist; it is not an attempt to attack the secondary market. There is clearly a very serious problem here: people are being defrauded; the law is clearly deficient. If the Minister sets the Government’s face against this amendment, it is incumbent on them to acknowledge that there is a problem here and come forward with a solution of their own. This is easily the best solution that I have heard; it has the support of the people who create the events and have the interests of their consumers at heart. I sincerely hope that the Government—if they are unwilling to accept this amendment—will come forward with proposals of their own to deal with the £1.5 billion-worth of fraud that has been going on too long.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I echo the words of those noble Lords who have said that this has been a very good debate: it has indeed been good and it is right that it should have been, because it raised difficult issues with which the Government have been grappling. The predominant weight of the arguments that we have heard today—because they were not universally on one side—was for change, so I hope that that will weigh heavily with the Government when they come to consider what they are going to do.
I had a full speech here, full of witty aphorisms and wonderful evidence, but you always find that in debates of this nature, somebody stands up and says, “Do you know, just about everything that could be said about this thing has been said, but not by everybody,” and then they repeat them. I am not going to do that. The issue on which I want to reflect is what on earth the Government are going to do with this. When you have had your case as put in Grand Committee completely destroyed by the forensic words of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan; when you have had your best arguments bashed to boundary by the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint; when you have reduced the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—and it is an astonishing thing—to speak for less than three minutes in a debate; when your former Secretary of State is lining up to give you good advice about how you should deal with this, then you are in a spot of trouble.
You know you are in trouble when you have to rely on people on the other side who are basically scaremongering. I respect the noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Government on this matter, but I think they went way over the top, while we on this side were utter models of restraint. We insisted on only two things: that the equity that should exist for anybody who wishes to buy tickets is not abolishing, changing or adjusting any market; I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Grade, made that point very well, and it was previously made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who picked up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint. Instead, it is about making those markets that exist work fairly, removing the fraud where it is possible, and making sure that people can see and get access to the events they want. When you have consumers, event organisers, participants and the police—for goodness’ sake—on your side, what on earth are you doing, and who are you listening to when you stand against them?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, many of us love British sport and our creative industries. This love unites most of us in the House and certainly those in the Chamber today. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, it has been a very good debate. We have had a star cast, including ladies of sport—the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Heyhoe Flint—and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, so we have had real experts.
Noble Lords will know that I take a great deal of personal interest in this issue. In fact, I should almost declare an interest as a mother of three cricketers. I have met the England and Wales Cricket Board, the organisers of Wimbledon and the Rugby Football Union. I have also met Which? and I am aware of the interest of UK Music, which I meet on other things. I have actively engaged with Mike Weatherley MP and his All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ticket Abuse. I have been working with these bodies to try to get to the core of this issue: what we can best do to help and protect the fans? It is the fans who really matter in this equation.
I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, on their extensive work on this issue and the expertise they always bring to our debates. Most fans buy tickets direct from the venue or the organiser, often well in advance of the event. To pick up a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Heyhoe Flint, debenture holders and sponsors often get ticket allocations well in advance, which is why there are sometimes tickets on sale well ahead of events. A lot can change between a ticket being bought and the event itself—people fall ill or make other plans—and these fans then resell their tickets to other fans. This is the market we are discussing today, for which there has been great support. I agree with the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ticket Abuse when it says that,
“the existence of a secondary market is justified by the need of consumers to pass on tickets bought for events that they can no longer use”.
Let me be clear: we believe fans should be protected in this market.
If the House will bear with me, I will respond to the debate and will then set out some new plans to take things forward. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, talked about fraud. Fraud is a criminal offence under the Fraud Act 2006. It covers activity by all sellers, including consumers and traders. Many of the actions referred to are fraud: selling tickets you do not have and have not purchased is fraud; traders impersonating consumers to sell tickets are committing criminal offences; and, arguably, selling tickets knowingly in contradiction of their terms and conditions without informing the consumer of this may be fraud.
Repeating in the Bill that fraud is a crime would not make it any more illegal. What matters to fans, and many of your Lordships, is enforcement of the law that we have. There is fraud in the ticket market: we do not dispute the numbers quoted from the National Fraud Authority on this. In the specific case of ticket fraud, it reports £1.5 billion of losses. That is not a number to be ignored and we are not going to ignore it. As my noble friend Lord Grade said, there is a serious problem.
The Government have a huge focus on cutting economic crime, and we have created a powerful Economic Crime Command within the National Crime Agency to drive this forward. We have also strengthened the reporting and intelligence arrangements for fraud. ActionFraud is now the single national reporting centre for fraud and financially motivated cybercrime. Since 1 April this year, responsibility for ActionFraud rests with the City of London Police, bringing it closer to the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau. This allows links to be made between disparate crimes that would otherwise not be connected and it has led to a significant increase in the reporting of fraud. The Government are also investing £860 million through the National Cyber Security Programme, which includes work on online fraud.
Lord Deben
Can the Minister help us in this way? She has put forward a number of changes that she intends to make in bilateral discussions and in guidance. Will she agree to take this away and see whether what she has already said can be included in the Bill as statutory requirements? If she were able to do that, I think many of us would be able to support her. The argument has been quite clear that no one is trying to stop the secondary market and no one is trying to do the things that she fears. All we are trying to do is to stand up for the consumer. If she could just give us that, I am sure that we would support her.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank my noble friend Lord Deben. I think I have made a number of commitments. I have set them out in the legislative framework that exists. I will certainly look at how the points that I have made today are implemented. It would be wrong for me to make a commitment to amend the Bill because I am not sure that amending the Bill is what is needed today. What I think is needed is the way forward that I have described. It has been a good debate. The Government have listened and I ask for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Lord Moynihan
My Lords, one again I thank my noble friend the Minister for the time she has taken on this issue, for the hours of meetings and the consultation she has undergone. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. A number of my noble friends believe there may be existing recourse under, for example, the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008, which my noble friend mentioned. No one can genuinely believe that that is a reasonable remedy for a true sports fan who has gone to Gleneagles to see the Ryder Cup and has been sent home disappointed.
That is all ex post. The problem is that something is seriously wrong with what is on the face of the ticket today. Something is seriously wrong with the implementation of the regulations. Something is so wrong that this is a £1.5 billion fraud every year. It is not something that requires minor change or, with the greatest respect to my noble friend the Minister, will be remedied by another round table the month after the general election next year. It will be faced only if the Government recognise their own best practice. I am not standing before the House asking for a whole raft of new legislation. On the contrary, I would argue that we should have less regulation, but the regulation that we should have should be on the face of the Bill and it should work. That is all the amendment seeks.
We are absolutely not against the secondary market. I say to noble Lords who have implied that we are that we firmly believe in the importance of an effective secondary market. We live in an age where the web drives this market and we want to ensure that that secondary market works to the benefit of consumers. The Bill is all about consumers. We believe in choice, access and information but we believe in getting the secondary market right. We believe in ensuring that an individual who buys a ticket on the secondary market has the information on the ticket to ensure that they can enjoy the theatre or go to a sporting event without being party to £1.5 billion a year scam.
Consumers are losing out. It is not just noble friends who have spoken to the amendment who believe in what I am saying. The all-party group believes it and the police believe it. All those who reported to the House after the Olympic Games, having learnt the lessons of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, believe in the effective operation of a secondary market. The reality is that the existing regulations do not work. The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, and I have been working together on this for 20 years. Three sets of legislative proposals have been made and the reality is that the most recent regulations simply do not work. We are very grateful to the Minister for offering another round table and encouragement to the industry. We are grateful to her for the opportunity to sit down and have a review next June. However, to use a sporting metaphor, that kind of offer would be tantamount to kicking the ball into the long grass for another few years.
It is a simple, clear amendment about increasing transparency. It is about improving and reducing regulation and empowering consumers. Given, sadly, that, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, the Minister said that she is not prepared to go away, consider what has been said and come back at Third Reading with an amendment, I have no alternative but to test the will of the House.
“Goods sold under hire-purchase agreements and conditional sales contracts
(1) This section applies to a contract under which a consumer purchases goods from a trader under—
(a) a hire-purchase agreement (as defined in section 7), or(b) a conditional sales contract (as defined in section 5(3)).(2) The trader—
(a) must provide information and adequate explanations to the consumer before a contract is made, which would allow the consumer to compare the total sum that he or she would pay under that contract and a representative retail price for the goods;(b) must not require the consumer to purchase an insurance policy which is sold or brokered by the trader as a condition of entering into a contract.(3) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall create regulations by statutory instrument—
(a) to specify steps that a trader must take before taking action to enforce rights under a contract or to take possession of the goods; (b) to specify steps that a trader must take before a contract is made to ensure that that contract is affordable and appropriate for the consumer.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
If we are allowed to have a small word of congratulation, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
My Lords, this House, as we know, has had some major achievements in tackling high-cost and exploitative credit. Amendment 14 concerns a new, effectively unregulated and exploitative form of loan that has sprung up on our high streets. Along with other high-cost credit, it is found in low-income and deprived areas. It is known as rent to own. It works by consumers theoretically renting household goods—washing machines, fridges, TVs, beds—but with the rent eventually being used to purchase the product.
However, because it is deemed rent, there are few of the safeguards which would cover, for example, a bank loan, if that had been taken out to buy the same product. So there are no checks on affordability for a product aimed at consumers who are “credit constrained”—those are the words of the person who runs one of these big companies. There are no safeguards against the property being repossessed for missing a payment, because, until the final payment, the product is only rented, not owned. While the consumer is theoretically renting the product, though in their mind they are in the process of buying, a missed payment can lead to repossession.
Some of these stores show little forbearance over a missed payment, despite the fact that the consumer may have already paid well over the true value of the goods by the time they come to miss a payment. Furthermore, the prices charged are pretty exorbitant, far exceeding normal retail prices, even including any interest had a bank loan been used to pay for the item. I found a washing machine priced from £400 to £600, depending on which outlet I went to, but it was £1,560 at one of the rent-to-buy stores—up to four times the price. A table which was £200 at Argos was £468 at BrightHouse, one of the rent-to-buy stores. The APR, which admittedly it prints in some of its brochures, is between 60% and 90%. Adding up all these so-called rents amounts to far more than the list price, plus what interest would be paid if the item was bought with a bank loan.
Furthermore, the companies add in compulsory and expensive insurance, even though the goods still belong to the shop, so probably do not even need insuring. BrightHouse told me that the insurance on a £600 product would be £150 over three years. That is far higher than any of us would be able to get for a normal contents insurance. And the insurance is with its wholly owned, Malta-based insurance company or via its Isle of Man company. To add insult to injury, its marketing uses that favourite trick to tempt the buyer, highlighting the price per week rather than the total cost. So the price of a Samsung gold laptop is splashed as £13 a week, albeit that the full cost is £1,392, which includes 94.7% APR. It is little wonder that more than a quarter return their goods within the first 13 weeks of purchase, by which time they will have paid quite a chunk of money for just three months’ use of the item. In the case I mentioned, £170 would have been paid for something that might retail for only £500.
It is also little wonder that there is money to be made in this way. One of BrightHouse’s companies, Caversham Finance Ltd, made £30 million profit before tax, despite its trading company’s annual report stating:
“2014 was … challenging … with customers under pressure from continued high inflation, low wage growth and … the government’s much heralded changes to the welfare system have increased uncertainty for a significant portion of BrightHouse customers who are completely or partially reliant on benefits”.
We have it even from the companies themselves that they are targeting these products at customers who are completely or partially reliant on benefits. Is anyone surprised that I question the business model of a firm that profits from selling high-end goods at over-the-odds prices with compulsory expensive insurance to some of the most vulnerable in society?
Amendment 14 requires a company to set out the total price of the goods including the cost of the credit agreement. It bans making insurance compulsory and it requires the Government to set out guidelines both on checks on affordability and on possible repossession. This is not an attack on any weekly payment system, which can help those on lower incomes with their household budgeting. However, the business model used by companies like BrightHouse is so stacked against the consumer that it is little short of exploitation. I therefore hope that the Government will accept this measured approach, which does not ban this form of credit; it simply introduces greater transparency along with some safeguards. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, the Government share the noble Baroness’s concerns about the risk of consumer detriment in the hire-purchase credit market, particularly to the vulnerable consumers that she has described to the House. I wrote to the noble Baroness on this subject recently and want to take this opportunity to underline that this does include rent to own and we are talking about the same issue.
We have stated before in Committee that consumer credit regulation transferred to the Financial Conduct Authority on 1 April this year. The rules for the consumer credit market, put in place by the FCA, were made with the stated aim of: ensuring that firms lend only to borrowers who can afford it; increasing borrowers’ awareness of the costs and risks of borrowing unaffordably; and ensuring that consumers have access to support if they have financial difficulties.
Accordingly, the FCA rules for hire purchase and conditional sale agreements, including rent-to-own agreements, specifically require firms to provide pre-contractual explanations and information to a consumer before a contract is made. These rules are in line with European requirements, including setting out the total amount payable, the cash price of an item and the total cash price if there is more than one.
Firms must also adhere to debt collection rules, including treating customers in default or arrears difficulties with forbearance and due consideration; and assess creditworthiness and affordability, including the potential to impact adversely on the consumer’s financial situation, and the consumer’s ability to make repayments as they fall due. Where firms sell insurance products, they must do so in line with the FCA’s requirements around assessing consumers’ eligibility to claim on a product, and the high-level principle of “treating customers fairly”. Firms must also give a separate price for the insurance product and explain whether it is compulsory.
These rules are in force now, and the FCA can enforce breaches of its rules— there is no limit on the fines it can levy and, crucially, it can force firms to provide redress to consumers. The FCA keeps all its rules under review and continually considers whether further interventions are needed in the consumer credit market. It will set out further thinking early in the new year.
Regarding the noble Baroness’s specific points about contract enforceability, lenders are already required to serve a statutory notice under the Consumer Credit Act before enforcing the agreement or repossessing goods. Goods cannot be repossessed without a court order if the consumer has paid at least a third of the total amount payable. The FCA also sets out how firms must undertake affordability assessments before entering into an agreement, including taking reasonable steps to assess the customer’s ability to meet repayments in a sustainable manner, without undue difficulties.
To underline that point, the FCA has had full use of these powers since 1 April and can make use its broad enforcement toolkit to punish breaches of its rules. The FCA also has flexible rule-making powers to take further action where it deems it necessary in the protection of consumers. The Government believe that this, alongside the existing protections set out in legislation, provides robust protections for consumers in the conditional sale and hire purchase markets. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, could she address the point about the requirement to purchase an insurance policy? Is that something specifically not permitted at the moment; or is she saying that that is acceptable policy that the Government are prepared to see happen, on the basis that customers are able to enter into choices knowing their position? At the moment, it is not clear that that rather important clause in the amendment is addressed by the answer that the Minister has given.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, the information that I have regarding insurance is that the FCA makes clear rules about insurance with these sorts of products. I will write to the noble Lord to clarify the situation on insurance that has to be purchased from the same firm from which customers are taking out hire purchase on a product.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister for that and indeed for the letter from her colleague the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, on 13 November. This is a little like the last debate. We keep being told that all the regulations are there and that everything is fine but then we hear from Citizens Advice, Debt Line and other organisations that people are getting into trouble with these payments. The figure that was given to me in a meeting this week with BrightHouse that a quarter of the people are actually having to stop payments after 13 weeks suggests that there is something wrong. We are back into, “Don't worry about it: all the rules are there”, but the evidence on the street is that people are taking out these products when they clearly cannot afford them.
I have two other issues. One is insurance. It used to be very common to have to buy travel insurance when you went through a travel agent, but the Financial Services Authority, as it was at the time, stopped that. If the answer to my noble friend Lord Harris’s question is that compulsory insurance purchased through that company so that you cannot shop around is permitted at the moment, we hope that in future the FCA will say that it is not permitted.
I leave the other issue with the Minister because I do not expect a reply at the moment. One of the great advantages of being regulated by the FCA of course will be absolute access to the Financial Ombudsman Service. It would be helpful to know whether that will be made known to all customers of these companies. I hope that the FCA will hear this and we do not continue with the idea that just because something is being regulated there are no problems, because sadly there are. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Product safety and recall
(1) The General Product Safety Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/1803) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 9 (obligations of producers and distributors), after paragraph (3)(d) insert—
“(e) a summary of what the producer or distributor suspects, or has reasonable grounds to suspect, is the number of consumers affected and the type of personal injuries and property damage which the risk associated to the product has caused”.(3) In regulation 32 (reports), after paragraph (5), insert—
“(6) Before completing any report under this regulation, the Secretary of State shall consult the enforcement authorities, such bodies representative of producers and distributors, such bodies representative of consumers and such other persons as he thinks fit.”.
(4) In regulation 33(3) (duty to notify Secretary of State and Commission)—
(a) after “specifying the reason for taking it” insert “, and shall publish such measure, and the reasons for taking it, on his department’s website”,(b) after “of any modification or lifting of such a measure” insert “and shall publish any such modification or lifting immediately on his department’s website”.(5) In regulation 33(5)—
(a) after “the Secretary of State shall immediately” insert “publish such measure or action on his department’s website and”,(b) after “of any modification or withdrawal of any such measure or action” insert “and shall publish any such modification or withdrawal immediately on his department’s website”.(6) In regulation 39 (information)—
(a) in paragraph (1), for “shall in general make available to the public such information as is available to it on the following matters relating to the risks to consumer health and safety posed by a product” substitute “which has received a notification under regulation 9(1) shall immediately publish on its website in respect of the product”,(b) after paragraph (1)(b), insert—“(c) a summary of the number of people reasonably suspected of being affected, and the type of personal injuries and property damage reasonably suspected of being caused, by the risk”,(c) in paragraph (1), for “and the measures taken” substitute “and the measures or action taken, whether on a compulsory or voluntary basis,”.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stevenson. It addresses a serious, indeed often fatal, weakness in consumer protection. When a dangerous fault occurs in an electrical product, there is no adequate mechanism whereby other owners of that same dangerous product are notified of the need to exchange it. The amendment therefore requires manufacturers to inform enforcement authorities about the number of consumers affected and the extent of damage and injury that has been caused. It also requires the Secretary of State to publish information on dangerous products.
It is estimated that approximately 40 to 45 deaths a year are caused by faulty appliances. Although there is a system for recalling dangerous products, it is deeply flawed because of the difficulties of alerting consumers who bought such faulty products and because of unjustifiable delays on the part of some manufacturers in recalling products, even once they know them to be unsafe. Such cases relate to potentially fatal faults arising either from fire, electrocution or carbon monoxide poisoning. Indeed, probably more than 1 million faulty products are still in people’s homes.
The problem is that manufacturers currently have no legal obligation to declare how many such dangerous applications are in circulation. Furthermore, once a manufacture becomes aware of faults, there is no specified timeframe within which they have to act to have others recalled. Some manufacturers have taken years to take action after accidents caused by their appliances. The BIS guidelines are that recall should be expected as soon as the manufacturer becomes aware of the problem, but that is not specific enough. Even more important, perhaps, it is not mandatory. Sadly we see preventable deaths occurring because of failings in the recall system.
I spoke in Committee about the case of Santosh Benjamin-Muthiah, a 36 year-old father of two who was killed in 2010 by a fire caused by a fridge freezer that had been recalled. The manufacturer had been aware of the fault three years earlier but failed to issue a safety notice until 2011—in other words, a year after the death of Santosh Benjamin-Muthiah. By that time, half a million defective fridge-freezers had been sold. Even two years after the recall started, there were probably 100,000 still unidentified in people’s homes.
In another case, Beko was fined £76,600 for failing to inform trading standards of a serious risk posed by some of its cookers. Despite being aware of the fault in 2009, Beko notified trading standards only in 2013. Hotpoint recalled dishwashers with a fire risk a whole year after Which? had raised concerns about them. So there are problems of late starting but, even once something starts, the average success rate for product recalls is only between 10% and 20%.
The current voluntary and slightly haphazard approach is clearly not working. On the one hand, manufacturers fail to recall—due either to cost or to worries about reputational risk, in which case sanctions are inadequate. On the other, despite the producers’ best efforts, current practice is dangerously inadequate, leaving thousands of faulty products in circulation.
In Committee, we asked the Government how many cases of preventable deaths were documented. The Minister responded by letter, saying that she was unable to provide the number of fatal injuries caused by unsafe electrical appliances. However, the DCLG fire statistics do have the data, which show that there were more than 16,000 fires a year caused by faulty products, leading to 15 deaths and nearly 800 injuries. Electrical Safety First’s research into consumer attitudes towards product recalls demonstrated a strong appetite for change. Its report, Consumer Voices on Product Recall, found that a quarter of people thought there was already a central repository of all recall information. So the website called for in our amendment would create what many consumers assume already exists.
Only one-third of consumers always fill in the registration form down at the bottom of the packet when they buy electrical products—we have all seen it there. Six out of 10 say they would be more likely to fill it in if reassured that the information would not be used for commercial gain. Only an independent database, as proposed in our amendment, would deliver this peace of mind. An industry-led list would not encourage people to register, because they would believe that their details would be used for marketing. Of 17 registration forms analysed, only one mentioned safety as a benefit of registration—so it is no wonder people do not think they want to sign up. It is simply not the manufacturers’ priority and it will not become their priority until legislation compels them to take action. Peter Dartford, President of the Chief Fire Officers Association, said:
“The reality is that it is the manufacturers who have created these risks and it is their moral and legal responsibility to ensure these risks are eradicated from homes”.
At the inquest into the death of Mr Benjamin-Muthiah, the coroner called for the creation of a simple, easy to use, government-funded or national website where all faulty products could be registered and accessed by consumers and retailers. He called also for increases in the fines for manufacturers who failed to notify and the creation of a code of practice on product recalls. Our amendment would strengthen consumer protection in line with the views of the coroner, of consumers and of the fire officers, to say nothing of the views of the families of those who have died needlessly. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, about a year ago, in my capacity as chair of the National Trading Standards Board, I had a meeting with what I think was then called the Electrical Safety Council, now rebranded as Electrical Safety First. We were not discussing this issue but it was raised as one of the concerns that the then Electrical Safety Council had about the way in which the recall system worked.
My noble friend highlighted a number of concerning issues. These include, for example, the length of time that often seems to elapse between manufacturers becoming aware of a product failure or an incident, even one leading to an inquest, before they take action to recall products. Their recall efforts are often minimalist in trying to make sure that the message reaches consumers.
I hope that the Government are not simply going to tell us that self-regulation works best and that the systems in place are adequate. The examples that have been cited and the fact that this remains a continuing concern show clearly that action needs to be taken along the lines of my noble friend’s amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, protecting consumers from serious injury and property damage caused by unsafe appliances is a crucial government responsibility. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are listening carefully to the concerns expressed in this House during the passage of this Bill and are absolutely committed to improving the systems of product recall, as I will explain. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for sharing some recent experiences.
I am grateful for the work done by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the trading standards teams across the country which put considerable effort into enforcing an effective product safety regime. In 2012, they inspected more than 100,000 products, which led to more than 2,000 product lines being withdrawn from the market and more than 750 voluntary actions by manufacturers and retailers. There are other withdrawals that good retailers take proactively. Product liability law is an added incentive to action. Most manufacturers and retailers are keen to co-operate with this enforcement effort and there are strong sanctions if they do not. Under product safety law, offenders can rightly face fines of up to £20,000 and 12 months in jail.
However, noble Lords are understandably concerned that we should be rigorous in looking for ways to improve the effectiveness of the recall system, the importance of which I know so well from my retail experience. One important aspect of an effective system is making sure that retailers and manufacturers can contact consumers who have bought an unsafe product. Some good work is already going on across the supply chain to address this issue. It is being led by the Association of Manufacturers of Domestic Appliances and supported by BIS and the Trading Standards Institute on a Register my Appliance portal for consumers, which was launched earlier this month—I hope that noble Lords are all listening because, as a citizen, one should register one’s own appliances. This will make it considerably easier for consumers to register contact details so that they can be traced more easily in the event of a product recall. By encouraging consumers to register their products and to maintain their contact details, it will be much easier to contact relevant consumers in the event of a product recall.
In addition, Electrical Safety First, to which the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred, is working to explore the options for improving traceability and recall effectiveness, in partnership with government and industry members. While this work should increase the traceability of consumers in the event of a product recall, we also need to consider whether we can improve the effectiveness of the current system for registering and publicising products that are subject to recall. Alerting consumers to the risks posed by faulty products can be difficult, especially where goods have changed hands or contact details have altered. It is important that all those who have a part to play in alerting consumers can access the information they need. That is why we are acting today to address the concerns raised by noble Lords by launching an independent review of the product recall system. The review will consider existing information systems, such as the Trading Standards Institute website for informing consumers about product recalls, and how well these work in practice, as well as looking at the cases and data to which the noble Baroness referred. It will also consider how well the EU’s RAPEX rapid alert system for dangerous consumer products covers UK needs and identify any gaps in the coverage that may need to be addressed. Once we have appointed a suitable chair for this review, we will expect it to report back within 12 months.
That review demonstrates that the Government take very seriously the issues raised by noble Lords during the passage of the Bill. Robust product safety legislation is in place based on an EU-wide regime, and this legislation provides consistency for business and consumers across member states, but we must ensure that the whole system works effectively to minimise harm to consumers. That will require all the different players to work better in partnership across the supply chain.
In the light of our decision to conduct an independent review of product recall, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I genuinely thank the Minister for using this opportunity to announce that today. I also thank my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey for his support for that. I welcome the review and I hope that it will consider one of the problems with the European system at the moment. It covers only goods that are sold in more than one EU country, not those sold either only in this country or only in this country and non-EU countries. I note the Register My Appliance initiative, but there is a problem with it which I hope the Government’s review will consider. The industry-led solution led by the AMDEA continues to be an opt-out system—you have to opt out if you do not want your details used for marketing purposes. It will make people reluctant to register if they know that they will get more junk mail or e-mails from product manufacturers.
I am advised by the people at Electricity Safety First that the system as set up will be used for marketing unless you opt out, and we know the difficulty with that. I trust that that can be looked at in the review.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a good point, and I will certainly take it away and suggest that we add that to the review of product recalls.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, that is very good news and I think that it will be welcomed by consumers as well as by me. In the light of our steps forward, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) Digital content as defined under section 2(9) shall carry the same rights as goods under this Act.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, Amendment 16 stands in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. Digital sales are booming and the digital music, video and games market now accounts for 43% of the total UK entertainment sector. Recent research puts the UK as the leading European country for total digital spent per capita. This is indeed the future.
The main focus of Amendment 16 is the question of whether, when digital content is provided in an intangible form and does not meet quality standards, the consumer should, as the Government propose, be restricted simply to a right of repair or replacement. We believe very strongly that, in addition, the consumer should in such cases have both a short-term and a long-term right to reject the digital content. The Government’s argument is that where digital content is downloaded or streamed, it is not provided on a tangible medium and therefore cannot be returned in any meaningful sense. Passing over the obvious metaphysical absurdity of believing that only physical objects can be meaningful, that is inconsistent—not least because consumers will have a short-term and a long-term right to reject the identical digital content if it is bought on a tangible medium, such as a DVD or CD.
As the BIS Select Committee commented when it was reviewing the draft Bill:
“The different remedies available for tangible and intangible digital content in the bill would … embed inconsistency into consumer law. Consumers experience intangible digital content in the same way as tangible digital content, as a good, and therefore would expect to be able to reject it and receive a refund if the statutory rights are not met”.
Well, they can get a refund, but they cannot reject it. It cannot be sensible for the Government to be sanctioning two different regimes for tangible and intangible goods and services, and I very much doubt that the courts will support that.
The department has produced and circulated a useful note on this whole issue, for which I am very grateful. I am also grateful to the Minister, who wrote to me after the debate we had on this issue in Committee. That was also extremely helpful and informative. However, it is a question of consistency and equity not whether we can analyse this or parse it to the last extent. The right thing to do here is to provide the same rights for all faulty purchases, tangible or intangible, while recognising that any short-term or long-term right to reject needs to be matched by a requirement placed on the consumer to delete the content and, if that is impracticable, to desist from use or copying. There are already remedies in law that would match this issue.
The BIS adviser on this issue, Professor Robert Bradgate, who sadly, I recently learnt, died before he could see his recommendations implemented, recognised that problem in his initial report and suggested that it should be tackled by,
“an extension of the definition of goods to apply provisions of the Act both to goods, and to digital products … and to include power in the … legislation for Her Majesty’s Secretary of State to apply the Act by Statutory Instrument to new developments as they arise”.
That remains good advice. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, will thank me for making an even shorter speech than I made in the previous debate. I must say that my breath is somewhat taken away by the sweeping nature of the amendment, which tries to sweep all digital content into the clauses on the sale of goods. The software industry may have some difficulty with some areas of Chapter 3 on digital content, but if what the noble Lord wants happened, it would be horrified. The dialogue between the software industry and the Government may not have produced everything that the software industry wants, but it has recognised that digital content is very different. I forewarned the noble Baroness, Lady King, that I would cite her. Like me, she said:
“I will not speak at length on this amendment or the other amendments … but it seems worth reiterating the peculiar nature of digital content”. [Official Report, 20/10/14; col. GC 183.]
Although I do not have the exact reference, I entirely agree with her. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made similar points about the peculiar nature of digital content. It would be an extremely retrograde step to sweep up the additional content in this. If the noble Lord had come with individual amendments to the clauses to bring digital content in, I might have been more sympathetic, because one then could have seen the exact consequences of the amendments, but the consequences of this amendment could be quite unforeseen and extremely contrary to the interests of the strong and vibrant software industry that we have in this country.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, the Bill brings in clear quality rights for consumers of digital content for the first time. In this digital age, many of us are consumers of digital content on our smartphones, our smart televisions, our computers and, I was hearing this morning, on wearables. The sector is crucial and growing for the UK economy. The Business Population Survey estimated that there were more than 300,000 digital content firms in 2013—e-book publishers, games, software and website developers—with an annual turnover of just over £200 billion. It is vital that we have the right sort of regulation for that important, very innovative sector. That is why we have consulted widely on our approach to digital content.
The digital content chapter provides that when digital content is faulty, the consumer is entitled to a repair or replacement of the digital content. If that cannot be done within a reasonable time, or without significant inconvenience to the consumer, the consumer is entitled to a price reduction, which may mean some money back or, in some cases, 100%. I set out the general picture because we are about to discuss a number of amendments in this area.
This approach takes account of the way that industry works. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who I am delighted to see here at this debate, said in Grand Committee,
“in practical terms the software industry will always find a workaround or fix to a problem”.—Official Report, 20/10/14; col. GC 211.]
I have been using that quote elsewhere. In other words, when digital content is faulty, the problem is usually remedied quickly through an update.
The proposed amendment would apply to intangible digital content the same rights as apply to goods. So when intangible digital content is faulty, the consumer would also be entitled to a short-term right to reject, a limit to a single repair or replacement, and a final right to reject. Applying the full suite of goods remedies to digital content where it does not form part of goods, as it does in a washing machine, for example, would result in provisions that were not fit for the digital world.
We want provisions that encourage an increase in uptake and allow industry to innovate and flourish. This amendment would be a retrograde step, to the detriment of consumers. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, who has already been quoted as a real digital expert, reflected in Committee, we must remember that many digital content producers are micro-businesses and start-ups, and we need to maintain an environment in which they can flourish and provide innovative products—while, of course, not letting them off the hook for substandard offerings.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, made a number of good points, but I feel, as does my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, that the proposals in his amendment could have unforeseen effects. A short-term right to reject intangible digital content and strict limits on the numbers of repairs and replacements would not be practical in the complex world we live in. In the digital environment, a fault in one copy of digital content may be replicated in all copies, or the fault may not be a result of an action by the trader at all. That is why a repair is a more equitable solution in the first instance than a full refund.
There are also issues around the practicality of “returning” intangible digital content. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is suggesting that there should be an obligation on the consumer to delete digital content and on the trader to provide a refund. I do not believe it would be equitable or necessary to impose such a burden on consumers, who may not be technically savvy enough to achieve this—or not without assistance from the content supplier. Of course, many forms of digital content are quickly used, so the consumer may already have taken advantage of the digital content as much as they intended—for example, having viewed the film or read some of the e-book—before they reject it. There is a high risk that a short-term right to reject would therefore push manufacturers towards more restrictive data management techniques that would not be in the best interests of the consumer. Or it could cause the industry to be more conservative in its product offerings, reducing our competitiveness. Innovation would be chilled.
Looking to the future, it is also worth considering the moves in Europe towards a digital single market, and remembering that digital content is commonly sold across borders. The short-term right to reject is a domestic law; there is no short-term right to reject in the consumer sales directive from which many of the goods remedies derive. If we went ahead with a short-term right to reject intangible digital content, we could be out of step with Europe, creating problems for our manufacturers who want to sell across borders.
I believe that, although there are attractions in providing a short-term right to reject for digital content where it does not form part of goods, this would tip the balance of the Bill too far the wrong way. Indeed, it would be to the detriment of consumers, who would suffer from, at the very least, restricted product offerings and higher prices. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister for her full reply. I would like to come back on one or two of the points that she mentioned. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for coming at me with rather less venom than he threatened me with outside the Chamber beforehand, when he implied that I would be mad even to stand up and make my speech. The bark was rather worse than the bite on this occasion, particularly as I have now discovered that, even though he had the correct item in his hand, he misquoted my noble friend Lady King. My noble friend is incredibly adept on the iPad, and was able to summon up the full quote, and of course it was about a different issue. I shall have words with my noble friend Lord Knight later: he gets quoted too often on these issues and, as I have discovered, he is not always sound on some of the points that we want to put through.
Lord Clement-Jones
“( ) For the purposes of subsection (2), a reasonable person shall be taken to be aware that certain types of digital content commonly include minor defects which do not have an adverse effect on functionality.”
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, my noble friend was kind enough to quote me in her previous response, so I hope that she will go even further than that and accept an amendment from me. One lives in hope. I am indeed returning to the fray on the subject of software. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, reads Hansard he will realise how accurate my quote from the noble Baroness, Lady King, was.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I did not say it was inaccurate; I just said that it was not the complete phrase as recorded. The reference that my noble friend showed me was to bug fixes; it was not about the particularity of the need for a separate regime for returning material to digital suppliers because it was defective in some way.
Lord Clement-Jones
Logically, one thing follows another. That is exactly the purpose of this amendment. Indeed, I shall refer again to the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady King, on 20 October, as recorded at column GC 183 of Hansard. It has been extraordinarily helpful in formulating the terms of this amendment.
Let me explain. Amendment 34, tabled in Grand Committee, sought to amend Clause 34 to include a provision stating that it is common for computer software to include defects due to its dynamic nature and the complex environment in which it operates. In response to that amendment my noble friend Lady Jolly asserted that,
“the Bill is flexible enough to cope with”,
the differences between complex software and simpler forms of digital content such as music. She said that “reasonable consumers” understood that complex content contains bugs, and that,
“freedom from minor defects is an aspect of satisfactory quality only ‘in appropriate cases’”.—Official Report, 20/10/14; col. GC 184.]
The Minister was clear about this in Grand Committee, but, as the Federation Against Copyright Theft has said, it is far from the case that a district court or a county court would be clear about it.
In the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady King of Bow, suggested that,
“it seems reasonable to say that where minor defects in software do not affect the overall functionality of the product, that digital content should not be deemed unsatisfactory”.—[Official Report, 20/10/14; col. GC 183.]
I agree—and the software industry agrees, and very much supports this approach, as it is much more outcome based. We have reformulated the amendment as a result, and it now says that as long as the defect does not affect the main functionality of the digital content, it should not be regarded as rendering it unsatisfactory.
My noble friend Lady Jolly questioned in Grand Committee what the driver for industry would be to improve the software if the legislation stated that some types of software contain bugs and, as such, this would not mean that the digital content was faulty. However, it is in industry’s commercial interest constantly to improve its products. In fact, to the contrary, the clause as formulated might have an adverse effect in encouraging industry not to make changes or improvements to its digital content. The consequences of strict compliance are likely to be increased costs to consumers and slower product evolution, arising from the increased time and resource required for testing. It is preferable for consumers and businesses to require that minor defects or malfunctions that may surface as a product or service is used be fixed as promptly as possible.
Amendments 18 and 19 aim to remove the risk of claims in relation to minor software glitches. Such claims are potentially expensive and time-consuming for software providers to resolve and would not benefit consumers. In Grand Committee, Amendments 37 and 38 sought to amend Clause 36 to clarify that the presence of bugs in complex types of digital content does not mean that the content is not as described. My noble friend Lady Jolly responded by commenting that,
“digital content either meets the description or … not”,
and that the amendments would undermine,
“the requirement that the digital content should be as described”.—[Official Report, 20/10/14; col. GC 186.]
My noble friend provided a simple example of a defect in software where the spellchecker no longer worked yet the software was described as having this function. With all due respect, the spellchecker example is very simplistic. It is a different situation with regard to complex software such as security software, which has to evolve over time and needs to be updated to address the myriad situations to enable the software to continue to interface with other third-party software and platforms, to continue to function or to address new vulnerabilities.
These issues were discussed during the debate in Grand Committee on Amendment 40A, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. His amendment would have amended Clause 40 to enable suppliers to make modifications to the software if they are of benefit to the consumer, remedy risks or improve functionality, irrespective of whether the modification would mean that the digital content no longer meets that description. I am pleased that the Government have partially relented on that and that, as a result, we now have government Amendment 20 to Clause 40. The supplier can now add functionality but software suppliers will still not be able to remove features. Neither Clause 36 nor Clause 40 takes into consideration that certain features may have to be removed or disabled from security software. Suppliers of security software may have to remove a function as it is in the very interest of a consumer to do so, as the function could be vulnerable to attack and this specific vulnerability could leave the consumer open to a range of threats—from a virus that will steal personal information or credit card details to malware that will infect a user’s machine, rendering it unusable and/or wiping data such as precious family photos.
Functions of security software are not removed without good reason. If suppliers do not remove a function, there are many circumstances where this will be to the detriment of consumers. I hope that my noble friend will recognise the particular circumstances of software and give her approval at least to the tenor of these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for setting out his stall, and I will set out mine. The new quality rights that we are introducing for digital content provide that digital content should be of satisfactory quality, fit for any particular purpose and as described. These core rights mirror those already used for goods, building on consumer expectations and familiar concepts for business. The core rights are principles-based and flexible. This is important for goods and especially important for digital content, which is constantly evolving. They are intended to work effectively in a wide range of scenarios, applying to goods ranging from rubber ducks to luxury yachts. Similarly, they are designed to apply to the range of digital content, from music files to complex security software products.
The key to the success of the Bill is to balance solid consumer rights with workable outcomes for business. This will create an environment where consumers are confident about buying more, contributing to more innovative products and driving growth and innovation for industry. The concept of freedom from minor defects comes into Clause 34 as a factor that could be taken into consideration in the assessment of satisfactory quality.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for his consideration of the question of how freedom from minor defects would apply to digital content which is of a type that commonly contains defects. However, noble Lords should note that, crucially, freedom from minor defects is only part of the assessment of satisfactory quality in appropriate cases. We have made it clear in the Explanatory Notes, as I mentioned in Committee, that it is the norm to encounter some bugs in a complex game or piece of software on release, so a reasonable person might not expect that type of digital content to be totally free from minor defects. The Government, and most consumers, understand that these types of products are commonly released with minor bugs, as a result of the development cycle of these products or the complex environment in which they operate. So while a reasonable consumer might expect a music file or an e-book to be free from minor defects or bugs, they would not have the same expectations of a complex computer game or a complex suite of business software.
We have not taken the step of defining what is or is not a minor defect because that will depend on the context. For example, in the goods context, a reasonable consumer may not expect the design on some hand-painted pottery to be completely uniform, but may reasonably expect it to be scratch-free. Similarly, consumers may reasonably expect some defects in goods sold as seconds, but there would come a point where a defect may render the goods unsatisfactory. However, a defect that has an adverse effect on the functionality of digital content should be capable of being taken into account in assessments of quality. Minor defects are defects that are unlikely to affect the functionality of the product but which, depending on the context, may or may not affect assessments of quality. For example, a minor defect in digital content could be something such as a click sound on a music file, or a character who has the wrong colour hair in one level of a computer game. Whether or not this would affect the satisfactory quality of the digital content would depend on the context, which would include factors such as the type of content and whether that type commonly contains defects.
I understand that industry would take some comfort from having the fact that some forms of digital content contain minor defects reflected in the Bill but I believe that this is neither necessary nor desirable for consumers. Moreover, as I have said already, under Clause 34, “freedom from minor defects” is only an aspect of satisfactory quality “in appropriate cases”. The amendment, as drafted, could narrow an understanding of what a reasonable person would expect in other circumstances.
Taking Amendments 18 and 19 together, I recognise that a defect affecting the functionality of digital content is unlikely to be minor. It is quite right that a defect that affects the functionality of the digital content could affect assessments as to fitness for a particular purpose and would match the description. Of course, if the digital content is specifically described as being free of defects then any defects in the digital content would not match the description. However, “fit for a particular purpose”, and “as described” are concepts that go broader than simply the functionality of the digital content. As such, I would be concerned that excluding defects that do not affect functionality from assessments as to whether digital content is fit for a particular purpose or as described would risk creating a lack of clarity for consumers and lowering consumer protection.
It is also worth reflecting briefly on the requirements of a trader should digital content not be of satisfactory quality, fit for a particular purpose or as described. As there is no short-term right to reject intangible digital content, the remedy would be a repair or a replacement. As the industry usually provides fixes to remedy issues in the form of an update where digital content is not of satisfactory quality, the Bill provides a remedy that is proportionate and in line with industry practice.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank my noble friend. She may be quite surprised to hear this, but I thought that was a very useful exposition, and I do not think we are a million miles apart. If she is not careful, she may be quoted for years to come on a Pepper v Hart basis, and there is no finer monument than that for a Minister. I was pleased to hear that. Consideration of Hansard in due course will give quite a lot of assurance to the software industry. I thank my noble friend very much for that statement and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jolly
“(1A) Subsection (1)(c) does not prevent the trader from improving the features of, or adding new features to, the digital content, as long as—
(a) the digital content continues to match the description of it given by the trader to the consumer, and(b) the digital content continues to conform to the information provided by the trader as mentioned in subsection (3) of section 36, subject to any change to that information that has been agreed in accordance with subsection (4) of that section.”
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, this amendment reflects the dynamic nature of digital content. We all recognise that digital content changes to some extent over time when we receive updates to our software and apps. I listened carefully to the concerns raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones that industry viewed Clause 40 as a potential barrier to providing improvements to digital content, and I am grateful for their careful consideration.
Clause 40 provides that following an update to digital content, that digital content must still meet the quality rights: satisfactory quality, fit for a particular purpose and as described. The provision that digital content should match the description was never intended to fix the digital content to a static point in time. That would not be an option that reflected the way updates work. We made it clear in the Explanatory Notes that there was nothing to prevent updates as long as the contract stated that such updates would be supplied. Moreover, the trader has flexibility in how they describe the digital content at the outset. For example, traders can make it clear that improvements are not precluded. However, the consumer should have some protections against digital content changes which remove features that they relied on when they made a decision to buy the digital content.
There is clearly an important balance to be struck here between the ability of the digital content industry to adapt, change and innovate in a fast-paced environment and the rights of consumers to get what they have paid for. This amendment aims to address the concerns raised in debate that the provision on updates as originally drafted could prevent traders improving digital content or offering flexible products. That is not an outcome that would be good for consumers. The amendment clarifies in the Bill that Clause 40 does not prevent traders adding new features or enhancing existing features as long as the original description is still met. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s comments. She is right to have responded to the discussions we had in Committee. I am sure my noble friend Lord Sugar will be looking to hire her shortly, given how much she has responded to what he said through his surrogate, my noble friend Lord Haskel.
I shall ask a couple of questions because, although I am not against this, I am reflecting on the earlier discussions in Committee and the letter received on 5 November from the Minister in relation to free digital content. I am intrigued by her remarks, which are, I think, really about a situation where there has been a consideration—I assume money has passed—so we are talking about content that has been supplied because of a contract that has been established between a consumer and a trader. I am grateful to Pauline McBride of Glasgow University, who raised this point with me, and I shall put a couple of questions to the Minister which arise from the correspondence I have been having with her.
At another point in Committee, my noble friend Lord Knight mentioned that customers frequently supply non-monetary consideration for the supply of digital content. Promises and undertakings made by a consumer under a website terms of use are a good example. There is no doubt that clicking on terms of use or some form of conditions, for example, with a well known retailer would be an example of entering into an arrangement with a supplier of digital content, but is it a contract? If it is, clearly one or two of the things that the Minister said are going to be raised. If it is not a contract, because it is not a monetary consideration, then what exactly are we talking about?
The reason for worrying about this is that research suggests that providers of websites through which access is provided to digital content are applying terms and conditions, warranty disclaimers and indemnity provisions which limit the consumer’s rights. Providers may not be able to circumvent the statutory considerations —even limited to those in the Bill, which I object to them being—but consumers will not be able to get full redress if they have self-limited themselves through clicking on to terms of use created by the website which have somehow reduced the quality of the redress they can get from the original provider. I am taking a long time to describe this, but I hope the Minister understands the point I am trying to make. I am worried about consumers who are not paying a monetary consideration but who are engaging in a contractual arrangement with a website being excluded from normal redress provisions on the grounds that there has been no monetary consideration. If the Minister could write to me on that, I would be quite happy. There is also a question about what happens if the contractual obligations being placed are such that they would not be recognised under the Bill.
Baroness Jolly
I am happy to offer a full explanation to the noble Lord by letter, but I understand that the unfair terms provision still applies when there is a contract but no money is involved.
Baroness Jolly
Baroness Jolly
Baroness Jolly
During the debate on digital content that we had in Committee, I noted a number of concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, who is not in his place, about the complex environment in which digital content works and the difficulty for the industry in ensuring that its digital content will work seamlessly in all possible configurations on a user’s device and will not have any unintended effects elsewhere on the device.
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving such careful consideration to this matter. As I have said before, it is essential that we strike a balance between providing an appropriate and workable set of protections to consumers in this growing area and the need to enable the industry to innovate and respond flexibly to changes in a fast-paced environment. I believe that the remedies provided in the Bill for faulty digital content are proportionate and appropriate. They provide that if digital content is faulty, the consumer will be entitled to a repair, an update or a replacement, or if that is not possible, some or all of their money back.
However, there is one area in the digital content provisions where statutory liability could extend beyond the price paid for the digital content, covering where the digital content damages the consumer’s device or other digital content, and that is in Clause 46. The clause was drafted to reflect negligence principles and to clarify that consumers have a right to compensation, even for free digital content, when it causes damage and the consumer can show that the trader failed to use reasonable care and skill to prevent the damage occurring.
Clause 46 was drafted to reflect negligence principles. It is therefore appropriate that the position on limitations to liability for Clause 46 is different from that for the quality rights provided in the rest of the digital content chapter. The amendment allows traders to exclude or restrict their liability for damage to the consumer’s device or other digital content to the extent that it would be fair under Part 2 of the Bill. This seeks to maintain the approach taken to this clause of reflecting negligence principles and bring it even closer to the current position on limits to liability. The amendment also corrects an error in a cross-reference in Clause 47(2). I do not think it appropriate, however, to extend this amendment to cover the quality rights in the rest of the digital content chapter. Consumers should clearly be entitled to a remedy for faulty digital content, and the remedies provided in this chapter are appropriate. I therefore beg to move Amendment 22.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am becoming a single-trick pony, as I think it is called. I am going to ask again about free content and I hope that the Minister can give me some solace on it. We on this side are still worried about whether free digital content, generically, can be brought within the requirements of providing quality, fitness for purpose and conformity with description. I am still unclear about how this will work in practice because of the problem in consideration. Maybe that will be covered in the letter she has promised to write to me.
I have an additional worry about this, which is that there are often contracts for delivery of services that might fall into the type caught by the amendment and which may be from a manufacturer rather than from a particular provider of software. I do not wish to accuse any particular manufacturer but will take a well known brand which has a connection with fruit. If its terms of use were such that they were going to cause significant detriment to consumers, would it be possible for the Secretary of State, in extreme circumstances, to make an order specifically addressing the terms of use that were generically produced and always clicked into by people without, I suspect, ever being read? I am a little uncertain about how this bites—sorry about the pun—when we are talking about generic material which will probably be running hidden and not even ever recognised by a consumer, and is possibly free or has at least been delivered free of any additional charge, perhaps because it is an update or a fix. Is there something that could be done on this? I quite understand that it might take time to generate a response and I would be happy with a letter.
Baroness Jolly
I, too, am the digital person for the evening, so rather than trying to put something together here at the Dispatch Box, it is probably safer for all of us if I add it to my letter.
Baroness Jolly
“(6) For provision limiting the ability of a trader under a contract within section 46 to exclude or restrict the trader’s liability under that section, see section 62.”
“( ) In every contract to supply a service, traders who are ring-fenced bodies providing financial services as defined under section 142A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (ring-fenced body) shall be subject to—
(a) a fiduciary duty towards its consumers in the operation of core services to provide these with reasonable care and skill as well as in the management of any individual contract to provide services; and(b) a duty of care towards consumers across the financial services sector.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I move Amendment 26 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and myself. In doing so, I draw very much on my experience on the Financial Services Consumer Panel, but also, I regret to say, on countless examples since, when we have witnessed financial institutions acting in breach of any fiduciary duty towards their customers and in ways that are highly prejudicial to the whole of the UK’s financial stability and reputation. Most recently, as we saw last week, the FCA had to impose £1.1 billion of fines for manipulation of the foreign exchange market. Exactly in whose interests were those banks working? It was not the interests of individual customers nor, indeed, of the totality of customers.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 26. The question of fiduciary duty and the strengthening of the duty of care in the financial services sector is a matter of considerable significance which has attracted much commentary, increasingly so since 2008. Liberalisation was intended to produce efficient markets, but as we discovered, for many parts of the financial services markets it did not. Conduct, culture and conflicts of interest among the providers got in the way. Governments have still to resolve that challenge. The amendment would place in the Bill a requirement that financial services providers would have a fiduciary duty of care in providing services to their consumers, individually and collectively.
There is still ambiguity as to what the law requires from financial services sector providers in terms of their obligations on a duty of care. As my noble friend has said, we continue to see market failure and an increasing need for consumer protection. Parts of the sector are still characterised by systemic conflicts of interest. We see complexities in the design and presentation of products, asymmetries of knowledge and understanding between trader and consumer, and consumer inertia and behavioural bias. All these combine to build inefficiencies into financial services markets that are profitable to the provider but detrimental to the consumer. Regulatory reliance on compliance with rules, rather than placing greater responsibility on the provider very clearly to act in the consumer’s interests, consistently fails to deliver not only for the consumer but for the economy as a whole. UK financial institutions are at risk of becoming unattractive to investors because they are so vulnerable to regulatory fines.
Over the past 10 years or so, there have been 18 separate competition reviews into retail banking and many other investigations into, and thematic reviews of, various parts of the financial sector, but still we are seeing significant inefficiencies in the market and customers being unable to exercise effective control or influence over providers’ behaviour. There have been so many reports on the financial services sector which have identified parts of the market that cannot be expected to self-remedy. We have seen products such as PPI adding 20% to the cost of a loan, sold in vast numbers and to people who could not claim on them. Consumer behaviour and complexity have allowed firms to design products with high profit margins and then sell them aggressively. The regulatory response to protecting consumers against risky products has included mandated disclosure, requiring people to confirm that they had read and understood the terms and conditions. However, in reality, we know most people do not read those terms and conditions; they trust in the good behaviour of the provider selling them the product, but all too often that behaviour is not good.
On terms and conditions, according to the FCA, most people make choices by stripping away information, not adding more detail. This holds true in bank and insurance contracts and the like, many of which are now, to quote Martin Wheatley, “longer than ‘Hamlet’”. But even when information is shortened and prominence given to key facts, many customers still do not absorb or use the information. The recent FCA work on the UK’s cash savings market reveals that some 82% of adults have a savings account but that the large majority pay little or no attention to alternative accounts on offer. These are arguments for why strengthening the fiduciary duty of reasonable care into the financial services sector through this Bill is so compelling.
I was reflecting in preparation for this debate about the failure of regulatory rule compliance to protect the consumer, when into my inbox came the text of the recent speech of John Griffith-Jones, the chair of the FCA, delivered at the Cass Business School, which was trailed with the press headline,
“The FCA’s increase in regulatory rules has failed to prevent misconduct”.
In his speech, he quotes Julie Dickson, previously at the Canadian Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, who said:
“Having lawyers looking at this line or that clause and debating with you about whether something is do-able or not is not the right conversation to have. The right conversation is the principle”.
Mr Griffith-Jones refers to the FCA’s 11 principles, but of the 11,000-plus detailed rules, he asks,
“how many rules do we need as well? … we have made a great many rules already but they don’t seem to prevent further problems arising, and … what starts as an attempt to provide clarity frequently ends up creating complexity”.
He comments on the FCA rulebook, which,
“looks a bit like layers of sedimentary rock, eminently explicable as to how it got there, and extremely hard work to change radically”.
He concludes:
“We regulators have a big job ahead of us, but modest as compared to the changes required of some of the firms we regulate. Their future behaviour will shape the future of regulation, and over time they will get, from Parliament, the regime they merit”.
He is right, of course, but for me the fear is that Governments will take too long to embrace that very simple principle in legislation that the relevant financial service providers should have a fiduciary duty towards their consumers in the operation of core services to provide these with reasonable care and skill as well as in the management of any individual contract to provide services. It is, after all, the providers’ conduct which will determine the integrity and future of the UK’s financial sector.
As my noble friend Lady Hayter has argued, the amendment would extend the Bill’s duty of acting with “reasonable care and skill” to the financial services industry. The first part of the amendment would establish a fiduciary duty that would demand a higher standard of care for direct consumers, and the second part would extend that general duty to all consumers across the sector. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, replying to the debate on this issue in Committee, said,
“it is not clear to me what imposing the duty of ‘reasonable care and skill’ would add to requiring banks to comply with the ring-fencing and the many other regulatory requirements”,
a comment on which I have reflected. Of course, structural change is very important in contributing to the stability and sustainability of the financial sector, but it will not provide a solution in its own right. It is clear from the pronouncements coming from the FCA that the behavioural and cultural challenge within the sector remains a major issue, requiring innovative ways of understanding the marketplace, influencing its behaviour and strengthening the demand side—the consumer. I doubt whether ring-fencing and current regulatory requirements alone will deliver the conduct change necessary.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, argued that the FCA’s 11 principles,
“are high-level requirements which already cover the ground set out in the amendment”.—[Official Report, 22/10/14; col. GC 227.]
I refer to the same principles referenced by the Minister in Committee. Principle 2 is:
“A firm must conduct its business with due skill, care and diligence”,
while Principle 6 states:
“A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly”,
and Principle 8 is:
“A firm must manage conflicts of interest fairly”.
These are relatively modest and soft words from a consumer perspective, when one considers the persistent problems and the imbalance in strength between the supply side, the provider, and the demand side, the consumer, which so often typifies this sector. Achieving cultural change and good conduct in parts of the financial sector remains a challenge, as Mr Griffith-Jones himself confirms, and is the key to the long-term sustainability of the UK financial services sector, in the interests not only of the consumer but of the UK economy, of which it is a significant part. There needs to be an extra push to make financial service providers put their customers’ interests first, and this amendment, with the principle that it enshrines, would begin to make a contribution to that push and restoration of the integrity of the financial services market.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, before I turn to the amendment in detail, I shall take a step back and look at the amendment in the context of Clause 49 and the wider context of financial services regulation in the UK. The purpose of the Bill is to strengthen the rights of consumers, and it is designed to make changes to consumer law of general application and scope. It is not intended as a substitute for sector-specific legislation or the rules that sector-specific regulators may make. Clause 49 helps consumers by requiring, in effect, that every contract between a business and consumer for the supply of services includes an obligation that the business performs a service with “reasonable care and skill”. The clause would therefore apply to the provision of services of all kinds; it would apply to the provision of financial services by all parts of the financial services industry, not just the provision of core services by ring-fenced banks.
As we all know, the financial services industry—not just banks—is already subject to the comprehensive regulatory regime set out in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, a great deal of secondary legislation and the massive PRA and FCA rule books. I am sure that no Member of the House will disagree with the proposition that we need a better deal from our banks, whether as individual consumers, small businesses or, for that matter, society as a whole. The question we now have to consider is whether this amendment would help us to get that better deal. The Government do not consider that it would.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
First, I thank my noble friend Lady Drake for her support on this. Actually, she said it all—ignoring fiduciary duty fails the consumer and the economy as a whole
The Minister has asked what difference the amendment would make. Fiduciary duty does not mean just reasonable care and skill. Fiduciary duty means putting your customer first; not allowing your interest to conflict or to override theirs. The fiduciary duty is quite different from reasonable care and skill. The wording is that these bodies should be subject to a fiduciary duty which they then must provide with reasonable care and skill, but the fiduciary duty is greater than reasonable care and skill. It is about avoiding conflict of interest and about making sure that the decisions you take are in the customer’s interest—albeit the decisions should also be taken with reasonable care and skill.
If I am looking after £1 million of someone’s money, I must put their interest in that money first; and the way I then invest it must be done with reasonable care and skill. That is the extra ingredient that we are seeking to add. Clause 49 by itself—good though it is to include “reasonable care and skill” as it covers financial services—does not include this wider avoidance of conflict of interest, by putting the consumer’s interest first.
No, this will not help get redress. That is not what we are interested in. We want to prevent these things happening. Yes, compensation was paid for PPI—mostly out of the banks’ profits. But that should never have had to be paid—we do not want these things going wrong in the first place. As my noble friend said, rules are not enough; it is a culture change that we need.
We need it written in a Bill that when you are looking after someone else’s money you have a fiduciary duty towards them. There must be some lawyers in the Chamber tonight. They understand fiduciary duty, but it seems that banks do not. As for the other problem and the question of what difference it will make, we do not just want compensation for consumers. Frankly, I want a few hangings. None of the people who mis-sold PPI is in prison. I do not think that any of those people on whom £1.1 billion in fines have just been imposed will be prosecuted. We need this in a piece of legislation, so that if people break it, they can answer for it.
I therefore hope that, even if I do not push this to a vote tonight, the Government understand that we do not simply want reasonable care and skill. Where people’s life savings—their pensions—are in the hands of someone else, whom they cannot check on because they cannot look at their day-to-day decisions, that person must at every moment put the consumer’s interest first. That was what this amendment was trying to do.
I hope that, even though I will now ask to withdraw this amendment, the Government will look at something that is still going wrong, and will not simply say, “The rules are there and are sufficient”, because clearly they are not. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
“(1A) Where the quality of the service can be reasonably considered to lead to a risk to the personal safety of the consumer, the consumer has a right to refuse a repeat performance, and exercise their right to a price reduction under section 56.
(1B) Any action taken under subsection (1A) will not prevent the consumer from seeking other remedies or further compensation for the consequences of this installation.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, this is a different sort of amendment, which stands in the names of my noble friend Lord Stevenson and myself, and which seeks to protect the consumer who has had something done in their house and a faulty installation has occurred—not simply a faulty installation such as a table being put in the wrong way round, but where there is a risk to the person concerned. Instead of having to have the installers back in to try to put right whatever they have done wrong, it would give the person concerned the right to move to a refund without having to accept a repair first.
The rest of the Bill is very good where it says that there should be only one repair, and that, if that does not work, you can get the money back. However, there are circumstances in which we think they should not have to have a repair done first; they are in their own home and something has happened which makes them feel at risk. Examples of this sort of thing are where a trader has tried to install a dishwasher but floods the whole kitchen, a bathroom floods the kitchen below—which I have seen happen quite recently—or an electrician is sent to install a new shower, and manages to wire the shower to the electric light bulb rather than to the mains. Again, sadly, that is not just a figment of my imagination. A gas engineer may make a complete mess of putting in a new boiler and cause a gas leak, leaving the consumer thinking, “I don’t want these people back in my house—they don’t know what they’re doing. I want them out before they do any more damage, and I want my money back so that I can get someone in who’s a little more trustworthy”. However, as the Bill stands at the moment, the trader may say, “No; I’ve got the right to come in and sort it out before I give you any money back”.
Our amendment would provide clarity for both parties in those circumstances, allowing customers to say: “I no longer trust you because I feel at risk—I want my money back”. I know from Committee that the Government have some sympathy with our point and with our concerns about this, but they argued that in such cases—which I think the Minister understood—the consumer retains the option to seek damages in court. However, that is not what the Bill should require. Taking a trader to court is very difficult for a consumer; they have to instigate legal action, which itself is complicated, expensive and uncertain. More than that, it takes a long time, and if you want a hot shower the next day you probably do not want to wait until your case comes to court before you can get someone in to put the hot water in the right place.
A survey undertaken by Which? showed that nearly half of consumers thought that you should not have to give the trader the chance to fix the problem in those circumstances. We know that the aim of the Bill is to provide clarity on consumer rights, both to the trader and to the consumer, so surely any of these sorts of disputes should be kept out of court and dealt with in this way. If a kitchen fitter says, “I don’t need to give you a refund now; I have the right to come back and repair this”, we do not want that conversation to end with, “I’ll see you in court”. We want the Bill to make it clear that the consumer can get a refund at that stage.
I hope that the Bill will mostly avoid taking the legal route, but it is a shame that it seems the Government felt that that would have to happen in these circumstances. We therefore hope that the Government, having thought about this amendment again, and given that it is only about residential premises, will support it. I beg to move.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness missed one sort of case. The plumbers, electricians or whoever they are make a charge for coming in the first place, and when they get there, say, “This will need a part that we’ve got to order”. You have already paid for the visit, they demand the money for the parts before they go any further, and they sometimes never turn up again. The noble Baroness can add that to the list.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, this Bill sets out for the first time in statute what remedies consumers are entitled to request and traders must offer if traders provide a substandard service. That is a real increase in consumer protection. Consumers of services, from hairdressing to plastering, will have access to statutory remedies if those services do not meet the consumers’ statutory rights. I am very proud of this part of the Bill and believe it will lead to real improvements for consumers on the ground.
To help consumers use these new remedies, we have set out clearly in the Bill how they will work in practice. This will also be set out in guidance, which will be available for traders and consumers well in advance of the Bill coming into force. To give an example, if a service is not provided with “reasonable care and skill”, the consumer can ask the trader to re-perform the service so that it does meet that standard. In practice, it may not be possible to re-perform a service, or the trader may cause significant inconvenience for the consumer in doing so. In those cases, the consumer can ask for a price reduction. If the consumer has already paid more than the reduced price, the difference must then be given to the consumer within 14 days. That is a practical process designed to work for both consumers and traders. We have discussed this extensively with stakeholders and businesses overwhelmingly support this way forward.
Importantly, these new statutory provisions are in addition to, not a replacement for, common-law remedies that consumers can currently pursue. We are not taking away a consumer’s current access to redress through the court system. Quite the opposite: we make clear in Clause 54 that these remedies are still available. Clause 54(7) is a non-exhaustive list of those remedies. Guidance on the Bill will also explain that these remedies are still available. Moreover, we are not restricting consumers and traders to the remedies in this Bill. The consumer has a right to ask for what is in these provisions. However, if the consumer so chooses, they can negotiate a different remedy with the trader. For example, they could negotiate to reduce the price of a service without exercising their right to a re-performance. There is support available to enable consumers to do this, notably through the Citizens Advice service. The service provides advice over the telephone, face to face and online, including practical tools such as template letters.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
That is not what I said. I said that they charge to come in the first place—not to carry out the work but just to come and see what has to be done. They charge for that and then they say, “It needs an expensive part, so I can’t do anything for what you’ve already paid me in coming here”. They then come back, possibly months later, with a very expensive part.
Baroness Jolly
I thank my noble friend for that explanation but I think that I will have to drop her a note to clarify that situation. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, the Minister said that not all traders are rogues. She obviously meets a different lot from those whom the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, comes across. The noble Baroness knows very well that some of them are rogues.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Some of them are. However, the Bill throughout is very much about the ones who are not good. If all traders were good, we could throw the Bill away. Frankly, we do not need it for John Lewis. It does not need this Bill in order to be good to us. The Bill is about bringing everyone up to the standards that we expect from all traders. It is fine to say that a good trader will come back. If it is a good trader, the customer will trust it and have it back. That is fine. However, what we are after here are the cases where there is something dangerous in the house or where the householder feels at risk from the trader being back.
If I understood the Minister properly, she said that customers have some choices. They can phone Citizens Advice, which of course will give them only advice—it cannot negotiate—or it will give them a template for a letter, which in the circumstances I do not think would be a lot of help. Alternatively, they can go to a website, although I think that a lot of consumers would not find that very helpful at that moment either.
In fact, the Minister has said the same as I have said: the only route you can take is to seek damages in court, which is what our amendment was trying to avoid. We were trying to say that where someone has been in your house and they have done something so badly that you feel at risk, you should be able to get your money back without that person coming back into your house. Clearly, that is where we and the Government have a different view. In those circumstances, I think that we leave consumers as vulnerable as they are now. They are in no worse a position but, at the same time, their position is no better. That is regrettable but it is clearly the decision that the Government have taken. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
“Display of point of sale information about rights
(1) Suppliers of goods and services to which this Part applies shall be required to display at the point of sale essential information in plain and intelligible language and in a reasonable format which explains to customers the relevant rights and responsibilities of consumers under this Part.
(2) This information shall be proportionate to the transaction.
(3) The detail shall be developed by the British Standards Institution.”
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
My Lords, Amendment 28 concerns point of sale information. I do not want to bore noble Lords who have heard me say this on many occasions during the passage of the Bill but I consider this to be crucial. At the beginning of the Committee stage in the other place, four special witnesses were called from all the major consumer organisations. They pointed out that 75% of all consumers, before making a purchase, still do not have any idea of their rights or what course they can follow in order to bring a case to court if necessary.
When I think of all the pieces of consumer legislation I have been involved in over the years since 1970 they are as good as nothing. None of them is any good. They are hopeless when only 15% of consumers might benefit from them. This is a marvellous Bill. The Government have been very generous with time and facilities in all the proceedings that have taken place, particularly in the other place where experts were invited and all sorts of pre-legislative scrutiny took place. Nothing was spared. It would be a tragedy if this Bill, which is costly for the Government and costly indeed for a great many people, should prove to be worthless.
We still have a situation where such a large proportion —75%—of consumers still do not know their rights. That is why I consider this amendment to be so important. It states:
“Suppliers of goods and services to which this Part applies shall be required to display at the point of sale essential information in plain and intelligible language and in a reasonable format which explains to customers the relevant rights and responsibilities of consumers under this Part … This information shall be proportionate to the transaction … The detail shall be developed by the British Standards Institution”.
I think it is a pretty good amendment and covers everything. I was preparing a much longer speech. However, I discovered only a couple of days ago that there is legislation already passed in the relevant EU directive that was laid before this House on 13 June this year. I point out to my noble friend the Minister that this was four days before she came into her department so she may not have noticed it. However, all the subsequent items under the directive on consumer rights have come in following her going to her present department. They are now part of the directive and part of what we have agreed under the directive on consumer rights. This is the Consumer Rights Bill. You will hear me saying this possibly more often. It seems not unreasonable. I might say that other countries which are also party to this directive have already introduced legislation of this nature.
What the directive says is actually very short. In Chapter II, which I note we have accepted, core information is to be provided by traders prior to the conclusion of consumer contracts which are not distant from the premises. It is a bit of a funny way of putting it but it means at the premises. Member states may add on further information requirements in their national law. But we do not have it in our national law. We have it only in an EU directive.
When the directive was accepted by the right honourable Dr Vince Cable in the other place it was highly recommended and he said what a good thing it was. I am paraphrasing at the moment. It seems to me not unreasonable to want to see it in legislation in this House. This is the Consumer Rights Bill. This is the directive on consumer rights. The argument is very simple. BIS adds one thing. It also says the information should be given on paper unless you agree to set it out in regulations; by email, for example, if that is what is required. I rest my case. I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 28 and I emerge once again from my long and deep perusal of Hansard, having not been present in Committee. I want to focus on the important matter that has been raised by my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes on the question of displaying rights at the point of sale.
I have read the amendment carefully, but I want to focus initially on a couple of issues. The amendment states:
“Suppliers of goods and services to which this Part applies shall be required to display at the point of sale essential information in plain and intelligible language and in a reasonable format which explains to customers the relevant rights and responsibilities of consumers under this Part”.
How does one define “essential information”? I note proposed new subsection (3), which states:
“The detail shall be developed by the British Standards Institution”,
but I would like to point out that in proposed new subsection (2), which states that the,
“information shall be proportionate to the transaction”,
two issues arise. I would argue that it is very broad and not clear enough, as with proposed new subsection (1), to be on the face of the Bill. When one is talking about being “proportionate to the transaction”, one has to bear in mind that sales take the form of so many different types of products. There could be a very high volume of low-priced products, so there would be an immediate issue of how to tackle it.
I digress slightly and want to go back to the Committee stage, as I took a keen interest in the speech given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I am interested and glad to see that she has stepped back from promoting the idea of consumers’ statutory rights being read to them, or given to them at the point of sale. Perish the thought that this might happen and that on a busy Saturday long queues form at petrol stations while cashiers struggle to meet legal requirements in reading customer rights when selling non-petrol or non-food goods. I am sure that the noble Baroness did not necessarily think about that aspect, and she may well have thought at that stage that such information could be placed on a receipt. Then there was the matter of gaining consistency in this aspect of the law in tandem with effecting adequate training for cashiers and sales staff. I feel that, inadvertently, we may have prevented a gain in incidents on the shop floor as a result of consumers becoming somewhat impatient while waiting to be served.
The important point was made in Committee that communicating consumer rights is relevant for each product sold and could be open to confusion when a trader’s policies and terms exceed the statutory rights. There is a danger that reading out rights might act as a negative or chilling factor by implying, perhaps tenuously, that the product might just be defective.
I wanted to put this amendment in context because I am pleased at least that my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes has reduced that position in her amendment so that information on consumer rights should be displayed but only at the point of sale. However, as she might expect, I am not in favour of this being set in law either. I believe that it is proportionate to set firm guidelines, which came out of the implementation group, and to go for a voluntary approach.
I believe that this particular departure will undertake a number of key points. First, it will lead to a behavioural change for businesses to display information on the rights of consumers. Secondly, it will be pour encourager les autres; in other words, other businesses will do the same. Thirdly, consumers will become more attuned and astute, so that where businesses are not voluntarily displaying high-level information on their rights, they will be pulled up. There is a caveat that after a while consumers will tire of seeing the same old notices being displayed and looking even more tired than themselves.
For all those reasons, I do not agree with the idea that this amendment should be set in law, so it should not go forward.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
If I have understood the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, correctly, it was probably the noble Viscount who, on 13 June, signed into law those rights. I congratulate him on that and on writing into law that all these rights should be made available. That is very welcome and I thank him on behalf of consumers that he does want them in law, although, at the moment, I think he is saying that he does not. Anyway, we congratulate him on what he did on 13 June.
The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, is absolutely right that this amendment is crucial to whether the Bill will work. It will not work if consumers do not know their rights. The little placard that is often next to the till which says, “This does not affect your statutory rights” is completely meaningless. We know from work by BIS that two-thirds of consumers do not know that if a major appliance breaks down 18 months after purchase they still have a right to have it repaired or replaced, even though they did not purchase an extended warranty. So we know that people do not know their existing rights.
The difference is that we agree with Citizens Advice that these rights can be set out briefly and simply. You do not even need to say, “Under the Consumer Rights Act”, although it is very nice to give credit to those who put it through. You can simply say, “You have 30 days to return this item if it is faulty”. That does not seem very difficult. I think people can understand it. I think it is all right if it is on the bottom of their till receipt rather than by the side of it. These things can be done quite easily.
There is a political difference here; it is a difference within the implementation group. The consumer groups want this information clearly written and available so that consumers keep on seeing it. Businesses do not want it. The Government are saying, “Let’s listen to business. They don’t want to do it”. I think if we listen to consumers, they would want to do it. The ongoing champion of consumers is right. Let us get this in the Bill and let consumers know what their rights are.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
I thank my noble friend for his intervention. I knew that he laid those regulations under the EU directive in your Lordships’ House, so I hoped that he might be here and I am delighted that he is. My noble friends and the noble Lords opposite will realise that this is a great disappointment to me. I can see that the Government are not of the same mind. The objections which have been put forward are a bit punitive to what is a very simple—
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but the Minister has not replied to her amendment at this stage. I have a feeling that she would like to hear from the Minister before she replies to her.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, for her contribution today and in Grand Committee. I value her long experience and expertise on the subject of consumer rights, including from her time as Minister for Consumer Affairs—I asked at the department and gathered that she was a real livewire—not forgetting her experience at the National Consumer Council and elsewhere.
I am glad that she feels that the Bill process has been good, with pre-legislative scrutiny and stakeholder involvement. I think that is an interesting general lesson to learn. I agree that consumers and businesses should be educated about their rights and responsibilities effectively. We have made this point many times during discussions. I share the noble Viscount’s concerns about the amendment, because it is very wide ranging.
It also goes wider than the Bill. Consumers and traders need to know about the rights and responsibilities under other consumer legislation, too, such as the consumer rights directive. I can confirm that the regulations came into force in June this year. I thank my noble friend Lord Younger and his role in that process.
I agree with my noble friend that this is a very important area. We will not realise the benefits of the Bill unless the new rights are well understood and used. As part of our work preparing for implementation of the Bill, we have worked closely with business groups, consumer groups and enforcers to develop a high-level plain English summary of consumer rights because information is critical. That summary is being prepared to cover the various circumstances that arise from this legislation. It allows traders the flexibility to display the information in the most appropriate way for their business.
I do not believe that the mandatory approach suggested by this amendment is the most effective way of ensuring consumers are informed of their rights. There is a real risk that overloading a consumer with information at the point of sale would lead to them ignoring that information. Surely that defeats the object of simplicity and clarity. For many things—for example, newspapers or bags of apples—what the voluntary approach allows is common sense. There is also a risk of confusing consumers where retailers’ own policies are more generous than consumers’ statutory rights. A major retailer told us that it already offers terms more generous than the statutory requirements. It has built its brand on that and thinks that displaying information on core consumers’ statutory rights would undermine its message that a customer who was dissatisfied for any reason could bring the product back even if it was not defective.
We are therefore already developing wording that works. We have wording that can be adapted to various circumstances whether you are selling goods in a shop or online. We have business groups committed to promoting this with their members. We have consumer groups that are also committed to promoting this. I do not think that this amendment is the right way forward. Instead, a flexible, voluntary approach will work. Business groups support the voluntary approach, including the British Retail Consortium, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce, all of which are critical to information provision to the many businesses involved and to good customer service and good consumer care. I believe in a simple, clear framework of law. That is important to good traders as well as to rogue traders, to pick up a point made earlier.
The information provision is being done as part of the work of the implementation group, which also involves Which?, enforcers, Citizens Advice and others. I agreed in Committee that other relevant consumer rights, such as that in the consumer rights directive, should be part of the information dissemination process. I do not think that this is the right way forward. I have had useful discussions with my noble friend Lady Oppenheim-Barnes and I ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes
I am grateful to my noble friend for going into so much detail and care. I will not say that “live wire” is the best description I would want to be remembered for. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has had some better ones than that in the past. However, I am nevertheless grateful that attention has now been drawn. I still think that it is very strange that your Lordships’ House has committed to a directive that other countries have now translated into their own legislation and which for some reason is still not right.
I take the point entirely that my noble friend made about well known and well loved. I cannot imagine Heinz tomato soup ever needing any recommendations, let alone anything else. Branston Pickle comes to mind. I am not sure if they are allowed to say that any more.
This remains an important issue. It is very important that we get a format which is reasonable, which is not going to form petrol queues and which is easily understood. I hope that the Minister will find the right words and put it into law. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
(9 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text