House of Commons

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 10 December 2014

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

1. What steps her Department is taking to strengthen the economy of, and increase inward investment to, Northern Ireland.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

2. What steps her Department is taking to strengthen the economy of, and increase inward investment to, Northern Ireland.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking to promote business investment in Northern Ireland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

May I first thank you, Mr Speaker, Opposition Front Benchers and the House for your indulgence in allowing the Secretary of State to be absent, exceptionally, today? As you know, she is chairing the extremely important talks at Stormont, and we hope that they will come to a satisfactory conclusion very soon. She takes her duties in this House very seriously, as you know, and she is grateful to you for your indulgence today.

The Government’s long-term economic plan is working for Northern Ireland, and the UK Government continue to work with the Executive to promote Northern Ireland as a great place to invest. Political stability is paramount in attracting further investment, and I encourage the parties to make significant progress in the current cross-party talks.

[Glyn Davies]

As a result of the autumn statement, 12,000 people in Northern Ireland will be lifted out of income tax altogether following the increase in personal allowances, and almost every home buyer will pay less stamp duty. Does my hon. Friend agree that the autumn statement will bring great benefit to the whole of Northern Ireland and its people?

[Dr Murrison]

Yes, I very much do. It is quite clear that we need to increase prosperity in Northern Ireland. Prosperity is the key to improving security, as indeed is security to the prosperity of Northern Ireland. It is worth noting the substantial amount of foreign direct investment that Northern Ireland is now attracting. It gets the UK’s second most FDI per head, with a 32% increase last year. Foreign investors are recognising that Northern Ireland is a great place in which to invest. The latest figures are extremely encouraging.

[Robert Jenrick]

I welcome the Chancellor’s announcement that corporation tax setting powers will be on their way to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland economy is of course very heavily dependent on public sector jobs. What more can the Government do, using the corporation tax powers when they come, to encourage inward investment and innovation in Northern Ireland?

[Dr Murrison]

The Chancellor has expressed our desire to devolve that power to the Executive, and the Executive are keen to take it on. The extent to which it will impact on the Northern Ireland economy is of course a matter for the Executive—as is the level at which they wish to pitch corporation tax, once devolved—but they have suggested that up to 40,000 jobs might be created in Northern Ireland by having the power. It is particularly important for encouraging the private sector. As my hon. Friend will know, we are trying with the Executive to rebalance the economy so that the private sector is encouraged, and the devolution of corporation tax is an important part of that.

[Neil Carmichael]

Does the Minister agree that the Government’s key extra measure of focusing on skills and making sure that people are properly trained, coupled with business investment, is precisely the way to improve productivity and therefore living standards?

[Dr Murrison]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend will have noted that the changes to national insurance in particular in the autumn statement are very much focused on getting young people into employment. The national insurance rebate is extremely helpful for small business in particular. He will have read with pleasure, as I have, the list of firms that are increasing their presence or investing for the first time in Northern Ireland. It is truly impressive, and it just shows what a great place Northern Ireland now is in which to invest.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

The Minister rightly referred to the big increase in foreign direct investment under the Northern Ireland Executive in recent years, but does he agree that the Executive has to deal with many issues and problems that are unique to Northern Ireland? The legacy of the past causes a financial drag on the Executive—increased expenditure—and that has to be addressed by the parties and the Government in the talks this week.

[Dr Murrison]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The past still hangs heavy over Northern Ireland. For people of my generation, our image of Belfast in particular is of course shadowed by what we saw on the television screen all those years ago. Investors who are now looking to Northern Ireland still have those images in their minds, and we need to overcome that. The security situation is key to this, and the improvement in the security situation has been instrumental in making Northern Ireland look and feel a far better place in which to invest.

[Mr Dodds]

Does the Minister agree that, as we all accept, political stability is absolutely key in growing the economy in Northern Ireland and creating the conditions for economic prosperity? In his recent remarks in Enniskillen on 24 November, Gerry Adams said that his party was using equality to “break” Unionists—he actually used a foul-mouthed expletive at that point. He said that that was the republican strategy. Does the Minister agree that such language on the use of a policy such as equality is deeply offensive to everybody in Northern Ireland, undermines political stability and confidence and shows that Sinn Fein’s honeyed words and positive language sometimes mask a deeply disturbing policy?

[Dr Murrison]

I think Sinn Fein needs to be very careful about the language it uses, as indeed do all politicians. People are looking at Northern Ireland as a potential place to invest and are put off by that kind of posturing. It is very important that all parties work together to continue making Northern Ireland a great place to invest.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

As the Minister said, central to attracting business investment into Northern Ireland is political stability and leadership. In that context, the Opposition welcome the Prime Minister’s planned visit to Northern Ireland later this week and his intention to participate, alongside the Taoiseach, in the current all-party talks. Will the Minister assure the House that, alongside an agreement on the budget, including welfare reform, the Government are at the very least seeking to secure agreements on the past and on parades?

[Dr Murrison]

The talks are comprehensive, and it is hoped that their outcome will be ambitious. The hon. Gentleman is right that issues around the legacy of the past are central to what is being discussed in Stormont at the moment. I am hopeful that by the end of the week we will have a positive outcome, but all parties need to understand that this is part of a process and that they must remain engaged. Let us hope for some good news in a few days’ time.

[Mr Lewis]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he clarify whether the Government are linking the devolution of corporation tax solely to the parties reaching an agreement on next year’s budget? Surely the decision should be based on longer-term considerations such as the impact on jobs and growth and the block grant in Northern Ireland, as well as on the implications for the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Dr Murrison]

No, I think it is important that corporation tax is seen as part of a whole. It cannot be taken in isolation, and it is important that the Executive formulate a balanced budget that takes welfare reform into account. Without that balanced budget, it is difficult to see how we can reasonably devolve an important power such as that.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Just a week ago, the members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee met Senator Gary Hart in Belfast. He was very positive in suggesting that it may well be possible to arrange a trade mission to come from America to Northern Ireland to see what the possibilities are. Will the Minister follow up such a suggestion?

[Dr Murrison]

I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has met Senator Gary Hart, who is very much part of the current talks process. Apropos my remarks earlier about foreign direct investment, I am pleased to say that it is going up dramatically, although clearly it is not enough, and we would like to see far more in Northern Ireland from America and elsewhere. I would certainly welcome such a proposition.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

4. What recent assessment she has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The safety of people and communities remains the Government’s top priority in Northern Ireland. Although the threat level in Northern Ireland remains at severe, excellent co-operation between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and its partners has put violent dissident republicans under strain in recent months. There have been a number of significant arrests, charges and convictions, which are helping to suppress the threat.

[Dr McCrea]

I thank the Minister for his update on the serious nature of the security threat from republican terrorists and the absolute necessity of defeating them.

Does the Minister also accept that there are those who violate the sanctity of the homes of elderly people living in our community, threatening and terrorising them? Should not those criminals get custodial sentences of at least seven years, irrespective of how little or how much they actually steal through their criminal activity?

[Dr Murrison]

I will not be drawn on matters that are outside my sphere of competence, and I would certainly defer to the Department of Justice for action on many of the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises. I know that the PSNI takes these matters extremely seriously, as do the Government, and appropriate action must be taken.

[Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

Does the Minister agree that the greatest contribution to increasing overall security would be a successful and comprehensive outcome to the talks, which enter a vital period this week? It is important that we confront not only the problems of today but the wounds of the brutality and violence of the past. Is the Minister aware that a number of families are in Westminster today as part of their campaign looking for justice and for answers?

[Dr Murrison]

May I thank the hon. Gentleman, particularly for his contribution to the current talks? He is correct to say that the outcome of those talks will have a big impact on security in Northern Ireland, and we must all understand that. All parties must understand the extent of the stakes, because if this process fails I am afraid that the future will not look good. The positive developments that we have already discussed today cannot be guaranteed, so we must ensure that the talks have a positive, comprehensive outcome.

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

Is the Minister satisfied that appropriate and, as necessary, enhanced security measures are in place over the festive season?

[Dr Murrison]

That is a matter for the Minister of Justice in the Executive and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I know that as we approach Christmas the tempo of operations by dissidents in particular has a tendency to increase. The PSNI and the Department of Justice are aware of that and making appropriate preparations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

There is a high level of dissident republican activity over Christmas and new year, and there is evidence that dissident republicans have direct contact with terrorist groups in north Africa and the middle east. Will the Minister outline what discussions have taken place with Governments from that region to ensure that the flow of weapons and bomb-making expertise is stopped?

[Dr Murrison]

Those matters are primarily for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and she is in touch with relevant countries to ensure that the threat of terrorism from individuals from countries outside the United Kingdom is reduced as far as possible. The hon. Gentleman will be following closely the progress of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill through this House, as that is relevant to the issue he raises.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

In recent weeks the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard from officials in Northern Ireland and the police service that cuts to budgets are already leading to long delays in the resolution of actions covered by the Historical Enquiries Team. Will the Minister look into that and ensure that no further cuts lead to people who should have had justice years ago having to wait even longer? People are already waiting three times longer than was originally scheduled.

[Dr Murrison]

The spending power of the Executive has increased since the beginning of this Parliament and will continue to do so. Spending within the police budget is a matter for the Chief Constable, who has set up the historical legacies team from the Historical Enquiries Team. A further body is under discussion as part of the current talks.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

I understand fully the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) about the recent horrendous attack in Lisburn on an elderly person, although I am not authorised to speak on sentencing policy on behalf of my party. The first responsibility of any Government in relation to Northern Ireland remains security. In the run-up to Christmas when threat levels are high, as other hon. Members have said, we owe a particular debt of gratitude to the brave men and women who serve in the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Looking ahead, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact of current and projected budget cuts on police numbers and public protection?

[Dr Murrison]

The deployment of police assets is a matter for the Chief Constable and the Department of Justice, which broadly takes its funding from two sources—the block grant, plus additional security funding provided by the UK Government, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, amounts to £31 million in the next financial year. I know that the Chief Constable greatly values that additional resource to cover some of the additional security costs in Northern Ireland, but principal responsibility for the deployment of that resource rests and remains with the Minister of Justice.

[Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

5. What assessment she has made of the level of transparency of political party funding in Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Political parties in Northern Ireland must report funding they receive to the Electoral Commission, but this is not published owing to the risk of donor intimidation. Legislation will be brought forward shortly to increase the information available about party funding in Northern Ireland, while still protecting donor identities.

[Mr Robathan]

Section 15A of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 makes provision for funding to be published and, thanks to the excellent Library, I have today read the Sinn Fein accounts, which told me next to nothing, needless to say. Sinn Fein’s money used to come from the IRA through nefarious activities. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the integrity of the political process in Northern Ireland that we have transparency in political funding as soon as possible so that we can learn whether Sinn Fein is taking a legal approach?

[Dr Murrison]

I certainly agree with my right hon. Friend that transparency of funding of political parties is essential. Indeed, I see on the Sinn Fein website that it is the stated intention of that party itself. Although the material published on the Electoral Commission’s website in relation to Sinn Fein’s accounts is basic, I hope that the new legislation—in which my right hon. Friend was very much involved—will give us greater clarity, although it is important that donor identity is preserved.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

We had the scandal of the on-the-runs, we had the scandal that for 10 years people associated with one political party were involved in fuel smuggling to raise money, and we have the ongoing scandal of elected Members not taking their seats but receiving money from the House. When will the Government address that?

[Dr Murrison]

People considering how to cast their votes should pay particular attention to the work that their elected representatives do here. That increasingly appears to be the case and, given the current circumstances, I would have thought that it applied to Sinn Fein more than any.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

While I wholly support the cross-party consensus on transparency in political funding in Northern Ireland, I would like a commitment from the Government that they will continually reassess the position. Until we have full transparency, Northern Ireland will not be wholly free.

[Dr Murrison]

We are all working towards complete normality in Northern Ireland. The assessment at the moment is that we are not there yet, and for security reasons we have to ensure that donors have anonymity. My hon. Friend must accept that, but it is an issue that needs to be kept under constant review. At some point—sooner rather than later, I hope—we will be able to normalise that aspect of election law across the United Kingdom.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

With the general election only five months away, can the Minister confirm that the Northern Ireland Office has already sought an assessment from the Chief Constable of the risk of violence to donors to political parties in Northern Ireland?

[Dr Murrison]

The provisions in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act should protect the identity of donors, but if they wish to make themselves known through the Electoral Commission, they can do so. In the run-up to the general election, the security services in Northern Ireland are well aware of increased threats to individuals that may obtain, including those whom the hon. Lady mentions.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

6. When the Government plan to publish an analysis of the potential effect of introducing a devolved rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

8. When the Government plan to publish an analysis of the potential effect of introducing a devolved rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The autumn statement set out that the Government are in favour of devolving corporation tax powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly. If the powers were devolved, the Executive would be responsible for setting the rate of corporation tax in Northern Ireland. The effect would therefore be dependent on the approach taken by the Executive.

[Mr Brown]

What assessment has been made of the effect of the Government’s economic and welfare policies in Northern Ireland on the feasibility of devolving corporation tax? Can the Minister give the House a fuller explanation?

[Dr Murrison]

It is estimated by the Executive that the devolution of corporation tax, and the implementation of the cuts it envisages, would result in 40,000 new jobs in Northern Ireland, which is substantial. It will certainly help to improve and enhance the level of foreign direct investment, which I have touched on already. That is impressive, but it has to be sustained. It is particularly interesting to note that in the Office for National Statistics figures announced today, one of the highest sub-regional centres in the UK, in terms of gross value added per capita, is Belfast. We need to grow the economy in Belfast. The devolution of corporation tax would play an important part in that.

[Chris Evans]

Will the Minister give a guarantee that the devolution of corporation tax will not have an adverse effect on the block grant to the Northern Ireland Executive?

[Dr Murrison]

No, I cannot, because the EU Azores rules mean that it has to be taken into account.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Whenever the Minister is speaking with his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, will he ensure that ongoing talks consider the possibility of additional resources, so that the skilled work force in Northern Ireland can become a pool of employees for inward investors who take advantage of corporation tax?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the economic pact published about 18 months ago and updated during the summer, which gave significant new powers to promote the economy, in particular to grow jobs, and there was a significant amount of lending as a result. It has been successful. The groundwork has been laid and we have seen, in the figures I have quoted today, that it is having some level of success. Corporation tax will take that to the next level.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

10. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the figures on the cost of devolving power over corporation tax to the Northern Ireland Executive were given to the Executive. Will the Minister spell out to us the cost to the block grant and the timeline for implementation?

[Dr Murrison]

That very much depends on whether the powers are taken up by the Executive and the extent to which they are taken up. The hon. Lady will be aware that corporation tax in the last financial year raised in excess of £400 million. Were corporation tax to be devolved, and reduced as far as it possibly could be, then we are talking about that sort of figure.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

13. Is the Minister aware that the Nevin Economic Research Institute warns that £400 million will have to be cut from public spending in Northern Ireland should corporation tax be moved there?

[Dr Murrison]

That is a matter for the Executive. They need to make a judgment on whether it will produce a net improvement to the economy in Northern Ireland. They have decided that it will create up to 40,000 extra jobs, so they clearly believe that corporation tax will have a net benefit to the economy of Northern Ireland, but they will have to find the money from the block grant.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

7. What assessment she has made of the effect in Northern Ireland of the introduction of the welfare cap.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Welfare expenditure accounts for one-sixth of all public spending. The introduction of a UK welfare cap was overwhelmingly approved by 520 Members of this House, although I accept not by the hon. Gentleman. The cap ensures that social security expenditure remains fair to claimants and yet affordable to taxpayers in both Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

[Mark Durkan]

On welfare spending in Northern Ireland, what assurance can the Minister give that the operation of the cap will not entail a cap within a cap in ways that mean future benefit take-up campaigns will, for the first time, be at the expense of other benefits, which has never been the case in the past?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is perhaps confusing the welfare cap with the benefit cap. It is important to note that the previous Minister in the Department for Social Development, Nelson McCausland, said that universal credit will lift 10,000 children out of poverty, and that most people in Northern Ireland will benefit from the change in the welfare rules. This has a substantial capacity to improve the lives of those who are reliant on welfare in Northern Ireland.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

9. What steps she is taking to tackle youth unemployment in Northern Ireland.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The November labour market survey reports that the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland for 18 to 24-year-olds has come down 5% over the year, and the Government are directly helping to get young people into work by abolishing national insurance contributions for businesses employing under-21s and apprentices aged under 25.

[Ann McKechin]

The Minister will be aware that unemployment in Northern Ireland is much higher than the UK average, and a recent survey by the Belfast Telegraph found that two thirds of young people wanted to leave Northern Ireland. What specific steps is he taking to improve skills and training to encourage young people to stay in Northern Ireland?

[Dr Murrison]

Of course, these are matters primarily for the Department for Employment and Learning, with which the Government work closely. I hope the hon. Lady will be aware of the economic plan published 18 months ago in collaboration with the Northern Ireland Executive laying out the steps that we would take jointly to promote a shared and integrated future, including the creation of the further education college at Craigavon. Further such measures will be considered. The important thing is to increase the number of apprenticeships in Northern Ireland, and the national insurance contributions announced in the autumn statement are an important part of that.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 10 December.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

I have been asked to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is visiting Turkey and Auschwitz.

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.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister refused to attend the autumn statement. Exactly which parts of the statement did he most object to?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The autumn statement was a coalition autumn statement. I spent one day in Cornwall; Opposition Members have spent five years in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to the economy, and the Government side of the House has been clearing up the mess they created.

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

In the light of my right hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for devolving powers from the UK Government to the component parts of the UK, does he have similar plans for devolving competences from Europe to the UK?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman might be surprised to know that I once wrote a booklet about that very idea. Just as we must do at a European level what nation states cannot do on their own—on the environment, globalisation, trade talks and so on—so other powers should be devolved downwards where possible.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

It is good to see the Deputy Prime Minister back in his place after his important day trip during the important statement last week.

Since he became Deputy Prime Minister, he has had the opportunity to appoint seven Cabinet members. Will he remind the House how many have been women?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Lady knows exactly who the members of the Cabinet are from the Liberal Democrat team. I would remind her, however, that millions of women in this country have got from this Government what they never got from her Government: better pensions; more jobs; tax cuts; shared parental leave; better child care; and more flexible working. Instead of scoring Westminster points, why does she not do the right thing for millions of women around the country?

[Ms Harman]

The right hon. Gentleman is reluctant to answer the question, which is unlike him, because normally when he is asked about numbers and women, he is quite forthcoming. I will tell the House the answer: four and a half years as Deputy Prime Minister, seven Cabinet appointments, and not one woman. And this is not a Westminster point, because it affects what they do. So will he tell the House, since his Government introduced tribunal fees, what has been the fall in the number of sex discrimination cases?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I do not have that statistic to hand, but I am happy to provide it to the right hon. and learned Lady. Once again, however, she displays her and her party’s total denial about their record on women. Female unemployment rose 24% under Labour, and in one year women were given a paltry 75p rise in the state pension—scandalous, a total shame. Through our new, fairer single-tier pension, 650,000 women will get an extra £400 a year from 2016, and I care more about those 650,000 women across the country than I do about anyone around the Cabinet table.

[Ms Harman]

I will answer the question since the right hon. Gentleman has not. Since the introduction of their tribunal fees, there has been a 90% fall in women taking sex discrimination cases to a tribunal, including women who have been discriminated against at work because they are pregnant.

Let me turn to another of the right hon. Gentleman’s key decisions. Of those who get the millionaires’ tax cut, what percentage are men?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

This is quite breathtaking. Is the right hon. and learned Lady not aware that of the over 26 million people who have benefited from our tax cuts for low and middle-income earners, the tax cut has disproportionately gone to women? Is she not aware that under her Government the top rate of tax was 40p—5p lower than it is under this Government? Is she not aware that there are now more women in employment than ever before? That is a record of which we are very proud indeed.

[Ms Harman]

And he should be aware that any gains on tax changes for women have been more than wiped out by the hit they have taken on the cuts to tax credits. And yes, I would indeed agree with him that it is breathtaking that 85% of those who benefit from the millionaires’ tax cut are men. Let us try him on another one. What proportion of those hit by his bedroom tax are women?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Since the right hon. and learned Lady is losing her way a bit with the statistics, let me tell her that we have cut tax for 11.9 million women, and that the gender pay gap for women under the age of 40 has pretty well disappeared under this coalition. Under her Government, only one in eight of the FTSE 100 board members were women. Under this Government, there are more women on FTSE 100 boards than ever before. The Labour party is becoming the Lance Armstrong of British politics: it has forgotten the better half of a decade of how it messed things up.

[Ms Harman]

I will tell the Deputy Prime Minister and the House the reality for people who are paying the bedroom tax. Two thirds of those hit by the bedroom tax are women. It does not seem that there is any shortage of spare rooms in Downing street for the spin doctors to spin against each other. Let me ask him about something else. Of the £26 billion this Government have raised through changes to benefits and direct taxes, a staggering £22 billion has come from women. Can he explain why?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I think it is time to call out the right hon. and learned Lady on her Government’s record. Under Labour, unemployment was higher; female unemployment was higher; youth unemployment was higher; inequality was higher; child poverty was higher; pensioner poverty was higher; relative poverty was higher; fuel poverty was higher; and income tax for low and middle-income earners, including millions of women, was higher. When will she come to admit that her party created so much of the mess that this side of the House has had to clear up?

[Ms Harman]

The right hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated that he is completely out of touch with women’s lives. It is always the same with this Deputy Prime Minister. He talks the talk, but he walks through the Lobby with the Tories. He briefs against them, but he always votes with them. He complains about the autumn statement, but he signed it off. That is why people will never trust him or his party ever again.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Does the right hon. and learned Lady seriously think that the British people are going to trust her and her party on the economy? Of course not. Manufacturing jobs were destroyed three times faster under Labour than they were under Margaret Thatcher. This was the party—[Interruption.] In fact, the shadow Health Secretary, sitting there demurely, is the only man in England who has ever privatised an NHS hospital, and they dare to lecture us. [Interruption.] Hinchingbrooke hospital—the only NHS hospital to be privatised, and by the Labour party. Inequality higher under Labour; privatisation of the NHS higher under Labour; and an economy destroyed under Labour.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

Q2. My constituents will have been delighted to hear the Deputy Prime Minister support last week’s excellent autumn statement, because they know that it is the only credible plan for economic recovery. They have been worried about scurrilous rumours that he wants to raise taxes and impose a homes tax in the next Parliament, but, in view of his answer to Question 1, that cannot be true. Will he now confirm his loyalty to the long-term economic plan, which is bringing jobs and growth to people in Wimbledon?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that we must stay the course in order to finish the job, and finish it fairly. He may be aware that the long-term youth claimant count in his constituency has fallen by a full 40% in the last year alone, which is an extraordinary achievement.

As my hon. Friend knows, my view is that it is simply not fair or justifiable to apply council tax bands to low-value properties without adopting the same approach to high-value properties. Why should a family living in a family home in Lewisham pay the same council tax as someone living in a £10 million palace, possibly in Wimbledon? That does not make sense to me, and it should change.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

My 69-year-old Atherton constituent Margaret was run over by a car, and was left bleeding in the road for 90 minutes before the ambulance turned up. The Chancellor said last week that the Government had made cuts without affecting front-line services. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor, or does he regret supporting every cut that the Government have made?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

What I regret enormously is the fact that every household in the hon. Lady’s constituency—indeed, every household in all our constituencies—took a hit of £3,000 because of the crash in 2008, which was caused in large part by the absolute neglect of the Labour party in government. That is what I regret. The economy has suffered a cardiac arrest the likes of which we have not seen before during the post-war period. I am very proud of the fact that this coalition Government are making painstaking, if controversial, decisions to ensure that we live within our means rather than simply burdening our children and grandchildren with this generation’s mistakes.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Q3. My constituents in Dover and Deal are very concerned about border security and the situation that we have seen in Calais this year. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that, while we have acted, the European Union should take more responsibility for people trafficking and the problems of Schengen open borders, and that it should make Italy take responsibility as the first country for asylum claimants on the island of Lampedusa?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course I understand what an important issue this is for my hon. Friend and his constituents. I agree with him that it is a problem shared and that therefore the solution needs to be shared as well, across the European Union. That is one of the reasons why I have always been an advocate of cross-border co-operation in the EU on issues concerning people who cross our borders. We cannot act on our own. I agree with my hon. Friend that, whenever possible, the European Union should act effectively and together.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

Q4. Opposition Members have called for a section 30 order to fast-track elements of the Smith commission to Scotland, especially votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the 2016 Scottish Parliament election. I know that the Deputy Prime Minister’s boss does not usually allow him to make the big decisions, but as he is in the big seat today, will he commit himself to going ahead with the section 30 order now?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We will stick to the timetable to which all the main parties in Westminster committed themselves at the time of the referendum. We have stuck to that timetable religiously so far. In fact, despite predictions to the contrary by the Scottish National party, we have over-delivered on the commitments regarding further devolution to Scotland.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, a lively debate is taking place about the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds. My party has always believed that we should give them the right to vote. They took up that right with alacrity at the time of the Scottish referendum, but the issue will clearly continue to be debated across parties in the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Michael Thornton.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am a bit surprised!

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman was standing, so presumably he was standing in the hope of being called. I do not know why he is so surprised.

[Mike Thornton]

Sometimes I worry I might forget where I am.

Some of the most heart-rending cases in my surgery on a weekly basis involve people who have had mental health difficulties and feel let down by the national health service and other organisations set up to help them. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that it is time we did more?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I suspect that many Members from all parties in this House will agree that mental health services have for too long been treated as a poor cousin—a Cinderella service—in the NHS and have been systematically underfunded for a long time. That is why I am delighted to say that the coalition Government have announced that we will be introducing new access and waiting time standards for mental health conditions such as have been in existence for physical health conditions for a long time. Over time, as reflected in the new NHS mandate, we must ensure that mental health is treated with equality of resources and esteem compared with any other part of the NHS.

[Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

Q5. When the Health and Social Care Act 2012 passed through Parliament, the Government said it was not about privatisation. A recent study by the British Medical Journal says that one third of all contracts have gone to the private sector and only 10% to the voluntary and social enterprise sector. Does the Deputy Prime Minister regret supporting that legislation?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman is being highly selective in describing what that report said. It actually said that of all NHS budget contracts, 6% had gone to the private sector. Guess how high it was when this Government took office: 5%. So Labour presided over a 5% delivery of contracts to the private sector, and we have added 1%. The Opposition delivered £250 million-worth of sweetheart deals to the NHS, deliberately undercutting the NHS for operations that did not help a single NHS patient in the country—and they have the gall to lecture us on the privatisation of the NHS!

[Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

Will the Deputy Prime Minister unreservedly condemn what appears to be the killing this morning by the Israeli defence force of the Palestinian Government Minister Ziad Abu Ein, who was doing nothing more than protesting in his own country against illegal demolitions and the destruction of ancient olive groves by the state of Israel? Will Her Majesty’s Government join in international pressure demanding a full investigation and then calling, should it be so justified, for the prosecution of the soldier who struck him?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course I and the Government will urgently look into the circumstances around this killing. Of course we condemn all unwarranted acts of violence on all sides in the middle east. I am not familiar now with the circumstances of this particular death, but clearly we want to see restraint exercised on all sides, we want to see an end to illegal settlement activity and to indiscriminate violence being inflicted on innocent Israeli citizens, and a demonstrative move on all sides, which will involve difficult compromises, towards the two-state solution, which is the only means by which peace and security can be delivered to all communities in the middle east.

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

Q6. The Deputy Prime Minister has received donations totalling £34,500 from the managing director of Autofil Yarns Ltd. What does he think of the fact that workers at Autofil Yarns Ltd have received the news recently that as many as 160 jobs could be moved overseas—jobs lost to Britain—by Autofil Yarns?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Clearly I cannot speak for Autofil; any company needs to explain its own business and investment decisions. I am very surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s line of questioning, given that the Labour party is entirely bankrolled by the puppet-masters of the trade unions. For all I know, that question might have been written for him by his trade union bosses. Surely he would agree with me that it is time we cleaned up party funding on a cross-party basis once and for all.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Q7. In Peterborough, youth unemployment has halved since 2010, apprenticeships are at record levels and the jobseeker’s allowance claimant count has come down 51% in the past four years. In addition, the number of children living in workless households is now at a record low nationally. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that such achievements—and the policies that give rise to them, which were consistently opposed by Labour—show political courage and will change people’s lives for the better, and are not, as some people have foolishly suggested, the result of an ideological commitment to austerity?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Given that we were told by the Opposition at the outset of the coalition that 3 million people would be unemployed, it is striking that there are now more people in work than ever before. I find that striking in my own constituency, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt does in his. I remember being warned by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) that there would be a “post-Soviet” meltdown and that people would be fending for themselves on the streets, but we now have fewer young people than ever in Sheffield who are not in education, employment or training. There are fewer NEETs in that great city than ever before, and we are seeing that repeated across the country. That is a result of a balanced, pragmatic, non-ideological approach to balancing the books steadily over time.

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Will the Deputy Prime Minister use his evidently widespread support in the coalition ranks, particularly with the Prime Minister, to prevail on the Prime Minister to honour a pledge he made in June this year to the victims of the contaminated blood scandal that took place in the NHS? That scandal has reflected badly on successive Administrations, probably going as far back as that of Harold Wilson, if not further. In June the Prime Minister undertook to look at and rectify the situation, to the extent that that is possible, and this would be one promise that the coalition Government have it in their power to deliver.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is quite right to say that this heart-wrenching issue has dragged on for a very long time. If I may, I shall write to him about it. I know that steps have been taken to address some of the many legitimate outstanding claims, and I shall look into the matter and write to him.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Q8. The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is currently in special measures. What assistance can he give to the Health Secretary as he works with the trust to ensure continued improvement despite its having to wrestle with its £40 million a year repayments on a private finance initiative deal signed under the previous Government?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am afraid this is another example of the Janus-faced approach to the NHS by the party opposite. The Labour Government entered into this appalling PFI contract, along with other such contracts in the NHS, and those contracts are now costing the NHS £1 billion a year. It is an absolute scandal that the Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has been crippled by a botched PFI deal entered into by the previous Government. The trust is now receiving central support to address its underlying financial deficit, and it has developed a plan showing year-on-year improvements in its position, including 145 extra nurses, nursing support staff and doctors since going into special measures.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Q9. If the Deputy Prime Minister had attended the autumn statement, he would have heard the Chancellor claim that this is a Government who back small businesses. He could give those words some meaning by backing Labour’s plan to outlaw large companies charging small companies to be on their supply list. Will he take this opportunity to back that plan in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill and really start to stand up for small firms?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Thankfully, we have seen more new and small businesses being created under this coalition Government than since records began. I agree with the hon. Gentleman—I think everyone would agree—about the revelations that have come to light in recent days of some large companies, particularly in the food sector, in effect charging small suppliers for the privilege of providing them with supplies. I know that the right hon. Member, the right hon. Minister, my—

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Friend?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills is looking carefully at this matter, and he has already pledged publicly to take action if necessary.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Q10. My constituent Diane Howells visited GPs in Newark 15 times in eight months last year before she was eventually diagnosed with terminal cancer when her son Luke took her to the accident and emergency department in Newark. A quarter of all new cancer cases—amounting to 80,000 people a year—are only diagnosed at A and E. Will my right hon. Friend agree to review this tragic case and to back Luke’s campaign to have cancer ruled out first, rather than last, and to increase referral rates from our GPs?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course I shall look into the case, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will also be keen to look at it and get back to my hon. Friend. As he knows, the NHS is successfully seeing 51% more patients with suspected cancers than it was four years ago; survival rates have never been higher; almost nine out of 10 patients say that their care is excellent or very good; and the cancer treatment fund has helped thousands upon thousands of patients. But, of course, where possible we should always do more.

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

Q11. The Deputy Prime Minister has made a series of extraordinary claims today, but among the most extraordinary is the one, in response to a question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), that pensioner poverty rose under the last Government—in fact, pensioner poverty fell dramatically. Will he explain to the House what his source for that claim is? It certainly cannot be the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which in 2010 reported that pensioner poverty fell dramatically under the last Government.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The source is that what we are doing is a whole lot better than the insult of 75p. We have delivered the largest cash increase in the state pension ever; we have delivered the triple lock guarantee for pensioners; and we want to put that into law, so that, unlike under Labour, pensioners on the state pension will know that because of this coalition Government their state pension will go up by a decent amount every single time. That is my source.

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

Q12. What recent assessment he has made of the position of defence in the UK’s spending priorities.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Our defence budget is the biggest in the EU and the second largest in NATO. This Government are spending 2% of GDP on defence this Parliament—we are one of only four NATO countries to do so.

[Dr Lewis]

That was not exactly an answer to the question on the Order Paper. Given that this country for decades spent more than 4% on defence, does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that it would be a disgraceful dereliction of duty if the British Government ever fell below the 2% minimum recommended by NATO?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As my hon. Friend will know, we are spending 2% of GDP on defence, and have consistently met and exceeded this NATO guideline. We are spending more than £160 billion on equipment and equipment support over the next 10 years, which will ensure that we have one of the best trained and best equipped armed forces in the world. Decisions on defence spending after 2015-16 will, of course, have to be determined in the next comprehensive spending round.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Q13. What does the Deputy Prime Minister think of the fact that under his Government if he now needed an operation in Devon, he would be denied it because he smokes, as would the Communities and Local Government Secretary because of his size?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

That’s a bit harsh. I do not think anyone would disagree with clinicians in Devon and elsewhere urging patients to look after themselves and prepare themselves for operation. My understanding is that the decision—or the announcement mooted—in Devon is about patients preparing for operations, but of course I disagree with the idea of, in effect, rationing in this way, which is one of the reasons we have announced, in total, £3 billion of extra money for our beloved NHS.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

On 13 November, the people of Switzerland voted overwhelmingly to retain freedom of movement with the European Union, because their politicians talked about the economic benefits of being in the single market. Will the Deputy Prime Minister continue to do what the City, the CBI and companies in my constituency want, which is to talk about those benefits for the UK and reject the politics of knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that freedom of movement, which is a privilege and entitlement that more than 1.5 million British citizens benefit from across the European Union, is something we should defend. But freedom of movement is not the same as, and is not synonymous with, the freedom to claim, which is why there is now a very healthy debate about how we ensure that freedom of movement can be protected while the rules on access to benefits can be changed.

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

Q14. What assessment he has made of the effect on the performance of Government of the introduction of five-year fixed term parliaments; and if he will make a statement.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee he chairs for their work on the operation of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Fixed-term Parliaments give greater predictability and continuity, enabling better long-term legislative and financial planning. The full effect of introducing fixed-term Parliaments is something that can only be assessed over time, which is why the Act will be reviewed in 2020.

[Mr Allen]

Nearly 25 years ago, I asked the then Prime Minister, Mrs Thatcher, at Prime Minister’s questions whether she would set up a national institution to reduce the sexual abuse of children. May I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister and his Government on setting up, over the past five years, a series of “what works” organisations to provide best practice including early intervention? Will he and other party leaders consider putting in their manifestos the creation of a national institute for the study and prevention of sexual abuse of children so that we do not have another 25 years’ worth of belated inquiries? Such an institute would pre-empt perpetration and help victims with the best evidence-based practice and programmes both nationally and internationally.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I happen to know that the hon. Gentleman is seeing my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Prevention on that issue next week. I and my party agree with the hon. Gentleman about the merits of “what works” initiatives. A “what works” institute for crime prevention would be a good idea. He shines a spotlight on the reprehensible and grotesque crimes of child sex abuse and exploitation. I agree that we need to work together, which is why the National Group on Sexual Violence against Children and Vulnerable People has been set up, to work across agencies, areas and local authorities to bear down on these reprehensible crimes.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Last weekend, I had the pleasure of visiting Motcombe primary school in my constituency. It has fought tooth and nail to introduce free school meals, and has been very successful. Will the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity to congratulate Motcombe and all the primary schools in my constituency and across England which have done such a fantastic job delivering on his policy?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course I congratulate everybody at Motcombe primary school and all the primary schools across the country which, despite all the scepticism and cynicism, have delivered healthy free school meals at lunchtime to 1.5 million more children. The educational and health benefits are considerable, and I am delighted that we are now doing this across the country.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

With crude oil now below $70 a barrel, will the Deputy Prime Minister tell us why that price is not reflected at the pumps?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I know that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have raised this with the industry. We all want to see the lower shifts in oil prices across the world reflected in the prices on our forecourts. We must continue to focus on that in our dealings with all the oil companies.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

“We should be clear. It is not wrong to express concern about the scale of people coming into the country. People have understandably become frustrated. It boils down to one word: control.” Does the stand-in Prime Minister agree with the Prime Minister, because they were his words?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

There are some important controls that we need to improve and strengthen. It is essential that we reintroduce the proper border controls and exit checks that were removed by previous Governments. I insisted that that was in the coalition agreement. We are now on track to do that, so, just as we count people in, we count them out as well. Those additional controls are important, because we can then discover who has overstayed their presence here in the United Kingdom illegally, which is one of the biggest problems that we face.

Points of Order

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

12:33

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Deputy Prime Minister to make claims about an issue as important as pensioner poverty and not back them up with any facts whatsoever? If he has inadvertently misled the House, should he not withdraw those claims? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is not for me to control who remains in the Chamber. As the hon. Gentleman has raised a point of order, I am sure that he will be interested to hear the reply. I think that I just about heard, amidst the noise, the gravamen of his point, which related to a claim that the Deputy Prime Minister gave an answer that was not based upon fact. I simply say that were the Chair to be held responsible for answers, or even for questions, on account of the presence or absence of facts, the Chair would be even busier than he already is. I think that one has to be reasonable about this. Look, it is a point of debate. I say in the gentlest and most festive spirit to the hon. Gentleman, who was becoming extremely excited and excitable while awaiting the answer to his question, that I have always regarded him to be something of a cerebral academic, and it is most unusual for him to become over-excited. I wish him a very enjoyable Christmas and a happy new year.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. When it comes to accuracy, the Deputy Prime Minister appears not to have had a particularly good outing this afternoon. He said during the course of questions that I privatised an NHS hospital when Secretary of State for Health. That is not a point of debate; it is a point of sheer inaccuracy. The contract for Hinchingbrooke hospital was signed under the coalition, and when the previous Government left office there was still an NHS bidder in the competition. Do you not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister might have inadvertently misled the House and that he should return right now to correct the record?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is his own best advocate, and he has put the position on the record with crystal clarity. If a Minister feels that in the circumstances it would be prudent or courteous to return to the Chamber now or at some other opportunity to correct the record, it is open to that Minister to do so. We will leave it there.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am saving the hon. Gentleman up. It would be a pity to waste him too early in the proceedings.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The shadow Health Secretary repeatedly says that there was an NHS bidder in the final three that he left. The last three bidders for the Hinchingbrooke contract were Circle, Ramsay and Serco. Could he let us know which of those he thinks is the NHS bidder?

[Mr Speaker]

I blame myself. My natural generosity of spirit got the better of me. Because the hon. Gentleman is himself a cerebral academic, as distinguished, I am sure, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont), I rather thought that he might raise a genuine point of order, rather than inappropriately continuing the debate. In future I will know better. The hon. Gentleman might look very serious, but that does not mean that he is not about to abuse our procedures.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Accuracy is important in this House. The Deputy Prime Minister also asserted that the majority of people who would benefit from the increase in tax allowances were women. In fact, the House of Commons Library, which we all take very seriously, has confirmed that the majority of people who will benefit from the increase in tax allowances are men.

[Mr Speaker]

I refer to my earlier ruling in respect of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, which was that the Chair is not responsible for adjudicating upon factual accuracy. The shadow Home Secretary has put the position very clearly on the record, and I am sure that the House of Commons Library will be grateful to her.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the last day news has emerged of a large-scale maritime security operation taking place off the Scottish coast. It is doing so in circumstances in which the UK Ministry of Defence is unable to deploy any maritime patrol aircraft and has had to depend on MPA provided by the United States of America, Canada and France. Given the seriousness of the situation, have you been advised by the Ministry of Defence that it intends to make a statement to the House so that we, as parliamentarians, can be informed of the situation?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that I have not been so advised. I have received no indication that a Minister intends to make a statement in the way the hon. Gentleman would like and is advocating. However, he has made his point with force and alacrity, and knowing him as I do, I rather feel that if he considers that he has a good point, he is unlikely to let it go, and it is even conceivable that at appropriate points he might repeat it.

Resettlement of Vulnerable Syrian Refugees

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

12:39

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement about the resettlement of vulnerable Syria refugees.

[The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

The whole House shares deep concern about the continuing situation in Syria, the suffering and hardship it is causing for millions of refugees, and the enormous strain it is placing on the region. With 3.2 million people displaced into Syria’s neighbouring countries and millions more in need within Syria itself, this Government believe it is right to focus efforts on substantial aid to help the large numbers of people who remain. This is a crisis of international proportions. Alleviating the suffering and seeking an end to the conflict are the best ways to ensure that the UK’s help has the greatest impact for the majority of Syrian refugees and their host countries. Ending the war, defeating extremism and ending the humanitarian crisis require both military pressure and a political settlement that replaces the Assad regime with a Government who can represent all Syrians.

The UK has committed £700 million in response to the humanitarian crisis. This significant contribution makes us the second largest bilateral donor after the United States. The UK’s support is helping hundreds of thousands of refugees across the region to access vital food, water, medical care and essential supplies that are so desperately needed. UK aid has provided water for up to 1.5 million people per month and supported over 600,000 medical consultations. Last year, we funded 5.2 million monthly food rations.

Compared with aid, resettlement can only ever help a minority. We do, however, recognise that there are some particularly vulnerable people who cannot be supported effectively in the region, which was why earlier this year we launched the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme to provide sanctuary for those displaced Syrians who are most at risk. The VPR scheme is the first resettlement programme run by the UK to target support for refugees specifically on the basis of their vulnerability. It is prioritising women and children at risk, people in need of medical care, and the survivors of torture and violence.

It is right that our resettlement efforts focus on the most vulnerable refugees, rather than our operating any form of crude quota system. Arrivals under the scheme so far have included a number of children and adults with very severe medical needs who could not access the treatment they needed in the region. The Government have committed to helping several hundred people over three years, and that is exactly what we are doing. Between March and September, 90 people were granted humanitarian protection in the UK under the scheme. We continue to work closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify the most vulnerable cases displaced by the conflict in Syria and to relocate them to the UK. This is, of course, in addition to the many other Syrian asylum claims that we consider under our normal rules. Since the crisis began in 2011, we have granted asylum or other forms of leave to more than 3,400 Syrian nationals.

Resettlement can make a real difference to the lives of refugees who can be supported effectively only outside the region. I am delighted to see those arriving under the scheme settling into their new homes and receiving the care that they need, but we must not lose sight of the millions of Syrians who remain in the region. Our primary focus was and still is the provision of humanitarian assistance and aid to displaced people both within Syria and in its neighbouring countries. Continuing our efforts to help them through aid must remain our highest priority.

[Yvette Cooper]

The British Government have, rightly, committed £700 million to help those affected by the Syrian conflict, and the UK’s largest ever humanitarian crisis response reflects the values of the British people. I applaud the Government’s efforts, but the scale of the response is also a reflection of the horrific nature of this war. Ten million people need help and thousands are displaced every day. This is a war seemingly without end and with no limits to its inhumanity.

More than 3.2 million Syrians have become refugees in the surrounding region—in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq. Those countries are providing an immense amount of support and shelter. Everyone agrees that the vast majority of people affected want to go home and should stay in the region. Yesterday, however, the United Nations asked at a conference in Geneva for countries across the globe to increase support for its limited programme that helps the most vulnerable refugees who struggle to survive or cope in the region: orphaned children, women who have been sexually abused, victims of torture and those needing treatment or support. What did Britain do when asked for more help yesterday? Nothing. Why?

This is the worst refugee crisis since the second world war. It took weeks of pressure from the House before the Home Secretary set up the vulnerable persons relocation scheme in January. Even then, she still refused to be part of the United Nations programme. She did say that she would help several hundred people, but a year later only 90 of those vulnerable refugees have been helped. That is not good enough.

As part of the UN programme, Finland has provided 500 places, Ireland 310 places, Norway 1,000 places, France 500 places—as well as further humanitarian visas—Switzerland 500 places and Sweden 1,200 places. Other countries, including Germany and Austria, have chosen to offer thousands of places each. The UN scheme is flexible. It is not a quota. It is not about every refugee, but about each country doing its bit and what it can alongside others.

I have three questions for the Government. First, will they accept that their parallel programme is not working and sign up to the United Nations programme instead? Secondly, will they take refugees out of the net migration target immediately? The Government are under pressure over immigration, where stronger controls are needed, but asylum is different from immigration. They must not allow the debate about immigration to cloud their conscience over helping refugees.

Thirdly, will the Government now agree to do more to help? Will they rapidly accelerate the programme to meet the promises made in January and also convene an urgent meeting with local councils across the country? Kingston-upon-Thames has agreed to help 50 Syrian refugees and other councils have said they could do more if they got the right support from the Government. Will the Minister convene a meeting to ask local councils how many vulnerable refugees in total we can offer to support?

When we raised the issue a year ago, the Home Secretary sent a Minister to say no. I hope that the Government will not do the same again. The violence of the Syrian conflict is unimaginable for us sitting here. Once, we were proud as a country to offer safe haven—from the Kindertransport to those helped from the Rwandan genocide. It would be shameful, but also against our history and our values as a country, if we were to turn our backs when asked for more help now. I urge Ministers to think again.

[James Brokenshire]

The shadow Home Secretary is right to underline the significance of the issues faced in Syria and of the millions of people displaced by that horrific conflict. As I said, it is right that we focus our efforts on seeking to bring an end to the conflict as well as on providing direct assistance in the most effective way to those who have been affected and displaced. That is precisely what the Government are doing and the UK can be proud of our record in seeking to provide that direct assistance to those most in need as a consequence of the conflict.

The right hon. Lady suggested that the vulnerable persons relocation scheme was in some way not working and not fulfilling its intentions, but I entirely reject that. The VPR scheme is already providing direct help for people fleeing persecution and for those most in need of help, medical or otherwise. I congratulate the local authorities that are supporting the scheme and providing such direct assistance. To reflect one of her other points, I would certainly encourage more local authorities to come on board and be part of the scheme to ensure that those arriving in this country are able to receive the support and assistance that they need to be able to settle well and effectively in the UK.

The right hon. Lady made a point that was not worthy of our proceedings when she suggested that our decisions are in some way being clouded by a focus on net migration figures. That is absolutely not the case. Our country can be proud of the work that we are doing in providing this direct assistance under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme which, as I said, has provided asylum to 3,400 people from Syria who have been fleeing the conflict. I therefore entirely reject her assertion.

The right hon. Lady highlighted the need to ensure that support is provided to children and women in need. Through our work via the Department for International Development and our aid programmes, the UK has allocated £82 million to provide protection, trauma care and education for children affected by the crisis in Syria and the wider region, recognising their vulnerability and the need to ensure that assistance is provided directly.

The right hon. Lady referred to the contribution of several countries in seeking to take in refugees from Syria. Each country provides assistance in its own different manner. Given the £700 million that the UK is providing to support millions of people in the region directly and immediately, and the asylum that is being provided to Syrians fleeing persecution through the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, this country should be proud of the role it is playing in providing help and assistance to those most in need. This is an ongoing crisis and tragedy, which is why we are providing direct assistance and aid, and we would certainly encourage others to do so. Focusing on humanitarian assistance and on bringing an end to the conflict will provide the most direct help.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I think that we should deal with this question in context. I have visited Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey and seen the immense work that the British Government are doing in looking after refugees. The Minister is right to be proud of it, and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was right to mention it. In the context of the extraordinary efforts that the United Kingdom is making, it is not correct—it is rather unfair—to suggest that any part of our support can be termed “shameful”. Admitting people through the vulnerable persons relocation scheme is the right thing to do. Will the Minister confirm that it has no quota and that it can be extended, as it is a matter of finding the right people who can most benefit? It would always be nice to find a reason to take in more people, but if we set this scheme in the context of the rest of the work that the United Kingdom is doing, it is clear that our contribution, which is over and above that of many of the countries mentioned by the right hon. Lady as taking in more people, means that we can be proud of what we are doing.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, for the work that he has done in the region and for his continuing focus on these issues. He is absolutely right that there is no quota. We said that the vulnerable persons relocation scheme will provide assistance to several hundred people over a three-year period, and that is precisely what is happening—the scheme remains on track to deliver that. I underline the point about the work of a number of countries in region to solve this humanitarian crisis. I pay tribute to their work and to the direct role that the UK is playing in assisting them.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a sad irony that the Home Office published figures today showing that 11,000 foreign national criminals are still in our country, at a cost to the taxpayer of £250 million, yet under this scheme we have allowed in fewer than 100 people. We need to do much more to enable such people to come here. Has the Minister spoken to the European Union’s Migration Commissioner about the difficulties faced by Greece and Italy due to the large number of Syrian refugees making their way into the EU? What support are we giving those countries to help those people arriving in the EU, rather than those who manage to get to Calais?

[James Brokenshire]

The Government maintain that because of the number of people involved, the most effective way to provide the most support is in region via humanitarian assistance. The right hon. Gentleman asks about our discussions with EU partners and countries that may experience these flows of people through southern European borders. The week before last, I attended a conference in Rome with European Ministers and Ministers from several African countries. Through the Khartoum process, which is about such linking and joining up, we are taking a number of steps to deal directly with some of the issues that he highlights.

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

When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made her statement earlier this year, I welcomed it, perhaps more generously than some in the House. However, that has resulted in a far higher degree of disappointment on my part about the implementation of the scheme which, after all, is intended to try to deal with those who have suffered the most as a result of events in Syria. We can be proud of what we are spending and of what we are doing in general, but surely that should not exclude the possibility of our doing something particular for those who have suffered most. I regret to say that I hope we are not allowing the shadow of Mr Farage to obscure our humanitarian responsibilities.

[James Brokenshire]

No. When the vulnerable persons relocation scheme was launched, we were very clear about its nature and intent: to help, over the course of the next three years, several hundred of those people most in need. The scheme was put in place very quickly and a steady number of people have been coming through month on month. Through the scheme, we are able to provide care, housing and assistance locally to ensure that people’s specific needs, including the significant health needs that many have, are adequately and properly met. The scheme is performing and doing the job that it needs to do.

[Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Ernest Bevin once described a political statement as “clitch, clitch, clitch”, and that—clichés—is what we have had from the Minister today. It is just rubbish to say that we must concentrate on bringing an end to the conflict, because there is nothing whatever that we can do to bring this ghastly conflict to an end. We are talking about simply the worst humanitarian disaster on this planet—and that is saying a lot, considering other such disasters. While I do not in any way deride or dismiss the financial aid that is being applied, it is the human beings whom we ought to be doing something about. The Home Office is failing in that, and it is about time that it had a heart.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for highlighting the scale and extent of the problem, but I am sorry that he has sought to downplay the significant contribution that the Government are making to help millions of people who have been affected by this appalling conflict. It remains absolutely right that we seek to end the war and to defeat extremism, as well as ending the humanitarian crisis, and that is why we must also focus on the political process. Dialogue remains active between the United Nations and the international community, among supporters of the opposition and among Syrians themselves. This Government and this country can be proud of what we are doing through this assistance and our political focus—and, yes, through the vulnerable persons relocation scheme in providing asylum.

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

I congratulate the Minister on his approach to the problem because he reflects the Government’s sympathy and concern for the plight of the Syrian refugees. Small organisations in this country such as the Lady Fatemah Charitable Trust, which is based in my constituency, do great work in providing food assistance and humanitarian aid in places such as Iraq and Lebanon, as many refugees do not wish to go far from home and want to be helped directly wherever they have landed. Will the Minister encourage more organisations to carry out such work?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for highlighting the incredible work of so many charities and non-governmental organisations. I pay tribute to the work of the organisation in her constituency. We should remember the incredible risks that so many people take to provide such help and assistance. It is important to underline that, as well as to recognise their supportive work with DFID and other partners.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

We know that the Minister has the scheme that he has outlined—it is the subject of this urgent question—and that Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey are doing an enormous amount to help in the refugee crisis, but what more can the Government do to put pressure on other Governments in the region, such as the Gulf states, to open their doors to more refugees from Syria?

[James Brokenshire]

I understand from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), that that matter is being raised at international bodies and in international discussions. The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the work done by countries such as Jordan and others. We are providing more than £300 million in aid assistance outside Syria to some of the countries on which the displacement of people is most directly having an impact.

[Sarah Teather (Brent Central) (LD)]

I have visited both Lebanon and Jordan to see projects supporting Syrian refugees, as outlined in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In talking about numbers, it is worth noting—on a day when the Prime Minister is in Turkey—that Turkey has received more Syrians fleeing the war in the past three days than the number resident in the whole of Europe altogether. Will the Minister consider expanding not just the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, for which many colleagues have argued, but other safe routes to travel? For example, family reunification, which Switzerland has done, would be cheaper to administer and would alleviate significant suffering.

[James Brokenshire]

People subject to the vulnerable persons relocation scheme are also eligible for family reunion under our normal rules. The hon. Lady mentioned Turkey and other countries. Again, it is important to underline that our support has reached hundreds of thousands of people across all 14 governorates of Syria, as well as in Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. She is absolutely right to emphasise the impact on other countries.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

Desperate Syrians were heavily over-represented among the 500 people in a boat that sank in the autumn in the eastern Mediterranean, from which there were only 11 survivors. We now know that 3,419 refugees have died in the Mediterranean this year. Does that not underpin the critical importance of not reducing sea rescue efforts in the Mediterranean, while we work to find solutions to the refugee crisis that has engulfed so much of the world?

[James Brokenshire]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, Operation Triton is being conducted by Frontex along the borders of the southern European Mediterranean countries. It is important to underscore that people are not in any way being left to drown as a consequence of the changes endorsed by all EU member states. I draw her attention to the fact that, on 29 November, a commercial ship under Royal Navy command picked up 145 Syrian migrants in the Mediterranean and landed them in Sicily.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

May I commend my hon. Friend for the UK’s significant financial contribution to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria and the British people for their generosity? Does he share my pride—not the shame that the Labour party is talking about—that the UK is the second largest donor in the world in this instance?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which we need to underscore and recognise. As a country, we should be proud of the extent and scale of the assistance that the UK is providing in region to those most in need of help. We can stand tall in respect of that contribution.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

In his earlier responses, the Minister made it very clear that political pressure to reduce net migration has had no impact on the number of refugees this country is accepting. However, he must accept that such a conclusion is inevitable, given that refugees are included in the net migration figures. Why are refugees included in the net migration figures, and will the Home Office now reconsider that matter to avoid such accusations in future?

[James Brokenshire]

I again entirely reject any assertion that the manner in which net migration statistics are calculated has any bearing or influence at all on this country’s international obligations on humanitarian assistance. Indeed, we should be proud of the work that this country does in providing humanitarian aid, assistance and asylum to those in need. Net migration statistics are calculated on the same basis as in many other countries, and they are drawn up in that manner for use in international comparisons.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

Any proposals for resettlement must be set in the context of the scale of the problem. Some 1.4 million Syrian refugees are currently resident in Jordan, many of whom are children of school age. Does the Minister agree that activities such as those of the Manchester-based NGO Syrian Women Across Borders, which is educating young Syrian refugees in Amman, play an important part in improving the lives of the young Syrian refugees who are struggling against such odds?

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the project he mentions. Important facilities are provided through our aid and assistance, and we are funding partners to provide education supply kits in refugee camps in Jordan. That supports the very work he identifies, including the supply of pencils, exercise books and other facilities. In addition, the Government have committed to providing textbooks to benefit at least 300,000 Syrian and Lebanese children attending Lebanese public schools, showing a real focus on children.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

The Minister stated that there are no quotas for the number of refugees we are taking, but he does not seem, from his answers, to be very proactive in trying to obtain offers of assistance within the United Kingdom. May I suggest that he arranges a summit with the devolved Administrations and local government in England to find out how many authorities are prepared to make offers of assistance so that the UK can increase the number of refugees we take, as many of my constituents are demanding?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that many local authorities are actively assisting the work of the vulnerable persons relocation scheme—I commend them for doing so—and others are offering help and support. I absolutely endorse the need for more local authorities to come forward to do so. On the hon. Lady’s suggestion about the devolved Administrations, I will certainly consider what further steps we could take to underline the importance of their contribution, as well as the help that local authorities can give.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Having visited a refugee camp on the Syria-Turkey border earlier this year, I am all too aware of the conflict’s impact, especially on children. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the Turks for all they are doing to provide support? Does he agree that the best way to resolve the problem is to find a way to end the war, however difficult that may be? Will he remain committed to providing whatever support is needed both at home and abroad?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend has experience of travelling to see the very direct impact of the situation on the ground, and I commend him and other Members from across the House for their work and the real focus and attention that they have given to this very serious issue. He is right to identify Turkey’s contribution. The Prime Minister is in Turkey at the moment, and it is important to work with our international partners to seek to resolve this appalling crisis.

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

May I point out to the Minister that none of us is criticising the generosity of the population or of our constituents? Britain is doing pretty well on many measures. What the rest of the world are criticising is the lack of leadership and the drift. Here is a Prime Minister—in Turkey—who is regarded by so many allies as a modern-day Neville Chamberlain. Where is the determination to sort out this conflict, to face up to the humanitarian crisis and to get allies to work with us, across Governments, to do something about it?

[James Brokenshire]

The Prime Minister and the Government have shown clear leadership at the UN and elsewhere, and by working bilaterally with other Governments. Indeed, the fact that we have committed £700 million, the biggest aid project this country has ever seen, shows very direct leadership. We are not just talking about it, but actually doing something about it. On that basis, we are showing leadership, and our country can be proud that we are doing so.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and my friend the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr Love), I returned from Jordan last week. We visited Syrian refugees in Zaatari and saw the institution that my right hon. Friend referred to. May I say gently to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is a particular pity that the enormous amount of aid that the United Kingdom is giving is being overshadowed by the frankly derisory numbers of refugees that we are taking relative to the size of the problem? In addition, despite all the assistance going to particular NGOs and the UN in Jordan, the Jordanian Government’s budget is not receiving the help that it desperately needs given that the Jordanian public services are picking up much of the responsibility.

[James Brokenshire]

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is sitting alongside me, will be visiting Amman next week, and I am sure that he has heard clearly the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) makes and will raise them with his opposite numbers and colleagues in the Jordanian Government. However, this country can be proud of the overall contribution that is being made. Each country is providing assistance directly, and we are doing so through significant aid, through the vulnerable persons relocation scheme and by providing asylum to those who need it.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

When I asked about this issue during Scotland Office questions on 18 December last year, Germany was taking about 80% of the Syrian refugees coming to the EU and Amnesty International said that the amount of help coming from the UK should cause heads to hang in shame. By June, reports were that only 24 Syrians had been relocated to the UK. The SNP Scottish Government want to help and have been in touch with the UK Government. Can the Minister update us on those talks? How many refugees can we hope to welcome to Scotland and give a “Failte gu Alba” to before too long?

[James Brokenshire]

I note that the hon. Gentleman highlights one individual country within the EU, but each country provides a balance of assistance, whether by accepting people through various schemes or by providing monetary assistance. Each country does so in its own appropriate way. We have said that we will provide support under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme to several hundred of those most in need of assistance, and we are providing quarterly updates on that work. The scheme is therefore transparent and clear, and we are obviously continuing our discussions with local authorities and others to see what further assistance they can provide. I will seek to take that further forward following this session.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

The Minister is right to be proud of the aid that Britain is giving in the region, and to give asylum to Syrian refugees who can make it over here. However, as he knows from our exchanges at the Home Affairs Committee, I believe that the efforts to tackle the problems of the most vulnerable refugees who cannot easily get here are simply tokenistic and fall far short of what Members of all parties agreed when the system was set up. It is far less than other countries are doing. Will the Minister reflect on that? I know that he and the Home Secretary were careful not to give any quotas or numbers, but will he at least try to edge the numbers upwards to deliver what this country would like to see and to help people in need?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend says that the vulnerable persons relocation scheme is in some way not meeting what he sees as the intent behind it, but when the scheme was launched we were clear that it would assist several hundred vulnerable Syrians over the course of three years, and it is doing that and remains absolutely on course to achieve it. Again, I highlight the fact that we are providing assistance to some of the most vulnerable people through our direct aid assistance to individual countries. That aid contribution and the vulnerable persons relocation scheme mean that this country can be proud of what it is doing.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

The number of people that this country has admitted this year under the vulnerable persons relocation scheme has been, in January, one; in February, none; in March, none; in April, one; in May, one; and in June, four. The Minister looks puzzled, but those figures are from a parliamentary answer that he supplied to me, and they show the priority that he gives the matter. Will he confirm that neither he nor the Home Secretary has ever met the Refugee Council to discuss those shameful figures? Will he please undertake to do that, and to do better from now forward?

[James Brokenshire]

The vulnerable persons relocation scheme was launched in February and was got up and running within the first two months, which was rapid given the significant needs of so many of the people involved. Many have medical needs and have suffered huge trauma, and the arrangements have been implemented appropriately to ensure that we provide them with the help that they need when they arrive. They do not simply arrive here and then wait for assistance; there is wrap-around care when they arrive in the UK. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is hectoring from his place, but the scheme is working and is providing direct assistance. I am sorry that he does not recognise that, because there are people receiving direct help. I am sorry that he appears to be blind to that.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the quality and extent of British aid is second only to that of the United States. Britain’s historic role and ties in the region put a greater onus on us to play our full part in the resettlement of refugees. What work are the Government doing to encourage more local authorities to sign up to the vulnerable persons relocation scheme?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to underline again the significant contribution that many local authorities are making by allowing people to be located in their area through the scheme and ensuring that essential help and assistance is provided. I certainly encourage more local authorities to come forward, as I have said in response to a number of questions, and I encourage hon. Members of all parties to talk to their local authorities in support of what the Government are doing so that we can ensure that more areas make that assistance available.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the Prime Minister is showing real leadership in delivering humanitarian and local support to refugees in Syria. Will he join me in praising the work of Cornish-based ShelterBox, which is doing phenomenal work in Syria right now, ranging from health care to educating children, with the support of the Department for International Development and voluntary donations?

[James Brokenshire]

I am pleased to offer my support for, and commend the work of, ShelterBox and a number of other charities that are providing direct support and help to people in Syria and other areas affected by conflict. It is also important to underline the contribution that the British public make through their huge generosity to so many charities and aid organisations. As a country, we can be proud not simply of the Government’s work in investing aid money but of the public’s huge contribution and the funding that they are providing to give direct assistance.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

The Minister has used the word “proud” eight times so far today. Many of my constituents are proud of the immense courage of the Syrian and Assyrian Christian communities that are currently facing a fearful and frozen future in a part of the world where they have lived for centuries but where they may simply not be able to survive much longer. Many of my constituents have offered accommodation—they have offered homes and bedrooms, and they have offered succour to those people. Will the Minister agree to collate the information about such offers and feed it in to the UNHCR, which will be responsible for the first year’s cost of any resettlement, to see whether the British people can show their pride in a courageous Christian community in the same way that he has shown his pride? Winter is coming fast to the region, and we have very little time.

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s points. There are a number of persecuted communities, and he rightly highlights the situation in Iraq. I also recognise, from the letters that I see, the number of individuals who want to contribute. The most effective way for them to do that is through their local authorities and the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, but we continue to have discussions with the UNHCR, which identifies individuals who come through that scheme, and we will always reflect on what further information we can provide and how we can make the scheme work as effectively as possible.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

My constituent, Razan Alsous, fled Syria two years ago and thanks to a new enterprise allowance now runs an award-winning Yorkshire halloumi cheese-making factory in Linthwaite. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Razan and other Syrian refugees who are making such a positive contribution to our communities?

[James Brokenshire]

I am pleased to congratulate Razan and all those who are making a new life in the UK, contributing to and enriching our communities. The vulnerable persons relocation scheme is precisely to provide such assistance and enable people to escape the conflict and settle into the relevant communities, and that is the reason for our measured approach.

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

Britain has a proud history of providing refuge and asylum, but I share the concerns of a number of hon. Members about how that issue has been confused with a wider debate on immigration, including data collection. I am still unclear—perhaps the Minister can help me—why we have set up a parallel programme to that of the United Nations, and about the criteria used for relocation. For example, will families be relocated close to other Syrians or family members?

[James Brokenshire]

The scheme operates in close conjunction with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. We judged it best to contribute through a complementary scheme, working in partnership with the UNHCR and focusing exclusively on the most vulnerable cases, particularly women and children at risk, those in need of medical assistance, and survivors of torture and violence. As I said, this is the first scheme of its kind in the UK with that direct focus. The UNHCR will make recommendations about those who are appropriate and suitable for the scheme, and through that complementary work we are actively supporting its efforts.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on securing this urgent question, and the Minister on the excellent way he is responding. I disagree with the Opposition, however, because surely the Prime Minister has shown great leadership not only on Syria but on overseas aid. We are the second highest contributor of aid, but I think we have been concentrating too much on the money. Will the Minister say what that money is doing for people on the ground?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point about the way that aid money provides assistance to hundreds of thousands of people. That money means food, water and shelter, and I have already mentioned the books that are being provided and other assistance to ensure that children receive an education despite their displacement from within Syria. The money is providing direct, practical, real-life assistance and we should underline work that has been done to ensure that we meet aid commitments, as well as the leadership being shown. As my hon. Friend said, I think the Prime Minister has shown leadership not only in Syria but on many other things as well.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Rochdale has more asylum seekers than the entire south-east of England. Cardiff has 900, Newport 400, but the Minister’s constituency has 33. The Home Secretary’s constituency has one—an increase on last year. Would it be far easier to rescue more people from that hell if the burden that asylum seekers place on local authority services was spread fairly? What will the Minister do to stand tall and proud in his constituency and prepare it to take a fair share of asylum seekers?

[James Brokenshire]

We work regionally with local authorities and I have had a number of meetings to see how the Home Office can work towards and assist a further spread of those in receipt of asylum across the regions. I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about ensuring that more local authorities receive asylum applicants, and I have been taking forward discussions in a number of areas to ensure that new local authorities, and others in the region, play their part in providing asylum support.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

A substantial number of my constituents have recently contacted me about this issue because they care and see its importance. They thought that the debate earlier this year about whether we should resettle people or act in the area had been resolved when the Home Secretary said that we would seek to take in several hundreds of refugees under this scheme over three years. Currently, however, the numbers involved are tiny, and I have heard nothing from the Minister about why those numbers are so small or what plans he has to honour that commitment to take in several hundreds of refugees?

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise the care and concern over this situation felt by many people across the country, and that is testament to the nature of this country and the values we hold. The Government were clear that the scheme would provide assistance to several hundred people over three years, as the hon. Lady rightly highlighted, and we are doing that. We remain firmly on course to seek to meet that objective and aim, and we will provide quarterly updates on our progress. We have provided the figures to September and further updates will follow. She will see that we are meeting our commitments and providing the help that is needed.

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

Along with the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) and the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), I visited Jordan recently and saw for myself the tremendous work that has been done using British aid funds to feed and shelter massive numbers of refugees. We also visited a British Syrian charity to see its work in looking after women and children, and particularly the rehabilitation needs of those who directly and abruptly became victims of the conflict in Syria. Many of those people would be appropriate and suitable for the vulnerable persons scheme, and I plead with the Minister to look carefully at the need in countries such as Jordan because the numbers are huge.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights the scale and impact of what is happening in that region, and that is why we remain in close contact with the Government of Jordan and are providing assistance. He is right to say that those who have been traumatised may be appropriate for the vulnerable persons relocation scheme, and we are working with the UNHCR to ensure that those who come to the UK have their needs identified. We work closely with them so that once they arrive they can receive direct medical or other assistance from the word go. That is why the scheme is—rightly, I think—being undertaken in that way, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting his direct experience.

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

The Minister said earlier that the withdrawal of the wider search and rescue scheme in the Mediterranean had not led to more people drowning. He cannot possibly know that, however, because the new Operation Triton only operates close to the Italian coast. Given evidence that people are still dying in their hundreds and thousands in the Mediterranean, and that the Italian navy is putting about one third of its boats at the service of the new rescue operation, should the UK and the rest of the EU be thinking about a wider search and rescue operation in the Mediterranean? How many people is the UK assisting Italy with in Operation Triton?

[James Brokenshire]

The decision taken on Mare Nostrum was endorsed by all EU member states because it was felt that the programme was leading to more people putting themselves at risk, and—sadly—more people dying. More than 3,000 people have died crossing the Mediterranean already this year compared with 700 in the previous year. The UK is not part of Frontex, which is the EU body that leads the current work on a pan-EU basis, but we are nevertheless providing two debriefers and a nationality expert to support the operation, and considering what other resources we can provide. On search and rescue, if a vessel is in distress, another vessel in the vicinity will clearly seek to come to its aid. Indeed, as I have already highlighted, a Royal Navy commanded vessel did precisely that in recent weeks.

Preparing Young People for Work

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

13:30

[The Secretary of State for Education (Nicky Morgan)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the next phase of our plan for education—preparing young people for the world of work.

Ensuring that young people leave school or college prepared for life in modern Britain is a central tenet of the Government’s plan for education, and a vital part of our long-term economic plan for Britain. It is the students of today who will be the work force of tomorrow and on whom the future success of our economy—and everything that flows from that—will depend. That is why our plan will ensure that every young person learns the knowledge, skills and values they need to be able to leave school or college ready to fulfil their potential and succeed in life.

The Government have done a huge amount to raise standards in our schools. We now have a million more pupils in good and outstanding schools—more than ever before; 100,000 more six-year-olds are now on track to become confident readers because of our focus on phonics; the number of pupils taking core academic GCSEs is up by 60% since 2009-10 thanks to the EBacc; and, critically, we now have the most highly qualified teaching profession ever, with more graduates from top universities choosing teaching than ever before.

While helping every child to master the basics is vital, I am clear that it is only the start. Schools and colleges have a broader role to play in preparing young people for adult life. That is why I recently allocated £5 million of funding to support new, innovative projects that build character, resilience and grit—because as much as I want the next generation to be able to solve a quadratic equation, I also want them to be able to make a compelling pitch for a job, and to be able to bounce back if things do not work out. It is also why today I am setting out an ambitious new approach to the way we open young people’s eyes to the world of work.

It is widely acknowledged that careers provision in schools has long been inadequate. To date, we have encouraged schools and colleges to take the lead. We have placed a clear duty on them to provide students with access to impartial advice and guidance. But, though we published an inspiration vision statement in September 2013 and strengthened the statutory guidance to support schools and colleges in making this vision a reality, it is clear that many schools and colleges need additional support if we are to ensure every young person—regardless of background or location—receives the life-changing advice and inspiration that they need to fulfil their potential and succeed in life. That is a view supported by a number of respected contributors in this area, including OFSTED, the National Careers Council, the Sutton Trust, the Gatsby Foundation and the Education Committee, as well as many employers, sector experts, and schools and colleges themselves.

Some schools and colleges are doing great things to ensure that their students access the necessary support, but too often provision is patchy. Already busy schools and teachers do not always have the time to give this the focus they should. Meanwhile, many organisations—including employers—offer excellent programmes for young people. The challenge before us is how to ensure that every young person in every part of the country is given access to them.

I have consistently heard calls from both employers and schools and colleges to help them navigate this complex landscape and to spread the good practice that is happening in some parts of the country to all. Today I am answering those calls. I am pleased to tell the House that Christine Hodgson, chair of Capgemini UK and someone with a strong track record of developing young talent, will chair a new careers and enterprise company for schools. This will transform the provision of careers education and advice for young people and inspire them to take control of and shape their own futures.

The company will support much greater engagement between employers on one hand and schools and colleges on the other. It will ensure that young people get the inspiration and guidance they need to leave school or college ready to succeed in working life. It will be employer led, but will work closely with the education and careers sectors. It will also act as an umbrella organisation to help employers, schools and colleges and other organisations navigate their way through the existing landscape. It will provide a vehicle to help other organisations co-ordinate their activities where appropriate.

The company will not itself be a direct delivery organisation, or act in competition with the many existing providers in the market. Instead, it will help schools, colleges, organisations and employers work together in partnership. The company will focus on the offer to young people, initially those aged 12 to 18. It will work closely with the National Careers Service, which will continue to support adults and young people and help the company to bring employers, schools and colleges together.

It will be for the new company’s board to set its own strategy but we envisage that it will do a number of things. It will use relationships with employers—private, public and third sector—to break down barriers between schools and colleges on the one hand and employers on the other, and increase the level of employer input into careers, inspiration and enterprise in all schools and colleges. It will do that partly through a network of advisers who will broker strong and extensive links at local level. It will assist schools and colleges in choosing effective careers and enterprise organisations to partner with, including considering the use of quality marks. It will stimulate more and better activity in areas where the current provision is poorest. Last but not least, it will develop an enterprise passport to incentivise young people to participate in a wide range of extra-curricular activities that boost their appeal to employers, as well as their enterprise skills.

The network of advisers and the enterprise passport are ideas championed most effectively by my noble Friend Lord Young, to whom I should like to pay generous tribute for his invaluable work in this area. His report, “Enterprise for All”, has informed our thinking about the way forward. I am also grateful for the support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and his officials in ensuring that our work reflects the needs of employers and business and for providing £1.4 million this year to ensure that the company makes a strong start. It is also important to say that this announcement builds on the work already under way in this area, such as the common online application portal being developed by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for business and skills.

The Government will support the new company with start-up funding in 2015-16, the cost of which will be met from the £20 million announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in last week’s autumn statement. Some £5 million of this will constitute an investment fund to support innovation and stimulate good practice across the country. In the longer term, the company will sustain itself.

I am confident that the plan I have announced today will build on the excellent work that is already going on in some parts of the country, but will ensure it is replicated in every part of the country. It will herald a step change in the quality of careers inspiration, advice and guidance provided to all young people, paying no regard to ability, interest or background, and it will help to realise our ambition of ensuring that every child leaves school or college prepared for life in modern Britain. We know that the ultimate success of our long-term economic plan for this country rests on the shoulders of the next generation, and we are backing them every step of the way. I commend the statement to the House.

13:37

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of this statement—on page six of The Sun. As we approach the 750th anniversary of the de Montfort Parliament, I would have expected a little more respect for this institution. Parliamentary democracy is, after all, a British value.

Education is the handmaiden of a competitive economy, but the Government’s education policy has systematically undermined young people’s preparation for the world of work. Secondary work experience placements have been scrapped; practical assessments have been removed; young apprenticeships have been devalued; and a teacher supply crisis looms in the STEM subjects so critical for this country’s future prospects. But it is the dismantling of careers advice that stands among the Government’s greatest crimes.

As the CBI has said, our careers advice system is “in severe crisis”. The Chairman of the Education Committee, who is not in his place, has said that the state of the careers service

“should shame the Department for Education”.

Sir Michael Wilshaw pointed out on the radio this morning that

“careers education is particularly bad”.

Famously, prisoners get more careers advice than school pupils under this Government.

The Opposition take these warnings seriously. That is why we want to see work experience guaranteed for every secondary school pupil; a governor responsible for enterprise and careers education on every governing body; new destination measures, so that all schools track pupils into work, apprenticeships and higher education; more support for innovative careers education charities such as Future First, which is doing such a tremendous job to spread alumni network opportunities to disadvantaged schools; and a vocational education system that spreads opportunity and excellence to those young people who want to pursue high quality apprenticeships.

Today’s announcement is perfectly welcome as far as it goes, but, to be frank, even for this Government it is pretty undercooked. What was the bidding process for the new company receiving £1.6 million of taxpayers’ money? What will the company actually do? What are its costs? What is its strategy? How will it stimulate “more and better activity”? What will its relationships with employers be? This is a piecemeal, scattergun approach. Astonishingly—it is very good see the Business Secretary in his place—the statement does not even mention local enterprise partnerships. If we are to have joined-up government on careers advice, I would have thought that at least the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills could talk to each other.

In short, like the Secretary of State’s tenure in office, today’s announcement signally fails to rise to the challenge. The Secretary of State could have said something strategic about the competitiveness challenge we face. She could have highlighted Lord Adonis’s scheme for directors of enterprise, the CBI’s local brokers model or the Gatsby Foundation’s 10 benchmarks. Instead, she has retreated to the Tory comfort zone of Lord Young, whom we on the Opposition Benches remember for putting a lot of young people out of work. In a week when Britain faces a skills crisis and has had to import brickies from Poland, when the chief inspector of schools has highlighted the failure of Government policy in raising standards in secondary education, and when a leading head teacher has said the Secretary of State is “just not up to the job”, this country deserves better than this poorly thought through end-of-term initiative.

[Nicky Morgan]

I think that among all the rhetoric and playing to his own gallery the shadow Secretary of State actually welcomed the announcement. He represents the Labour party. As one of his colleagues said, the clue is in the title: it is all about representing working people. That is what we on the Government Benches are doing.

If the shadow Secretary of State wants to see a failure to prepare young people for the life of work, he ought to be thinking about the fact that under the previous Labour Government one in three of our young people were leaving primary school unable to read and write. That is a shocking statistic.

We have the lowest number of NEETs since records began. Yesterday saw the announcement of the 2 millionth apprentice. Those of us on the Government Benches want to go further. The Chancellor, in the autumn statement last week, confirmed his support for the employment of younger people through continued national insurance tax breaks. The shadow Secretary of State called for destination measures. He must have missed the announcement, because we have done that and we are going to enhance them. He called for support for careers organisations. That has been done and that is exactly what this organisation will do. The company will be an employer-led company. There will be an advisory board. The Government are backing and setting up the company, which has been called for by business organisations for many, many years. Some £20 million is being put behind this company and we will of course let the House know how that money is spent. I mentioned the £5 million investment fund. The company will of course work with the local enterprise partnerships, which are critical to supplying both investment in skills and local labour market information.

The shadow Secretary of State could have said something about his plan for education, but as always he retreated to his comfort zone. As always, he talked about some of the problems he saw, but said nothing positive about the hard-working teachers and school leaders up and down the country who have willingly taken this on and know best what is right for their students and the inspiration for their future. Today’s announcement is about making sure that schools broker good and deep relationships with employers and businesses, and that young people are inspired by all the options open to them in the future. All the shadow Secretary of State’s response showed was the continuing failure of the Opposition’s education policy, and the fact that he and the Labour party have no plan for young people.

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

Will the Secretary of State ensure that help from employers will grow, including in particular from the overwhelming number of tiny employers on the island?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is absolutely right. One of the issues for smaller businesses is that it is difficult to build links with schools—it is often difficult to know who to contact. As I said in my statement, when schools are busy it is difficult for them to know which businesses they should be contacting. The company we are setting up today will have advisers in all parts of the country to broker those links and to ensure that our young people find out about all careers, whether they are in big or small companies or in the public sector, and apprenticeships and going on to further study.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

When I heard there would be a statement from the Secretary of State for Education today I thought it might be about the warnings from Ofsted about low standards in secondary schools. I thought it might even have been about the tender opportunity that has appeared on the Department for Education website for the privatisation of children’s social care. I was therefore very surprised at the actual choice. As the statement was on preparing young people for the world of work, may I tell the Secretary of State what the witnesses to this morning’s Select Committee on Education had to say about 16-to-19 apprenticeships? They all agree that her proposals for apprenticeships are nothing short of a train wreck. I urge her to listen to their calls for greater quality apprenticeships that are matched to each individual, and to have a complete rethink to get rid of the increase in bureaucracy that she is proposing.

[Nicky Morgan]

First, the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of the proposals for children’s social care services is absolutely wrong. We have absolutely and categorically ruled out any form of privatisation in relation to those services. I have no idea where he has got that from. All we hear from the Opposition Benches is more negativity about the proposals to inspire our young people about all the options open to them. He mentioned apprenticeships. He ought to reflect on the fact that we have seen more great apprenticeships right across the country. Already this week, we have celebrated the 2 millionth apprentice and she is to be congratulated on signing up to it.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I warmly welcome the statement. For so long, businesses have been calling for an antidote to the painfully inadequate careers advice, supervised by the previous Labour Government, that spectacularly failed to prepare young people for the world of work. Will the Secretary of State confirm how the proposals will counter the lack of awareness of the value of apprenticeships and solid vocational routes?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Schools already have a duty to ensure that young people are advised independently on all the options open to them. There is no doubt that one of the things we hear when we go around the country is the positive nature of apprenticeships, but often young people find out about them through a roundabout route. The company will be working with organisations such as the National Apprenticeship Service, but one of the most powerful things is for employers to go into schools and speak about the opportunities available to them. I was at Crossrail yesterday talking to one of the apprentices. We hope very much that he, and other apprentices, will go back into schools to talk about their experiences in the world of work.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

I am the daughter of a skilled manual worker and I went to an ordinary comprehensive school. When I was growing up I simply did not understand what jobs existed or how one might progress from entry-level jobs to top positions. What makes the Secretary of State so confident that her announcement today will change that, because it is still a problem for many young people?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question, and I agree with her that that is one of the issues. The whole point about the body is that it will be employer led. I mean “employer” in the widest sense of the word. It may very well be that young people have never thought about setting up their own company, or that they are not aware of the opportunities available to them in the third sector, the public sector or the private sector. The body is needed to inspire young people, and to tell them about all the options open to them, the fact that often they may go from one career to another and the impact of the subject choices they make at school. I want young people to be advised early on, when they are making GCSE choices and before they get any further, on their subject choices and on the amazing careers that are open to them. We saw this week the publication of a report that mentions 40 jobs that were not available even a few years ago. The jobs landscape is changing all the time.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

I welcome the new careers company, which I hope will help schools to promote opportunities for young people. Thousands of my constituents have jobs in the public sector. Will the Secretary of State inform the House how public sector employers will be involved in the careers and enterprise company and its advisory board?

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We want to ensure that the widest possible options and inspiration are available to all our young people, and we intend that various large public sector organisations will have a role on the advisory board—for example, the NHS, which employs 5 million people, and the armed forces, which are a huge source of career opportunities for our young people.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Given the skills shortage highlighted this year, there is clearly a need for an organisation to enhance careers education in schools. What does the Secretary of State mean when she says that in the longer term she envisages this company sustaining itself? Does that mean a charge to the schools, to the employers or to both?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the creation of this company. I intend that in the longer term employers will see the value of the company and therefore will invest in it.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I agreed with the Secretary of State when she said: “as much as I want the next generation to be able to solve a quadratic equation, I also want them to be able to make a compelling pitch for a job”.

If we are going to win the global race for excellence, we need top-flight scientists and mathematicians, and a disproportionate number of them are provided by our remaining 160 grammar schools, yet under this Government funding for grammar schools has been cut, meaning that the top-performing grammar school in Lincolnshire gets £4,000 per pupil per year and the worst-performing comprehensive gets £7,000 per head per year. We must do more to help our excellent schools provide the top-class mathematicians of the future.

[Nicky Morgan]

I am not sure I agree with the entirety of my hon. Friend’s question, but I agreed with his final point: we must ensure that all our schools are good or outstanding local schools and are encouraging our young people to consider studying science and maths for longer. As we have seen, it makes a difference to young people’s earnings. The best way to improve social mobility is for all our schools to be good or outstanding, and, since 2010, 1 million more pupils are in good or outstanding schools.

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

The Secretary of State wants people to be positive, and I want to be positive, about this initiative. She will know that I co-chair the Skills Commission, which reported last week on the relevant skills for the changing nature of work. I hope she had a chance to look at the report. If we are to be positive, we have to start with a partnership, but over the past four and a half years, she and the Government have destroyed the old fabric of careers advice in our schools. That has to be rebuilt. I have nothing against the new company, but I would like to know more about it: is it third sector, a company limited by guarantee, a private company? Whatever it is, all of us who care about the future of our young people want it to succeed. We will work with her, but only on the realistic basis of what we need into the 21st century.

[Nicky Morgan]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has accepted my challenge to be positive, and I think the tenor of his remarks fulfilled that criterion, so I welcome them. I intend and hope that the company will be a community interest company, but that will be a matter for the new chair, in particular, to take forward. The hon. Gentleman is right, of course, that we need better-skilled people, but that is what the former careers service failed absolutely to deliver, which is why we have a skills shortage now. We do not have people inspired by the options and careers available. Working with schools, which know their students best, is what the company will do. It is right, therefore, that schools have a duty to procure good and excellent careers advice and guidance, and this company will play an important part in ensuring that all kinds of employers can get into schools and inspire young people for the future.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

I welcome today’s statement. One of the Government’s flagship policies for preparing young people for the world of work is the studio schools initiative, and recently I campaigned successfully for a £3 million studio school on the site of the Grange school in Warmley, but today South Gloucestershire councillors are voting on whether to close the existing Grange school. I fought hard for the studio school so that pupils at the Grange could continue their education at the new school. Will the Secretary of State meet me to ensure that pupils at the Grange who wish to continue their education at the studio school will be given the opportunity to do so and have the place in the new school they deserve?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the diversity of schools in our system is fundamental to the driving up of standards we have seen. As I said in my statement, for example, more students are taking EBacc subjects, which are leading to higher academic standards, and I am a great supporter of studio schools. I heard what he said, and I will try to meet him, but if I cannot one of my Ministers will do so urgently.

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

I share the concerns of my hon. Friends about the status of the new company. Is it a private company? It is being set up with public money. Given the Public Accounts Committee’s report this morning, which suggests that public money given to private companies is often not spent well, how will we ensure that public money is held to account, and what specifically will it be doing?

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Lady got to the nub of the issue at the end of her question—what the company will actually be doing on the ground. When Labour has nothing else to say about a proposal, it obsesses about process. I have already mentioned that the company will be a community interest company, and it will of course explain to Parliament what it has done with the public money it receives. It will be doing a variety of different things, but one thing I do not want it to do is to quash the good practice already out there. There are already many excellent schemes involving the brightest and best schools linking to employers. We want to build on that and spread it across the country, including to schools in her constituency. I think the young people in her constituency will welcome these opportunities.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her announcement; it is a great step forward. Does she agree that we need to match the skills that schools teach to those that employers require? In that respect, would she encourage employers, LEPs and local authorities to carry out accurate skills audits so that schools know what those skills are?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We must ensure that our young people have the skills to prepare them for life in modern Britain, which means, for most of them, getting jobs and knowing what jobs are out there. He is right to say that skills audits are critical, which is where the LEPs will come in, and that it is a partnership between different organisations, including local authorities, LEPs and employers.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Unfortunately, mistakes the Government made early in this Parliament have left work experience and careers information, advice and guidance in the worst state it has been in during my lifetime. I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement and her personal commitment to putting this right, but the devil will be in the detail. Are there any guarantees for young people in relation to access to work experience and face-to-face information, advice and guidance, which is at the heart of a good system?

[Nicky Morgan]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support, which I know is heartfelt, and I know he has a lot of experience, from before he entered the House, in the further education sector. Schools and colleges already have a duty to offer impartial advice and guidance, which can include one-to-one, face-to-face interviews, as well as work experience. The purpose of the company is to support schools and colleges in order to fulfil our commitments. From conversations I have had around the country, I know that many busy teachers, heads and leaders in education welcome the opportunity and support the company will provide in terms of employers coming in and talking to students. I suspect we will want to see work experience opportunities, job interviews and all sorts of other things as well. On the changes made this Parliament, the point is that having an external service was not the right way to go. It is right for the schools, which know their students, to identify and support them in making those choices.

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

It would appear that hyperbolic nonsense is not just the preserve of BBC “Today” journalists, but shared by the shadow Secretary of State for Education. I think this is a great statement. As the Secretary of State knows, I represent a rural constituency with a diverse range of schools, from grammar to comprehensive, from denominational to non-denominational. Will she guarantee that the exciting services being offered today will be offered with rurality and diversity in mind?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want all schools to participate in this scheme, supported by employers. What we have already seen as a result of the educational changes that this Government have brought in is more collaboration and partnership between schools of all different kinds. This company will serve many different schools. One point captured in my hon. Friend’s question is that we see some of this good practice in some parts of the country, but we do not see it everywhere. I think that every child in this country is entitled to be inspired about their future.

[Pamela Nash (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

I agree that every young person in this country deserves to be inspired about their future, and I am happy to hear the Secretary of State saying that and expressing her opinions on giving good quality careers advice. Unfortunately, that does not match with the recent record of this Government. While I welcome any investment in careers advice, £20 million is equivalent to around only £3 a head for every young person. Does she really think that this will fix the problems caused by this Government?

[Nicky Morgan]

In going around talking to organisations and schools across the country, I have found that it is not so much a matter of financial issues as of the lack of contacts. That is what the company is all about—brokering links between employers and businesses and schools. Yes, I am absolutely confident that this will make a difference. It is part of the careers landscape and I welcome the hon. Lady’s support.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I cannot claim to be the daughter of a skilled worker, as the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) did, but I can claim to be the son of a skilled manual worker and to be someone who attended a pretty bog standard and quite poor comprehensive school. Is not the truth that poor-performing comprehensives cannot possibly offer the sort of links to employers that posh private schools, such as those attended by various Members, can? How will this announcement ensure that those who attend what have been called “bog standard” comprehensives get access to proper workplace experience?

[Nicky Morgan]

I know that my hon. Friend had direct teaching experience in colleges before he came here. Returning to my previous answer, we know that the good links, as my hon. Friend says, happen in some schools in some parts of the country. What this company will do through a network of enterprise and employment advisers is to make sure that the links between schools and businesses and employers happen right across the country. Some schools are very fortunate in having a large successful company down the road that offers an excellent scheme, but many schools are not in that position. Yet there are some fantastic businesses out there, often perhaps in the supply chain or in the service sector, looking for the next great generation of employees—and I am absolutely convinced that they are in the schools that my hon. Friend mentions.

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

May I commend to the Secretary of State the excellent schools, colleges and academies in Hornchurch and Upminster, and the pre-apprenticeship and skills training organisations there? They all recognise the importance of employability skills—having good oral, social and interpersonal skills, good timekeeping and good manners. Does she agree that, without those skills, no matter how good a pupil’s qualifications, they are unlikely to compete very well at interview? Will the new organisation take that into consideration?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Organisations, employers and businesses up and down the country talk about that. As I said in the statement, rigorous academic standards are, of course, important, but so are the employability skills that she mentions. That is why I have also focused since my appointment on the importance of character education—the resilience, the grit, the persistence, the self-confidence, the self-esteem—that we want to see developed in our young people. I think that having employers and businesses involved in schools will help to shape those employability skills that she rightly mentions.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

My careers advice teacher assured me I had no chance of becoming an MP when I was older. What role do we see for the National Citizen Service providers and organisations such as the scouts and guides?

[Nicky Morgan]

I am not sure that my careers adviser even told me about the option of becoming a Member of Parliament. I discovered that via a roundabout route. My hon. Friend is right to say that the £5 million investment fund that we are going to launch via the company will allow organisations such as the scouts, guides, the National Employer Service and others—including Young Chamber, to which I have spoken recently—to make a bid either to fund new activities or to scale up existing activities so that they are spread around the country, offering the opportunity to acquire employability skills.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

I welcome the additional support for careers guidance in schools and colleges. Will my right hon. Friend consider using a proportion of this money, or asking the new company to use a proportion of this money, to tackle the outdated images of industries such as manufacturing and construction, which put so many young people off considering a career in these vital and growing sectors of our economy?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about inspiring our young people to consider all the different careers out there. Various sectors have changed over the years. For example, we see much more advanced high-tech manufacturing nowadays. I am passionate about ensuring that our girls and young women are inspired to go into sectors that they might not traditionally have considered. That is why I am so passionate, too, about backing campaigns such as Your Life.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this announcement, and particularly on the appointment of Christine Hodgson, who is an inspirational business leader. Does my right hon. Friend agree that getting role models into schools—whether they are business leaders or successful apprentices—is vital, and can she explain how this company will be able to support that move?

[Nicky Morgan]

I echo my hon. Friend’s words about Christine Hodgson. Christine champions the Work Inspiration initiative, which is a national employer-led campaign targeting young people to make their first experience in the workplace meaningful. She is also involved in business and the community. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that she is a great role model for all young people, but particularly for young women, encouraging them to see the senior roles they could play in companies. I mentioned the idea of having more apprentices going back to their former schools to talk about the opportunities open to them. Seeing employers working in exciting sectors will open up eyes and inspire the next generation.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I very much welcome today’s statement, but bearing in mind the very low proportion of girls participating, can the Secretary of State assure me that girls and their families will be encouraged to overcome stereotypes and to consider careers and apprenticeships in engineering and technology?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about ensuring that all our young people are inspired about the career options, including a wide number of new careers, open to them. As I said, I am passionate about making sure that more girls are studying science and maths for longer, which is why we are backing the Your Life campaign and working with organisations such as the Institution of Engineering and Technology. She mentioned families, and this is very important too. For many families, it is easier to give advice about careers that are known about, but much harder to inspire young people to take up careers they know little about, which is where this company will come in.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

In Pendle we have seen a big reduction in the number of young people not in education, employment or training. We have also seen the number of young people undertaking an apprenticeship double. However, some of our local apprenticeships providers such as the Nelson and Colne college are now struggling to find young people to fill the apprenticeship vacancies available with local employers. How will today’s proposals increase the awareness of apprenticeships and vocational routes for our young people?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend mentioned employers in his constituency that are looking for apprentices and appreciate the vocational and technical route through to careers. Because the company is employer led, it will be able to go into and work with schools and colleges to identify those for whom apprenticeships might never have been suggested, but who might be interested once the high-quality apprenticeships available in the 21st century are explained to them. I suspect that many young people will decide that those opportunities provide the right career path for them.

Points of Order

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

14:08

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In a debate on consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill on 1 December, the Lord Chancellor, while addressing the judicial review clauses in the Bill, misled this House—a matter that he corrected in a letter dated 4 December to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), a copy of which was subsequently placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

In that letter, the Lord Chancellor wrote:

“As we discussed, during what was a complicated debate, I inadvertently suggested to you that clause 64 contains a provision for the court to grant permission to proceed with a judicial review where conduct is highly likely to have not made a difference if it considered there were exceptional circumstances to do so. I would like to take this opportunity to clarify that that is not the case. No such exceptional circumstances provision exists in this clause.”

Given that this misrepresentation goes to the heart of the Government’s proposals for judicial review in the Bill, I seek your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether it is sufficient by way of correction to write to only one Member who took part in the debate and then to place a copy of that letter in the Libraries. Would it not be more appropriate for the Lord Chancellor to correct the record? I ask that particularly because it was clear from the debate in the other place yesterday on this House’s disagreements with the Lords amendments that the noble Lords taking part were unaware of the Lord Chancellor’s correction.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman has made a perfectly reasonable point of order. It is certainly the case that, when a Minister has inadvertently misled the House, it is essential for that Minister to put the matter straight. In this instance, it appears that the Minister has written to the Member concerned, and has, with all honesty and courtesy, sought to put the matter straight. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that that is not adequate. Whether it is adequate or not is a matter of judgment, particularly for the Minister concerned.

I understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw the matter to wider attention, and, by making his point of order, he has done so. I think that he has done so effectively, because I see that Ministers are taking note of what he has said and of what I am saying, and I have no doubt that the matter will be drawn to the attention of the Lord Chancellor. I should add that, although the hon. Gentleman mentioned the debate that took place in another place yesterday, there will of course be another opportunity for this House to debate the substantive matters in the near future, and I have every confidence that the Lord Chancellor will take that opportunity to set the record straight. I also have every confidence that if he does not do so, the hon. Gentleman will insist that he does. The Chair will also keep an eye on the matter.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will know that, in the wake of Prime Minister’s Questions, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), the former Health Secretary, attempted to rebut what the Deputy Prime Minister had said about the facts of the franchise agreement for Hinchingbrooke hospital—the first privatisation of an acute district hospital in the NHS. He used words to the effect of “I did not sign off the privatisation.” However, on 27 March 2010, The Times recorded that he had signed the agreement to restrict the number of providers to just three, in the private sector. I fear that he may therefore have inadvertently misled the House with a slightly disingenuous response. I wonder whether you have been given notice that he will come to the House in the next few days to correct the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The fact that we have heard one genuine point of order does not mean that it should be assumed that all other points of order are anything more than attempts to extend the debate. However, I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, and, again, I am sure that Ministers—and, in this instance, the colleagues of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)—have taken note of what he has said.

Planning Consent Applications (Contracts)

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

14:12

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

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require applicants for planning consent to enter into a contract with the relevant planning authority setting out certain undertakings relating to the application for planning consent; to provide that failure to meet those undertakings would result in withdrawal of any planning consent granted; and for connected purposes.

Planning is one of the issues that can dominate the lives of Members of Parliament. Passions run high, and rightly so. We have no power over the local authority when a planning application is received, but we can receive many e-mails and letters from constituents who are animated by the application to build. We have the ability to write to the chairman of planning and the other committee members, and to officers, and hopefully the local authority will recognise that we have a legitimate right to express a view on our own behalf and on behalf of our constituents. However, we do not have a vote at planning meetings. On more than one occasion I have expressed opposition to an application which has then been approved, but it has been far worse for me when I have opposed an application—such as the one in Barrow, a small village in my constituency—and the local authority has listened to my representations and those of the local councillor and residents.

In the Barrow case, what was worse was that, as the authority was deliberating, the landowner claimed non-determination after 13 weeks. His planning lawyer stated that the homes in question needed to be built, and that they would start to be built in 2015. We are now at the end of the current year. Approval was given in February 2014, 10 months ago. Reserved matters have not been claimed for any part of the land, which was originally for sale at £23 million. So much for the urgency of building those houses.

Let us consider the specifics of the Barrow case. A resident who came to see me after the inspector had approved the application said, barely restraining his anger, “Mr Evans, you know and I know that with all the building that is going on at the moment in the area, this site is not going to be developed any time soon.” I agreed with him. Building is already going on in the village. Hundreds more houses are actually being built a short distance away, in Whalley. In Calderstones, a bit further away, more houses have been and are being built. A development of well over 100 houses off Mitton road has been allowed on appeal. In Accrington road, Whalley, 87 houses were approved two years ago. You have guessed it: not a single brick has been laid, and no reserved matters have been sought.

Some of these developments have been built, and others have not. The uncertainty is awful, and it does not help local authorities to plan for new schools, roads or other infrastructure improvements. One of the Whalley developments of 80 houses has not been started, although three years have elapsed since permission was given, but a reserved matters application has just been received by the local authority. All those applications have infrastructure implications.

My Barrow resident believed that many years would pass before the development of 504 houses was built, and that, in the meantime, his own house and those of everyone else in the area who wished to sell would be blighted. Uncertainty about when building will start, when it will be completed, and whether changes will be made in the initial outline application—the five-year land supply figures could be altered, so developers might argue that the land supply figure for the area was no longer being met—has caused an enormous headache for local authorities generally.

Small local authorities find it even more difficult to cope, because, during this crazy period between the adoption and full approval of core strategies, developers are trying it on all over the place. Fortunately, Ribble Valley is close to having its core strategy fully approved—it is in its final stages—but developers have worked overtime putting in applications left, right and centre, and appealing against virtually every one that is turned down by the local authority. The cost to the council has been prohibitive, and has led it to question whether it can afford to appeal in the case of some applications. There will be a further problem if some of the approvals simply do not materialise if work starts, and other developers point the finger at the authority and accuse it of falling below its five-year supply. The chairman of planning at Ribble Valley council, Terry Hill, has said that, in this case,

”the Local Authority is not responsible for the under supply”.

The uncertainty has been created by the very industry that could profit from the approval of more applications directly by the council or on appeal by an inspector. It has left residents angry and their properties blighted, and they must reduce the asking prices of their properties dramatically if they need to move quickly.

I am grateful to the House of Commons Library for supplying me with information on the existing powers of local authorities, and on unimplemented permissions and land banking. Conditions may be imposed by a local authority, but the criteria are open to interpretation, which means more uncertainty. One of the conditions may be that the development should be carried out in its entirety, but no mention is made of time scale. Completion notices are therefore seldom used as a local authority power. Indeed, a local authority does not have the power to require a developer to complete the development.

My Bill will rebalance the position, so that, at the outset of an application, far more thought is given by developers to what they are requesting. They will need to bring forward to the inception of the application matters that they normally leave until much later. They will need to make clear the start and completion dates of the development via a contract. Land banking and the blighting of people’s homes will no longer be acceptable.

The Library paper—admittedly, using historic figures—states that at the end of 2011, there were 399,816 unbuilt homes with planning permission, and building work had yet to start on 52% of the uncompleted developments. One development was completed last year, eight and three quarter years after planning permission was granted. The Government should look at fining powers for unstarted permissions or powers of direction to ensure developments are completed, or possibly removing the permissions with no chance of reapplication by that developer or associated developers of that particular land. If the houses are deemed necessary in certain areas—in my patch, I must say, I have strong reservations about that or total opposition to it—I cannot do better than quote the former housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who, during Committee stage of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, said:

“We want homes built. We want them built now”.––[Official Report, Growth and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 27 November 2012; c. 267.]

Let us give local authorities the power they need to ensure land banking and uncertainty is gone and homes and infrastructure improvements are made, and made on time.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr Nigel Evans, Bob Stewart, Martin Vickers, John Mann, Austin Mitchell, Philip Davies, Chris Heaton-Harris, Crispin Blunt, Mr Brooks Newmark, Steve Rotheram, Mr John Leech and John Pugh present the Bill.

Mr Nigel Evans 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 135).

Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

14:21

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

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

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in last week’s autumn statement an important and comprehensive reform to stamp duty land tax—SDLT—on residential property. Many Members made their views known on the SDLT changes in last week’s debate on the provisional collection of taxes motion. Today is an opportunity for others to raise their voices, although looking around the Chamber, it appears possible that the House’s appetite for debating this matter was sated last week.

With effect from 4 December, the structure, rates and thresholds of stamp duty land tax have changed, and stamp duty has moved from a slab to a slice arrangement.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

Of course I, like many colleagues, welcome the measure. My constituents are some of the most aspirational people in the country, and they think that this is a great move by the Government. What assessment has my hon. Friend, or perhaps the Office for Budget Responsibility, made of likely increases in the volume of property transactions as a result of this change to stamp duty?

[Mr Gauke]

This is likely to have an impact, with more transactions for properties on which the stamp duty bill has fallen—some 98% or so—and slightly fewer transactions when a larger stamp duty bill will apply. Although there will be an element of behavioural change as a consequence of the measure, property transaction numbers and house prices will be affected by a whole range of factors, so it can be difficult to ascribe any particular changes to one particular reason. However, it is likely that there will be more transactions, and that has certain advantages, such as for labour market mobility, and if it means that people are living in the homes that they want to live in as opposed to feeling trapped in their property to a certain extent. I think that the measure will have a beneficial impact on the housing market.

Each new SDLT rate is now payable only on the portion of the property value that falls within each band. That is in contrast to the old system, under which tax was due at one rate for the entire property value. Moving from a slab to a slice arrangement is right in terms of fairness and economic efficiency. The new arrangement will cut SDLT for 98% of people who pay the tax, and no one who is buying a home worth up to £937,500 will pay more.

This Government believe in aspiration. The aspiration to own our own house is one of the elements of human nature. It is something that, for generations, has been totemic for people in this country. This is a Government who will help people to achieve that ambition, and do so in a fair and equitable way.

The previous stamp duty system was flawed. It had been criticised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, industry and think-tanks. It was

“one of the worst designed and most damaging of all taxes”,

according to the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and “unfair” according to the Building Societies Association. According to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, it did not

“work as it stands and creates large distortions”.

The problem with the previous system was simple. The slab approach created an enormous hike in taxes at certain thresholds. If someone paid £250,000 for a house, they would pay £2,500 in stamp duty. If they paid £250,001, however, they would pay £7,500—three times as much. In reality, of course, nobody did; they would have been crazy to. What happened was that there were dead zones—in this case a little above £250,000—in which almost no transactions actually took place.

To return to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), this change is likely to result in a substantial increase in the number of transactions in those dead zones because of the ending of the bunching effect, which should help us to have a more efficient market. Let me again give an example that I cited in last week’s debate: in 2013-14, there were over 30 times as many sales between £245,000 and £250,000 as there were between £250,000 and £255,000. Given that the average UK house price is around £275,000, this was a big distortion affecting a significant number of properties.

What also happened was that people owning properties a little under the threshold were reluctant to improve them for fear that that would be money thrown away if they came to put the property on the market. Also, people wishing to move up the property ladder as their families grew, but who found themselves on the wrong side of the step upwards, had to find a significant—and arbitrarily imposed—lump sum precisely at a time when there are hundreds of other one-off expenses to worry about. We have got rid of the inefficient and distortive old system, and replaced it with a fairer new system that cuts SDLT for 98% of people who pay it.

Under the new structure, no buyer purchasing a property will pay anything at all up to the first £125,000. Buyers will be charged 2% for the portion from £125,000 to £250,000, and 3% for the portion from £250,000 to £925,000. Those individuals buying a house worth more than £925,000 will be charged 10% for the portion of the price between £925,000 and £1.5 million, and buyers will pay 12% tax for any portion of the price above the £1.5 million threshold.

I stress that the tax will be paid once, and once only, at the point when the purchaser has the cash to do so. Once it has been paid, that is it, because we do not believe in introducing a system that would require homes to be revalued every year, or in imposing a large liability on people who may be asset-rich but cash-poor.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I welcome the rate profile that my hon. Friend has put into the Bill. Does he agree that the measure is another example of this Government increasing taxes for the wealthy and making those with the broadest shoulders bear the biggest burden?

[Mr Gauke]

It is an example of that. In yesterday’s Treasury questions, in the context of the reduction of the 50p rate of tax to 45p, I pointed out that the proportion of income tax paid by the top 1% has been higher—and is projected to be higher—in the years since that cut than it was when the 50p rate was in place. There is a similar point to be made here. For properties, we estimate that the top 1% will be paying just under 40% of all stamp duty yields, whereas in 2010, under the old system, the top 1% were paying only 19% of all yields. Stamp duty has become more progressive as a consequence of our changes.

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

How does that affect the shrinking tax base? This is a genuine question, by the way. The tax base seems to be shrinking at the moment, so will this change have an impact on the tax base, or will it be neutral?

[Mr Gauke]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is referring to the fact that there has been a deliberate shrinkage of the tax base, in that we have taken 3.4 million people out of income tax. Perhaps that was not what he meant, but I am happy to draw the House’s attention to that policy none the less. The Government have, on a number of occasions, made the tax system more progressive. At a time when the public finances are in a difficult position and we need to consolidate them, we have ensured that the wealthiest in society bear a significant burden, and this measure is an example of that. We have made stamp duty land tax more progressive by reducing the burden on ordinary households and collecting more tax from the top end, where there has been a significant appreciation in values in recent years.

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend talked about the yearly property tax that others have proposed, but irrespective of whether such a tax were introduced, is it not the case that it would not help those who want to buy their own house? Does he agree that the Government are introducing aspiration into home buying, which is something that we should all be encouraging?

[Mr Gauke]

Indeed; that is right. These measures will be helpful for those who want to get into the housing market and who often face significant challenges in putting together a deposit and meeting the transactional costs involved. I believe that it will be helpful that we have been able to reduce the transactional costs. I return to the point I made a few moments ago: this measure will help households up and down the country and we, as a Government, believe in aspiration.

Let me stress that in every city, town and county in the United Kingdom, a large majority of people will benefit from the new system. No buyer of a property under £937,000 will pay more tax than under the previous system, and there will be a tax cut for 98% of home buyers who currently pay SDLT. In London, 91% of home buyers who pay SDLT will see their tax bill cut. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, over 99% of those paying SDLT will see the rewards in their pockets. A buyer of the average Help to Buy home priced at £185,000 will be £650 better off as a result of these reforms.

The reforms came into force at midnight on 4 December to avoid creating undue distortions in the market, meaning that a stand-alone Bill was necessary. The Bill was introduced in Parliament on 4 December, following a provisional collection of taxes motion at the end of the autumn statement. If a person had exchanged contracts before 4 December but completes on or after that date, our transitional arrangements mean that they can choose whether to use the old or the new rates and structure. We have provided a calculator on the Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs website so that people can work out how much tax they would be paying, and I am happy to confirm that it has been used more than 880,000 times since it was put in place on Wednesday.

It is a bit of a standing joke that the UK is a country obsessed with house prices, but for most of us, buying a home involves the biggest amount of money we will ever spend. Stamp duty land tax is an important source of Government revenue. It raised £6.5 billion in 2013-14 to pay for the essential services that the Government provide and support. However, it is only reasonable that the tax should be imposed fairly and equitably. As a result of difficult decisions that we have taken elsewhere, we are now able to forgo £800 million of revenue to introduce these changes.

The changes have been warmly welcomed. They are

“great news for those buying a home or considering a move”,

according to Nationwide. They are particularly good for

“first time buyers and second steppers”,

according to Savills, and

“a shot in the arm for families and growing firms”,

according to the CBI. My particular favourite came from a Mr Tom Whipple—a science correspondent for The Times—on Twitter, who wrote:

“We are moving home next week. Osborne just saved us £400. I’m calling our new fridge freezer George.”

That is how to become a household name in politics!

On a more serious note, I would like to touch on how the change affects Scotland. From 1 April 2015, the land and buildings transactions tax—LBTT—will replace stamp duty land tax in Scotland. Up until that point, these reforms will apply to all residential property transactions in the UK, including Scotland. This will ensure that home buyers in Scotland do not miss out on a potential tax cut before the LBTT comes into operation.

I am aware that there are some in the UK who will be unaffected by this change. As housing has become less affordable, the rate of home ownership has fallen from its 2003 peak of 70% to around 65%. Many are wondering whether they will ever get on to the housing ladder. Our reforms to SDLT will assist those households by reducing the amount of cash needed at the point of purchase. It should be stressed that SDLT is part of a much wider set of reforms designed to get Britain building, to increase radically the supply of housing units, and to release some of the pressure on our housing market.

[Alok Sharma]

The Minister cites the schemes that the Government have implemented to help people to buy their own homes. Will he tell us how many people have benefited from the Help to Buy scheme? Will not these changes give a further boost to the scheme?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Indeed, I am about to mention some of the measures that we have taken in respect of helping the housing market, including Help to Buy.

We are investing billions of pounds of public money to provide affordable new homes, including £4.5 billion during this spending review period to provide 170,000 new units, and a further £3.3 billion to deliver 165,000 more units over three years from 2015. As announced in the autumn statement, there will be another £1.9 billion between 2018 and 2020 to continue delivering homes at the same rate. We are also reforming planning laws. The autumn statement package contains commitments on releasing land with capacity for up to 150,000 homes and new measures to support up to 133,000 homes.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I should like to make some progress, as I want to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West.

In September, we introduced a new £400 million rent to buy programme, boosting the building of new rental homes to help people to upgrade into home ownership. The programme allows people to rent affordably and to save for a deposit, and then to buy that home or another one. To answer my hon. Friend’s question, more than 66,000 households have benefited from the Help to Buy equity loan and mortgage guarantee schemes, four fifths of whom were first-time buyers.

[Mr Cunningham]

Obviously we want people to be able to own their homes, but there is another facet to this: social housing, either through local authorities or housing associations. What element of the money that the Government are putting into these schemes is going to that end of the market? The drop from 70% to 65% that the Minister mentioned earlier probably relates to people going into the rental market.

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that almost 217,000 affordable homes have been delivered since April 2010. Between 2011 and 2015, some £19.5 billion of public and private investment is going into affordable homes, and we are on track for the highest rate of affordable house building in at least two decades. The Government are delivering on all aspects of how we ensure that we give people the opportunity to have decent housing. These SDLT reforms will give another boost to people wishing to fulfil their aspirations to own the place they live in.

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

I apologise to the House for not being here for the start of the debate. I am sure that the Minister will be aware that when the previous Government introduced a new SDLT regime, there were several avoidance schemes, most of which involved sub-selling at below the market value. I applaud the Bill and look forward to its passage through the House. Will he confirm that the anti-avoidance measures under the previous regime will be read over to this Bill to stop the abuse of the tax system?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because the Government have addressed this issue fully during this Parliament. A few years ago, SDLT was starting to develop a reputation as a tax that was easily abused—he mentioned one means by which that was done—but this Government have introduced several measures to deal with that. We have seen a substantial decline in the marketing of SDLT avoidance schemes, and the introduction of the annual tax on enveloped dwellings has been successful in discouraging avoidance. He is right to highlight the issue, but we are making changes in the context of an SDLT that is perhaps less leaky than when we came into office a few years ago. That enables us to make our changes, which benefit properties in a way that is, none the less, affordable for the Exchequer. As the Chancellor made clear last week, the policy will deliver a tax bill cut for 98% of people who pay SDLT, and the previous economic distortions in the system have been removed, which benefits the housing market generally.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

First, I apologise for being late, as I was serving on a Delegated Legislation Committee. I welcome the reforms for the residential market, but do the Government have any intention to introduce similar provisions for the commercial market?

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which we debated briefly last week. Particular issues with the residential market meant that we needed to address that quickly, and some of the pressures to reform the system applied particularly to the residential market. Clearly, any Government will want to keep this matter under review, so I would not want to rule out looking at the commercial market. However, the imperative was to press on for the residential market, and no doubt commercial property and SDLT is a matter to which the Government will wish to return in the future. I know that he welcomes these reforms, and I should point out that more than 99% of transactions in his constituency will benefit from our changes.

[Jake Berry]

What will be the SDLT position when there is a mixture of residential and commercial property? How will a shop with a flat above it, for example, be treated under the new SDLT regime?

[Mr Gauke]

The residential property would be considered under the new residential regime, and an evaluation would be needed to distinguish between the commercial and the residential premises.

This reform will improve the fairness and efficiency of the tax system. It will make a real, tangible, positive difference to the lives of people up and down the country, and I hope that hon. Members will think fit to give the Bill a Second Reading.

14:45

[Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to this Bill—I am only sorry he was not breathless with excitement today as he was last week when we first debated the stamp duty changes. He is, however, right not to spoil us with a repeat performance, and I was amused to see that we all arrived super-early for this afternoon’s debate.

I wish to indicate, as I did at the outset of last week’s debate, that we support these measures, and will be supporting the Bill on Second Reading and during its remaining stages. The Minister mentioned the procedural mechanism adopted to give effect to these changes: the Government moved a resolution under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968, which was passed last week in order to give immediate effect to the stamp duty measures unveiled in the autumn statement. We debated that motion the day after the autumn statement and today we move on to the Bill’s Second Reading. The Government have proceeded with a stand-alone Bill rather than await the next Finance Bill in order to give immediate effect to the stamp duty changes and thereby prevent distortions within the housing market. We recognise the importance of that and support the mechanisms adopted to give effect to this measure.

As the Minister said, stamp duty has been charged at a single rate on the whole purchase price of a property, with different rates for different value bands. When a property exceeds the threshold for a higher rate of duty, tax is charged at the higher rate on the whole value of the sale—this is the so-called ‘slab basis’—rather than on the part of the price above the threshold, which is the so-called ‘slice basis’. The tax has been charged on the slab basis for more than 40 years, and the slab basis design has caused much consternation and complaint, with regular calls for reform.

In recent years, stamp duty has come under the spotlight much more because of the increasing burden the tax has placed on home buyers, especially first-time buyers, as a result of the huge increases in house prices. Between 1997 and 2005, house price inflation averaged more than 10% a year, and the proportion of property transactions attracting stamp duty rose from about half to more than three quarters during roughly the same period. In order to assist buyers, and first-time buyers in particular, we have seen a number of measures designed to alleviate some of the burden caused by stamp duty under its previous structure. They focused primarily on thresholds and stamp duty holidays: the threshold was doubled in 2005; it was temporarily increased by £50,000 for one year in 2008; and it was doubled again for first-time buyers for three years from March 2010.

The burden of stamp duty, however, has continued to be significant, increasing by 30% between 2009-10 and 2013-14. The continued growth in the housing market has been the reason for the increasing stamp duty burden. In that context, today’s reform is sensible and has attracted support from across the House. SDLT rates will now only apply to the part of the property’s selling price that falls within each value band, and new rates and thresholds have been introduced.

I have a number of questions on specific elements of the changes, and I hope that the Exchequer Secretary will deal with them when she responds to the debate. The changes came in with immediate effect on 4 December. The Government have explained that those who had exchanged contracts before 4 December but who were completing on or after that date will be able to choose whether the old or the new rules apply. Will the Minister update us on how many people she anticipates will opt for one or other of those options, and what impact the changes have had on property transactions in the period immediately following the autumn statement?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury made it clear both last week and this afternoon how Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has been giving advice on the implications of this reform. I think he said that the calculator on the Government website had been used 500,000 times last week. That figure has now gone up to 880,000. He also told us that the HMRC call centre was manned until midnight on 3 December when the changes took effect, and that HMRC specialists responded to 250 inquiries by telephone, and all but 3% of them were resolved immediately. Will the Minister update us on whether the remaining handful of inquiries have been followed up, and on what points were members of the public or their advisers seeking clarification? It would be helpful for the House to understand how the public are responding to these changes.

I also wish to press the Minister on the revenue implications of the measures. It is estimated that, in 2014-15, the reform will cost £395 million, which rises to around £760 million in 2015-16. That is a significant amount of money at a time when the public finances remain challenging to say the least. How certain is the Minister that the other measures in the autumn statement, which the Government say will raise enough revenue to offset the cost of this measure, will in fact raise the amounts that they hope? Today, the Government have published the draft Bill for the new diverted profits tax, which they say will raise £1.3 billion over the scorecard period. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility says that those numbers are uncertain, and, in its fiscal outlook, gives a new rating system to reflect the degrees of uncertainty over some of the figures in the autumn statement. For the diverted profits tax and the SDLT numbers, for example, it gives a medium to high uncertainty rating. What impact will that have, and how confident is the Minister that we will not have future debates on the failure of some of these measures to live up to the Government’s claims?

We have just heard how these changes will apply only to residential properties. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and others have queried why the changes have not been extended to cover commercial property, too. When I raised that point last week, the Minister said that the Government were not persuaded of the case, but it does seem odd to be running two different systems for the same tax, especially when the Government have acknowledged, as we all have, that the slab structure has a very distorting effect.

The Government say that the slab stamp duty system had a negative impact on labour mobility. Why do they think that the same will not happen in relation to business mobility? Perhaps the Exchequer Secretary can give us some more detail on the Government’s thinking in that regard. Has any assessment been done on the impact of retaining the slab system for commercial property, and on how competitive a place this country is in which to do business? Are there any plans to look at this matter again ahead of the general election?

Last week, the Minister said that the changes will have a positive effect on labour mobility and productivity, but the OBR says that the effect will be limited and highly uncertain, because while

“higher rates of stamp duty reduce households’ propensity to move, the adverse effect was confined to short-distance and non-job related moves—an impact less likely to have direct implications for GDP.”

Why do Ministers think slightly differently on the matter of labour mobility?

As the Minister has explained, the measures apply to Scotland only until April next year, as responsibility for this tax was devolved to the Scottish Government in the Scotland Act 2012. The Scottish Government have announced details of their land and buildings transaction tax, which also has a slice structure. The Scottish LBTT will apply to both residential and commercial properties. I want to press the Minister on what impact that will have on the rest of the UK when it comes to the question of where businesses choose to buy commercial properties. Is there a risk that England may be disadvantaged? The more favourable regime in Scotland, with the slice structure for commercial property, might mean that businesses avoid buying commercial property in England where the less favourable slab structure applies. What impact will that differential treatment of commercial property have on business mobility? Although devolution is an important process, as it puts decision making closer to the people whom it affects, we all want to avoid unhealthy tax competition among the nations of the UK. Has any assessment been carried out to consider the implications of such competition?

Of course none of the measures that we are debating today deals with the main cause of the biggest housing crisis for a generation, which is the lack of supply. Last week, I asked the Minister about how the stamp duty changes will impact on house prices. He said that there would be some impact, but that house prices are affected by a number of factors. I wish to press him and the Exchequer Secretary on the assumptions that the Government have made, and what outcome they would like to see when it comes to the interaction between the stamp duty changes and house prices. It looks like we are seeing a 1.4% increase in prices against a 1% reduction in stamp duty at the lower end, and it seems also that the tax take from stamp duty will rely on a 5% annual increase in property prices.

The OBR says that house prices will continue to rise faster than incomes, which will risk pushing home ownership further out of reach for many more people. Have the Government assessed how many more people might be priced out of the property market?

Measures to alleviate the burden on buyers are welcome, but we are experiencing the worst housing crisis for a generation and need much more action on housing supply if we are to get our housing market into better shape and help more young people and families to realise their dream of home ownership. I note the comments that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made in his opening speech, but the truth is that we need to build many more homes than this Government have managed in their term of office. At the moment, the Government are primarily focusing on the demand side of the housing equation, whereas we, on the Opposition Benches, think that they should have taken the opportunity to balance things up on the supply side, too.

However, the measures before us today are reasonable and sensible. We support them, and I look forward to further debate in Committee.

14:58

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I am delighted with the changes to stamp duty; I have been campaigning for them for a significant period of time. It is worth observing the old adage that success has many parents, but failure is an orphan, as it could be relevant to the campaign. When I was claiming a bit of a victory on this, having campaigned for it for so long, I was amazed to read that the Liberal Democrats had campaigned equally long for the change. Surprisingly, though, not a single Liberal Democrat turned up to the Back-Bench business debate that I secured on the matter on 4 September. Perhaps lobbying is more in the mind than in the actuality.

Let us not be bitter today, as I welcome the proposals. It was good to follow the shadow Minister, as she was raising some of the concerns that I have about a differential tax system. It will have to be addressed, because altering the designation of a property from commercial to residential, or residential to commercial, could provide a way of avoiding tax, as one situation may be seen as more beneficial than the other. To have a dual system running may well cause problems.

I also worry that in areas where it is hard to keep small commercial operations going, the temptation to flip a property’s designation to residential, rather than trying to maintain it as a commercial property, will be even higher if there is also a tax advantage in doing so. I urge the Government to keep that under review, because if the slab system was hated—and it was—it was hated not just for its effect on homes.

[John Stevenson]

Does my hon. Friend therefore suggest that commercial and residential properties should have the same rates and thresholds?

[Mrs Main]

I do suggest that. I am sure that budgetary constraint is the reason that has not been done, but I am concerned that that slice system, which will not apply in Scotland and will apply in England only to residential properties, could result in complicated reasons why commercial properties might end up being vehicles for tax avoidance, which would not be good. The slab system was roundly denounced by all parties and all commercial commentators, so I think that is something we should look at.

I welcome the moves to get more young people on the property ladder. In St Albans, the Help to Buy scheme was not utilised at all because, as has been widely observed, if people cannot save up a deposit in a very expensive area, how on earth can they save for the tax to be paid to the Chancellor? The reform is therefore very helpful in that regard. However, we must ensure that we do not allow the properties that we are trying to help—those targeted by lower and middle-income buyers—to be dragged further into the higher levels. In 2003 only 10% of properties were caught by the 3% rate, but just prior to these reforms the figure had risen to 25%. It is important that the Government do not sit back and wait for too long following these reforms, because too many of the families that they have sought to help will be dragged into the higher rates.

According to Savills, which I was talking to today, people in St Albans have already benefited. The amount paid under the previous regime was, on average, £17,273 per transaction. Under the new regime it will be £16,020. That is still very high, but of course that is an average, and the average house price in St Albans is over £500,000, but there are still many houses that fall well below those transaction levels. My constituents are hugely grateful that they can at least start trying to get on to the property ladder without having to pay such an enormous burden to the Treasury. That is welcome.

There are two points that I would like some clarity on. Why have we decided to keep a dual system going when the previous regime was agreed to be so demonstrably flawed? It might be unaffordable, but I think that is almost indefensible. If it is a bad scheme, it is a bad scheme. I do not want business owners and people who wish to aspire to own their own business feeling that they are labouring under a bad scheme that has been roundly denounced, and quite rightly so, by all parties in the House.

15:03

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I will not detain the House for long but I want to register the Liberal Democrats’ support for these proposals. They are important measures that relate to the liquidity of the housing market. The point at which people pay a lot of money is generally a good point at which to raise taxes, but if they are levied in a way that causes the market to be less liquid, that is a bad thing.

I said in my speech last week that slab systems in general need to be looked at, on both the tax and benefits side, because by definition they produce cliff edges and cause sub-optimal behaviour at the boundaries. For that very reason I will join the chorus of people who have said that it is also time to look at the commercial SDLT arrangements. I think that all slab systems should be reviewed, because we can be sure on the income side that tax is avoided near those boundaries, and on the benefits side people are encouraged or discouraged in their behaviour because of the cliff edges.

I understand the need to introduce these measures quickly, and therefore why the Minister might not want to review all such systems with this kind of speed, but I urge him to initiate reviews to see what other changes might be needed on the commercial side and in any other slab systems. I think that the system proposed is very good. It is progressive. I take the point made by the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and ask the Minister what inflation arrangements he is considering for the boundaries of the new system. The fact that the budget document shows an increasing take from stamp duty rather suggests the fiscal drag that the hon. Lady fears. I would appreciate it if the Minister responded to that point.

As I said in an intervention, this reform joins the long list of measures that the Government have introduced to increase taxes on those who can best afford it, such as the large increase in capital gains tax and in tax on pension contributions and, indeed, the fact that the top rate of income tax is now 5% higher than it was for the entire period of the previous Government, except for their very last day in office. I welcome the progressive nature of those changes. Very wealthy home buyers will be paying a lot more to the Treasury, which I welcome. The Minister talked about the percentage effects in various parts of the country. I can report that, to the best of my knowledge, the figure for those benefiting in Redcar is 100%, so I thank him for that. I believe that this change is an important matter of fairness, and my party will support it.

15:06

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Priti Patel)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this efficient debate, and I welcome the consensus on it across the House. The measure has been debated over the past week, so it is not surprising that we have reached a conclusion quickly today. We have had an effective debate today. This is a landmark reform, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has said. The Government announced it in the autumn statement. It is the most radical restructuring of stamp duty we have seen. It cuts stamp duty for 98% of people who pay it. It eliminates damaging distortions in the housing market, where someone buying a house for £250,001 pays three times as much tax as someone buying a house for just £1 less.

[Mrs Main]

Will my hon. Friend clarify whether that is 98% of all transactions or 98% of all domestic transactions?

[Priti Patel]

The reform cuts stamp duty for 98% of people who pay it. That is the point I was making.

The reform reduces the tax bill for first-time buyers. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary highlighted, this is about aspiration. Everything about the debate we have had is about supporting home owners, first-time buyers and the principle of aspiration.

In a moment I will move on to the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main). The Labour party made a number of points about how many people have benefited from some of the advice that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs provided last week on the transitional support. The Government do not have the current figures on how many home buyers have benefited from the transitional reviews. As with most cases where stamp duty is paid, we get the information only after a transaction has been fully completed. However, we expect that as many as 35,000 transactions will benefit from the transitional rules, which is a substantial number.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans and the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) mentioned stamp duty on commercial properties. They will not be surprised to hear that the Government rightly keep all taxes under review. We have taken swift action on the residential front, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has highlighted, and that was debated in the House last week. That swift action has obviously removed the distortions that acted as a break on aspiration and made it harder for first-time home owners.

The market for commercial property is different and, as I said, we will keep all taxes under review. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) asked about mixed-use buildings. Those are subject to the commercial rules, not the residential rules, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary highlighted. The Government keep all taxes under review and will give consideration to mixed-use buildings ahead of future events as part of our normal review process.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans touched on Government forecasts. Forecasts of house prices and stamp duty land tax revenues have been verified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. My hon. Friend has been an assiduous campaigner on these issues and had a debate on the subject in the House not long ago. She referred to flipping between commercial and residential rates for avoidance purposes. We are clear that the reform is not an opportunity for avoidance.

[Ian Swales]

Can the Minister clarify the situation where buy-to-let residential property might be owned within a corporate envelope? Is that treated as a commercial business or does it still fall within the residential arrangements?

[Priti Patel]

Property in the buy-to-let framework would be treated as residential.

[Jake Berry]

I refer to the point about flipping between commercial and residential arrangements. My hon. Friend will be aware that one of the welcome reforms of this Government has been to give automatic planning permission for vacant commercial office buildings to become residential property. The substantive implementation of a change of use and planning permission between a commercial office building and a residential property would be minimal and could involve, for example, just bringing in desks and putting in more male and female lavatories. There is concern about avoidance, and where two systems exist, there is greater opportunity for avoidance by those who seek not to pay their tax. Will she commit from the Dispatch Box to keep this matter under review and ensure that as the Government take the Bill through the House, they will review it and seek opportunities to tighten up the law to ensure that everyone pays their fair share of tax?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point about keeping the arrangements under review. We want to ensure that people pay not just their fair share, but the right amount. The Government keep all taxes under review.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Clause 2 refers to the purchaser being able to elect that the new calculations do not apply, and the explanatory notes that my hon. Friend has helpfully supplied state:

“An election must be made in a land transaction return . . . and must meet any requirements specified by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.”

Will any terms so imposed be subject to ministerial scrutiny and approval?

[Priti Patel]

Absolutely. Ministers are involved in the process and will be consulted. That is right and proper. The point that my right hon. Friend makes is about the transitional rules, which we touched on earlier.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) mentioned Scotland and the changes to stamp duty land tax, which has been devolved to Scotland. The Government will monitor how stamp duty land tax receipts change in the light of that. That is part of the usual policy-making process.

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

Was discussion with the Scottish Government held in advance of the announcement? Will there be additional discussions during the coming weeks and months to ensure that there are no adverse consequences?

[Priti Patel]

This is a commercially sensitive area so specific discussions were not held. I reiterate that as part of the usual policy-making process there will be ongoing reviews of how the system works between Scotland and England. Now that the change has been made, discussions will take place when necessary.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The Minister refers to the normal policy-making process. However, given that the changes in Scotland are due to be introduced in April, there is a very short opportunity for discussion, particularly about any adverse impact that there might be on the market. Does the Minister have plans to meet her counterparts in Scotland for discussions?

[Priti Patel]

These are now devolved matters, as the hon. Lady knows. As part of not only the devolution process but future policy formation, I have no doubt that discussions will take place.

[John Stevenson]

I am grateful for the earlier clarification about the Government’s position on commercial property. Can the Minister clarify the position on agricultural property?

[Priti Patel]

Agricultural property would be treated in the same way as commercial property. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question.

On housing supply and affordable housing—a point made today and last week from the Opposition Front Bench—all the work that the Government have put in place in relation to the stamp duty land tax measure has been about supporting aspirational home ownership and making home ownership a reality for as many households as possible. This Government support more home ownership, and stamp duty reform is part of that. We are investing billions of pounds to provide affordable homes including, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary mentioned, £4.5 billion during the spending review period to provide more than 170,000 new units, and a further £3.3 billion to deliver more than 165,000 more homes over three years from 2015. We have also speeded up reforms to planning. Housing starts in England are at their highest level since 2007, which we all welcome. In the autumn statement last week we announced a package to do even more, by introducing measures to support more than 133,000 new homes. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary touched on rent-to-buy and help-to-buy schemes.

In conclusion, our long-term economic plan has supported home ownership through stamp duty land tax reform and increased supply through the measures that I have just outlined. Importantly, the economy is growing, the deficit is falling, and employment is at a record high. These are all economic measures that should be welcomed across the country. We are building a stronger, sustainable and healthier economy. The autumn statement set out a modest fiscal tightening and does not shy away from the challenges that remain.

Against that backdrop, we believe that aspiration should be supported. For centuries it has spurred people on. The Bill backs those who aspire. I am proud to be part of a Government who stand by aspiration and advocate it. This Bill reforms a fundamentally flawed system and will help make the dream of owning a home a reality, while cutting the tax bill for the overwhelming majority of people affected by it. There is consensus on this, as we heard this afternoon, and I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Stamp Duty Land Tax Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of Bills brought in on Ways and Means Resolutions, proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed at one day’s sitting.

(3) Proceedings in Committee and any proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, on the day on which proceedings in Committee are commenced, two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee.

(4) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, on the day on which proceedings in Committee are commenced, three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee.

(5) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee, to any proceedings on consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(6) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any Message from the Lords) may be programmed.—(Gavin Barwell.)

Question agreed to.

Wales Bill (Programme) (No.3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Wales Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 31 March 2014 in the last Session of Parliament (Wales Bill (Programme)), as varied by the Order of 30 April 2014 in that Session (Wales Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.

2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: Nos. 1 to 13, 17 and 14 to 16.

Subsequent stages

3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Gavin Barwell.)

Question agreed to.

Wales Bill

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 1 to 17. If the House agrees to any of them, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 8

Welsh rates of income tax

15:21

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this we may take Lords amendments 2 to 13 and 17.

[Stephen Crabb]

Taken together, these amendments remove the so-called lockstep mechanism from the income tax provisions. By removing that mechanism so that the Bill reflects the Silk commission’s recommendation in its part I report, the National Assembly for Wales will be able to set separate Welsh rates of income tax for each band. Subject to a referendum, all three income tax rates would be reduced by 10p, and the Assembly would decide a separate Welsh rate for each band. Those Welsh rates would be added to the reduced UK rates.

The lockstep is probably second only to dual candidacy as the most debated aspect of the Bill; it has been debated at great length in both this House and the other place. I have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that I have been prepared to listen to all the arguments and perspectives and, if necessary, to take a different approach on the lockstep. That is exactly what I have done. Before I go any further, I would like again to place on the record my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) for his hard work and perseverance as Secretary of State for Wales in guiding the Bill through its early stages.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a point of counting the number of times my right hon. Friend used the word “accountability” in describing the Bill; I believe that he stopped at 15. Frankly, though, my right hon. Friend could have used it 15 times more because the Bill was, and is, all about accountability. By being made responsible for raising a proportion of the money that they spend, and allowing the people of Wales to judge them on how they spend it, the Assembly and the Welsh Government will become more accountable to the electorate.

In removing the lockstep, we are removing what was widely seen to be a deterrent to the Welsh Government’s accepting the devolution of income tax in Wales. Given the other financial provisions in the Bill and the full devolution of business rates, which, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed last week, will be implemented as planned next April, the Assembly would become responsible for raising around a quarter of the money that it spends.

Hon. Members will be aware that last week the Office for Budget Responsibility published a forecast of devolved tax revenues for Wales alongside the autumn statement. That showed that revenue from the 10p of income tax that would be devolved to Wales would net the Welsh Government almost £2 billion in 2014-15—about nine times as much as stamp duty land tax and landfill tax combined. The figures show, in black and white, that through the Bill we are providing the Assembly and the Welsh Government the tools to help grow the Welsh economy and take responsibility for raising a significant portion of the money that they spend. The removal of the lockstep makes it even easier for them to do that.

I welcome the First Minister’s statement in the Senedd last week in which he confirmed for the first time that he would accept income tax devolution. That is indeed progress. But—and there is always a “but”—once again he hid behind the self-imposed “barrier” of funding. I have always said that the powers in the Bill should be as far-reaching and flexible as possible, to provide the Welsh Government with the tools to grow the Welsh economy. Where we have committed to removing obstacles, however, the First Minister continues to erect them. He seems intent on denying the people of Wales their rightful say on whether income tax powers should be devolved, rejecting the opportunity to make the Welsh Government more accountable to those who elect them and refusing to accept responsibility for raising more of the money that they spend.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State has outlined the advantages of the devolution of those additional powers. Does he accept that giving more tax-raising powers, and hence reducing other income from central Government, exposes the Welsh Government to greater fluctuations in revenue and makes the long-term planning of services much more difficult?

[Stephen Crabb]

Part of devolving any tax—income tax or any other fiscal power—is the creation of an incentive for the devolved Government. They get an extra tool and an incentive, which they never had before, to grow that portion of their own tax base.

Crucially, the devolution of income tax in Wales will be done in line with what the Holtham commission proposed for Scotland: the indexed deduction mechanism. That would effectively shield the Welsh Government from UK-wide economic shocks but give them the incentive of holding on to the extra Welsh revenue that they were able to generate. That works both ways: if Welsh income tax grows at a slower pace than that of the rest of the UK generally, there will be a loss, but that is exactly what provides the incentive for the Welsh Government to seek to grow the tax base. The issue is about economic development.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

My reading of the Office for Budget Responsibility figures, published last week, was that the Welsh devolved tax take is projected to increase by half a billion pounds over the next Parliament. If the powers are not fully adopted by the Welsh Government, what would be the increase in the Welsh block during that period?

[Stephen Crabb]

I cannot provide a specific analysis in line with the question, but I agree with the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s point. There are distinct advantages, not only for the Welsh Government, but for businesses in Wales, which want the Welsh economy to grow through the devolution of these taxes.

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

Let me be the first to congratulate my right hon. Friend on his recognition overnight as the Welsh politician of the year.

Does this debate not highlight one of the difficulties with devolution? People only really want half of it—they want the powers, but do not want the responsibilities. There is a statistic showing that a minority of people in Wales recognise that health policy is decided in Cardiff. Does that not illustrate the importance of giving responsibility as well as devolving the powers themselves?

[Stephen Crabb]

My hon. Friend is exactly right and characteristically articulates his point better than anybody else in the House could. Devolution got stuck. The settlement meant that the Welsh Government were essentially a spending Department with no real responsibility for raising money—in fact, local authorities or parish councils probably had more ability to raise revenue than the Welsh Government. The Bill is all about letting Welsh devolution take the next step forward, which is about fiscal devolution, giving responsibility and enhancing accountability to create a more meaningful relationship between the Welsh Government and the people who elect Assembly Members and Welsh Ministers.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State speaks of the incentives that these powers would give to the Welsh Government. Will he be clear, as his predecessor was, as to how they ought to deploy those incentives? His predecessor thought that they should cut taxes in Wales to lower rates than in England. Does he agree?

15:30

[Stephen Crabb]

It is entirely up to Welsh Ministers how they choose to use these tools. I am surprised by what the hon. Gentleman says, as I would expect him to be the last person to suggest that the Secretary of State should be directing how these powers are used. I am a Conservative, and, to my core, my aspiration is always to see lower taxes rather than higher taxes. That is a difference in values between Government and Opposition Members. We understand that lower taxes generally create the right circumstances for business growth and for growing wealth in an economy—and all Members, on both sides of the House, should be ambitious to see more of that in Wales.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the Secretary of State accept, though, that unless we have the correct formula for deciding what are national impacts and what are local impacts on the tax revenue raised, there is a great danger that Wales could suffer as a result of the fact that fluctuations in income over the economic cycle tend to be much greater in the regions of the United Kingdom than in the United Kingdom as a whole?

[Stephen Crabb]

I do not dismiss the risk that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, but I think he exaggerates its impact on Wales. Alongside any perception of risk in relation to such fluctuations, there is a powerful opportunity for Wales to take greater control over wealth creation inside the nation of Wales. That is an exciting opportunity for the Welsh people, and it represents the next stage of devolution.

This is all about accountability. The former US President Harry Truman famously had on his desk a card that said, “The buck stops here.” I want to see a Welsh Government who stand up proudly and say, “The buck stops here” rather than “The buck is passed there.” That is what this Bill is all about: it creates that enhanced accountability and enhanced responsibility. I repeat my challenge to the First Minister and the Welsh Government: as soon as this Bill receives Royal Assent, take steps to call the referendum and do it as soon as possible. Let us seize the new tools and powers in this Bill with both hands and move forward.

[Owen Smith]

May I be the second Member of this House to congratulate the Secretary of State on becoming Welsh politician of the year? I think the whole House would agree that anybody who can move from describing devolution as “constitutional vandalism” to being its most ardent supporter on the Government Benches deserves to have his political footwork duly recognised.

These amendments to the Wales Bill best exemplify the damascene conversion that the Secretary of State and his party have undergone on the devolution cause, because they relate to the devolution of income tax varying powers. Just as the Secretary of State used to denounce devolution and has now changed his mind, the Government have performed—he understated the extent of this—a handbrake U-turn on the lockstep.

[Stephen Crabb]

For clarification, the shadow Secretary of State has accurately reported a quote of mine that appeared in an article in 2007, but he should do full justice to the article by adding that in it I set out exactly the same case for fiscal devolution that I have set out today. I have been entirely consistent over a long period as to how fiscal devolution would enhance the devolution settlement for Wales.

[Owen Smith]

I am happy to agree that that is how the article went on, but it did indeed describe devolution as “constitutional vandalism”. I shall not forget that, and nor should the country of Wales, for which the right hon. Gentleman is now Secretary of State.

The Government have undertaken a U-turn on this. Let me refresh the House’s memory. Just a few months ago, the Secretary of State’s party wholly opposed the removal of the lockstep. In fact, his Department and the Treasury produced a substantive Command Paper, Cmd 14, which said:

“The Government is firm in its view that the income tax structure is a key mechanism to redistribute wealth across the whole of the UK, which is why the ‘progressivity’—

a word I think they made up—

“of this system is properly determined at the UK level.

The inclusion of the lock-step is also consistent with the principle that fiscal devolution should not benefit one part of the UK to the detriment of another—this could occur if the Welsh Government is able to set a substantially lower rate for higher/additional taxpayers without needing to change the basic rate”.

That is what the Secretary of State seems to be suggesting —that we set lower rates in Wales than in England.

We do not demur from the sentiment expressed in the Command Paper, but nor do we greatly object to the Government changing their mind on this issue. That is partly because they are reflecting the views of all parties in the National Assembly—it is appropriate and good that the Secretary of State has listened to them on this —and partly in the light of the Smith commission findings, which have shifted the debate significantly by proposing 100% devolution of income tax to Scotland. In fact, it could be argued that there is now a case for going further than is proposed in the Bill. It seems unlikely to me that the people of Wales would find it acceptable to be asked in a referendum about having lesser tax varying powers than those on offer in Scotland.

Many of us in the House now recognise that perhaps one of the mistakes of the previous Government was to allow asymmetry to develop between different parts of the UK in earlier rounds of devolution. That has driven pressure for greater change in Wales to reflect changes in other parts of the country. In fact, the case has now clearly been made for a constitutional convention to consider all the issues in the round and to try to derive a lasting settlement acceptable to all parts of the UK.

The Government have not yet agreed to a constitutional convention, and in its absence we must still consider the Welsh Government’s rationale for taking up powers to raise taxes, if those powers were accepted at a referendum.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Labour’s policy is to have a constitutional convention. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, in the event that we have a Labour UK Government, there will be a constitutional convention, and if so, would it halt the Smith process and the proposed Bill for Scotland?

[Owen Smith]

No. I am saying that if there were a Labour Government, we would have a constitutional convention to look at the whole of the UK. Therefore, wherever we were in the Smith commission proposals, which will continue on their course, that would need to be fed into the convention. A constitutional convention would not need to slow down or stop further devolution to Scotland, but it would have to take cognisance of what was happening in Scotland.

Whatever further changes are made in Wales should reflect what happens in Scotland, because the willingness to accept asymmetry has diminished in Wales and elsewhere. Many of us feel that such asymmetry inherently leads, over time, to instability in the existing settlement.

In the absence of a convention, we must consider why the Government think that Wales should take up the new powers. I want to start not with Labour, but with the current Government. Why do they now feel that the Labour Welsh Government should have an unfettered ability to raise taxes or to lower them to levels below those in England? The Secretary of State has made a couple of soundbites or comments today to illustrate why he thinks we should do so—he talked repeatedly about accountability and responsibility—but I must say that none of them was quite as blunt and honest as the rationale he gave to the Institute of Welsh Affairs a few weeks ago. He said clearly that his objective in providing the tax varying powers was to

“end the politics of the begging bowl in Wales”—

[Interruption.] The Secretary of State says, “Absolutely,” but I find that quite an offensive position for him to take. He should not describe Wales as, in effect, a supplicant, and nor should he suggest that we are a scrounger or a shirker asking for handouts. It is not for him to suggest that the cure for the

“politics of the begging bowl”,

as he injudiciously puts it, is to force the Welsh people to raise taxes within their own borders. I do not espouse such a dog-eat-dog, race-to-the-bottom version of Britain, and nor should he.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)]

The phrase “begging bowl”, as used in this context, originated with former First Minister Rhodri Morgan. Does the shadow Secretary of State completely dissociate himself from that?

[Owen Smith]

It was deployed in an entirely different context. The implication of the Secretary of State’s pejorative use of the phrase was—I am paraphrasing, but this was broadly what he said in the rest of his speech —that the Welsh Government have not been responsible or accountable, but that they would become so for the first time if tax powers were afforded to them. I have never accepted that the Welsh Government are unaccountable —they are as accountable as any elected Government—and I certainly do not subscribe to the view that Wales has ever held out a begging bowl.

[Stephen Crabb]

I think that the shadow Secretary of State is getting slightly bogged down and has now resorted to what he calls “paraphrasing” the speech I made to the IWA, although he is actually misrepresenting it entirely. My strong and clear point is that we have had 15 years of devolution in which the dominant theme of Welsh politics has been discussing how much money handed down through the block grant can be spent in Wales. The Bill and the new shift in devolution are about changing the nature of the debate so that it is not just about how much money we have handed down from London, but about raising money within Wales, growing the economy in Wales and seeing Wales stand on its own two feet.

[Owen Smith]

The Secretary of State makes my point for me because I do not for a minute subscribe to the notion that Wales has money handed down to it from Westminster. That money reflects the taxes paid by Welsh people, and more importantly, in a Union that is meant to be about our ability to share resources, pool risk and redistribute from wealthier to less wealthy parts, it reflects the morality and values of our country. Unfortunately, that morality and that set of values are being undermined by the Secretary of State’s description of the Union as one in which one part is a supplicant and another is handing down money.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to be wary of the politics of the hospital pass in Wales? I am always suspicious of Tories bearing gifts, to mix my metaphors, and I do not trust the Conservative party to defend the interests of my constituents.

[Owen Smith]

Nor do I and, more importantly, nor do the people of Wales—that is why they do not elect Tories in Wales. The very least we owe the Welsh people is that we consider extremely carefully the likely impact of these radical changes to such a cornerstone of the redistributive Union as taxation. They will have an impact on the potential prosperity and well-being of the Welsh people, which is why, although Labour will not oppose the Lords amendments, as we have not opposed the Bill at other stages, we will continue to be clear that we want far more explanation from the Government about how and why they think the powers in question might be deployed in Wales, and what the benefits will be for the Welsh people.

[Sammy Wilson]

In light of the language about money given to the devolved Administrations being “handed down”, rather than the result of tax revenues, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the redistributive nature of some fiscal policy, does he accept that the danger of the devolution of income tax is that it is an underhand attempt to ensure that less money goes to the devolved Administrations, who will then be forced to raise money through higher taxation in their own jurisdictions?

[Owen Smith]

In a nutshell, the hon. Gentleman, who is expert in this matter, having been the Finance Minister for his own devolved Administration, explains why we are so concerned about the change. We are worried that the Tories are eager to legislate in haste to foist on the Welsh people the power to raise taxes in Wales.

Our concerns are not just obstacles that the First Minister has placed in the way of the change, as the Secretary of State suggested. They are reasoned questions about the nature of the powers that might be deployed and what their impact will be. We have been clear and consistent in saying that the Government need to meet three tests. It is not really for the Opposition to meet them, because we cannot. It is for the Government proposing the changes to meet them, but it is disappointing that they have not done so. The first test, as the First Minister made clear, is on the baseline for funding and the Barnett formula. That will need to be addressed before the changes can ever be accepted in Wales, because we will not recommend the devolution of income tax varying powers to Wales until we know that we will not be locking in a degree of underfunding. Secondly, we want to be clear that even if the Barnett question is resolved, Wales will be better off.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

Although I share the Secretary of State’s impatience for the Assembly Government to be speedy in addressing the issue once the Bill is passed, does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the Government need to assess the funding shortfall? One way that could be done would be if the Government here and the Assembly Government again commissioned Gerald Holtham, for example, to assess the level of underfunding before we move forward, which I agree with the Secretary of State that we should.

[Owen Smith]

That is not a bad idea. We have recently heard Government statements about the reduction in the Barnett gap, and one can imagine that there would be such a reduction because public spending in England has been curtailed so dramatically under this Government, although we do not know that for certain. It is beholden on the Treasury to provide evidence of the current gap, and it would be sensible for it to consider making the process independent, not least because I do not think that we would fully trust what it might produce on its own.

15:45

[Jonathan Evans]

The hon. Gentleman should be a bit cautious in his dismissal of the Conservative party, given this week’s opinion polls. His argument is the complete antithesis of the position adopted by the Labour party in Scotland—late in the day, it must be said—which is to agree to the devolution of all tax raising powers to Scotland. Against that background, how is his argument in any way consistent with the position adopted north of the border?

[Owen Smith]

To paraphrase the infamous, notorious entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is not a question of “For Wales, see England”, “For Scotland, see Wales”, or “For Wales, see Scotland”. We have different countries with different demographics, histories and relative tax takes, and on behalf of the Welsh people, we should sensibly take a position that reflects their best interest, rather than talking an ideological perspective across the board. On the prospects of the Tory party in Wales, I would be a little more hopeful that it might do well were it not for those such as the hon. Gentleman not fighting their seats at the next election. We can read into that what we will.

[Jonathan Evans]

It is the same as the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain)

[Owen Smith]

Indeed, but I do not suggest for a minute that there is any prospect of my right hon. Friend being replaced by a Tory. Not now, not tomorrow, not ever. [Interruption.] It will be a cold day in hell before Neath turns Tory, and ditto Pontypridd.

Let me return to my point about whether Wales will be better off with these tax powers. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, we can look to last week’s autumn statement to demonstrate that Welsh tax receipts are now £2 billion less than what was planned by the Chancellor in 2010. That is our proportion of the £66 billion shortfall in tax receipts that is a result of our underperforming economy under this Conservative Government. Had these measures applied in 2010, they would have devolved to Wales about £1 billion of that shortfall. That decline makes a mockery of the notion that such powers make the Welsh Government more accountable, because a poor performance across the board by the UK economy would not have been down to the actions of the Welsh Government. That performance would have been wholly down to a Tory Government in Westminster, and there is little that a smaller economy and country such as Wales could have done to mitigate that effect.

The other thing that those numbers illustrate—again, the hon. Member for East Antrim effectively made this point—concerns the volatility of tax receipts across the UK. That volatility has led to a £66 billion shortfall, and traditionally there are greater fluctuations in peripheral and regional parts of the UK economy than at the centre, and especially in London and the south-east. It is difficult to imagine how a country such as Wales with a small economy could manage the risk associated with that greater volatility. That shows some of the benefit of our being part of a wider Union, and it makes clear the dangers and risks associated with disaggregating that Union.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I watched with great interest the hon. Gentleman’s prophecy of doom on “Sunday Politics”. I have also read the OBR report and looked at all the tables on the Welsh devolved figures, and they do not reflect his claims about a £1 billion loss. Indeed, the only table on this issue in the report suggests that the Welsh devolved tax base will increase over the next five years by £500 million. The shortfall that he mentions might be as a result of the raising of income tax personal allowances that has been announced by the UK Government, but the Silk commission made it clear that the indexed deduction method for the partial tax raising arrangement in the Bill means that that would not come into effect. Is not the hon. Gentleman guilty of scaremongering? Project fear is alive and well in Wales once again.

[Owen Smith]

No, it is project reasoned analysis of the numbers, and that project shows clearly a £66 billion shortfall over the past five years and a projected further shortfall across the UK over the next five years. We will see a worse performance in terms of corporate and income tax receipts across the UK as a result of the low- wage, deeply insecure, second-rate economy that the Tory Government are building. Wales has been particularly ill served by what has happened because of the additional fragilities of our economy due to our industrial heritage and the preponderance of low-wage jobs in Wales.

The reality is that—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State shakes his head, but he should think about this. He said earlier that the indexed method cited in Holtham means that Wales would effectively be incentivised to grow its tax base at a faster rate than England’s to enjoy uplifts under these powers. The truth is that over the past five years the Welsh tax base has declined at a faster rate than that of England, as the figure is 4.8% in Wales whereas the UK average is 4.2%. That means that Wales would have been worse off under the indexation had the provisions applied in the last five years, which is a further illustration of the need for the Government to undertake some proper, detailed analysis to let the Welsh people know whether we would be better or worse off.

[Ian Lucas]

In support of that point, is my hon. Friend aware that in Wrexham median wages fell by 7.4% in the last year under this Government? What encouragement does that give for increasing the tax base?

[Owen Smith]

My hon. Friend reinforces my point. We know that the Welsh economy has historic weaknesses because of the decline in heavy industry, and its distance from London and the powerhouse of the south-east. Those are well understood, but they are not reflected in the debate that we are having, which is largely politically motivated.

Some in Wales argue that we do not need a referendum to decide this matter, but we think that the Welsh people should have a debate and ultimately take the decision on what would be a radical change. The debate cannot be driven by the Tory party’s desire to insulate itself against the charge that it has reduced Welsh budgets by 10%, which it has; or by the need to support the Tory objective of reducing public spending to levels we have not seen since the 1930s, as was manifest last week; or even by the wish to sustain a partisan argument of English votes for English laws. All three of those rationales feature as part of the Government’s motivation for this debate, and we are disappointed that they have not provided any real response to these questions throughout the passage of the Bill.

It will now be for the Welsh Labour Government to consider what is best for the Welsh people. I have no doubt that they will do so using Welsh Labour values and thinking about the benefits for the Welsh people, as well as about how we deliver equality and improvements to the lot of working people across the UK.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the occasion of the Bill’s return from the House of Lords in much improved form, if I may say so. In general, I welcome the Bill although I am concerned about some elements. Perhaps it is a Welsh trait that we can never completely agree on things, and I want to touch on one issue where I am not in agreement.

What I welcome in particular is the new reality of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition shaping the process and future of devolution and driving forward, leaving—if I may say so to the shadow Secretary of State—Labour languishing in its wake. He may describe that as a U-turn, but that is the reality today. I want to make just one important point, which is very much a personal view. I disagree with one specific aspect of the Bill, but I would like to emphasise my overall support: it is a very good and welcome Bill.

I would like to put my point in context by painting some background to my personal journey in the devolution debate. I was not in favour of the form of devolution on offer in the referendum on 18 September 1997. It seemed to me to be creating a permanently unstable constitutional settlement. A settlement is the last thing it was. I attended the count in Llandrindod Wells leisure centre, watching the TV coverage as the decision of the voters of Wales came through and they decided in favour of establishing a national assembly for Wales. I drove home knowing that there was no going back. The people had spoken, albeit by a tiny margin of 0.6%. We were now facing an entirely new question: how would devolution work in practice? I concluded immediately that the new Welsh Assembly would eventually become a law-making, tax-raising Parliament based in Wales. That has influenced my thinking on the issue ever since. I did not want to be dragged, kicking and screaming, and trying to refight the 1997 devolution referendum. I preferred to get ahead of the curve and identify where we were going to get to, and move towards that in a positive and smooth way. That was not a change of mind, but a recognition of a new reality.

[Jonathan Evans]

My hon. Friend, through his service in the Assembly, has been one of the individuals who has encapsulated the position adopted by the Conservative party. Although the party battled against establishing the Assembly in the first place, and although the margin was only 4,000 in a million, nobody could claim other than that my hon. Friend and the party in Wales have not been dragged back to the previous debate, but have moved forward and sought to make a success of the devolution settlement.

[Glyn Davies]

Nowhere has that been more obvious than in the contribution from those on the Front Bench when we started today’s debate.

The Government of Wales Act 2006, introduced by the Labour party, moved things forward quite a lot, as did the 2011 referendum in relation to tax-raising powers. The Wales Bill takes us further down the road to what I consider to be the inevitable conclusion, but not far enough for me on tax levying responsibility. I will be blunt about my view: it is a mistake that the Bill requires a referendum before devolving responsibility for levying part of income tax collection to the Welsh Government. That is properly an issue for a general election. The Welsh Government are not financially accountable to the people of Wales until they are responsible for levying a degree of income tax. It is also my personal view that financial accountability through responsibility for income tax is so fundamental to a proper, grown-up National Assembly for Wales and Welsh Government that we should not devolve extra responsibility until this principle is accepted—no financial accountability, no new powers.

The First Minister, and perhaps Labour Members here on the Opposition Benches, do not want financial accountability. How convenient it is to bask in the credit of every spend that the people of Wales approve of and blame the UK Government for every difficult decision needed to bring order to the United Kingdom’s finances. We see the First Minister in Wales scrabbling around for any reason he can come up with to avoid committing to a referendum. First, it was lockstep, which is removed by the Bill. Then it was the Barnett deficit, until it became clear that it is a rather smaller Barnett deficit than we thought. I hear now that air passenger duty might be another reason, and if that is resolved, there will be another one. The reality is that Welsh Labour in Cardiff is desperate to avoid financial accountability. It does not want to be properly financially accountable to the Welsh people.

16:00

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

I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument and thinking about what the Labour spokesman said. When the Silk proposals were being discussed, the First Minister of Wales was adamant he did not want air passenger duty devolved, but suddenly he has woken up and is desperately keen on it. It depends what day of the week we are in.

[Glyn Davies]

I would be more encouraged if I thought the day of the week was the reason. I think it is a desperate attempt to find one more hurdle to prevent us from moving towards financial accountability.

During the passage of the Bill, I accepted it would include a commitment to a referendum on devolution of income tax levying powers. It was a recommendation of the all-party Silk commission, and in 1997 there was a referendum on this issue in Scotland. In my view, however, the Silk commission was wrong, and weak in its recommendation on this point. Devolving income tax powers is not as big a change as is being made out, and it is entirely appropriate that it be decided at a general election; it does not need a referendum. If a Welsh Labour Government acted irresponsibly, which they might well do, they would quickly be turfed out of office. It is much easier to sit in blissful impotence, complaining.

I would like to see manifesto commitments by my party, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru to revisit this issue, perhaps in a Wales Bill early next Parliament and before the Assembly elections in 2016, and to devolve income tax. We should put an end to Labour’s easy ride in Wales and make the Welsh Government properly fiscally accountable to the Welsh people. Only then will devolution grow up and reach its inevitable, logical conclusion.

[Jonathan Edwards]

It is a pleasure to make a short contribution to this debate, primarily to welcome these Lords amendments, which mirror amendments that were tabled by Plaid Cymru when the Bill passed through the Commons and which conveniently the three Westminster parties voted against at the time—they say a week is a long time in politics, but we are only a few months down the line and there has been a complete change of position. In that regard, I congratulate the new Secretary of State on being far more progressive than his predecessor.

[Mr Mark Williams]

The hon. Gentleman will remember that there were exceptions. I was pleased to support Plaid Cymru’s lockstep amendment. I would not profess to be Mystic Meg or a trailblazer, but people listened to the message put forward by him and others, and to their credit, the Government changed their mind.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I stand corrected. To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, he has voted with us several times and broken his party Whip.

The lockstep, of course, was a handcuff measure that would have made the powers in the Bill unusable—the only plus side was the extra borrowing capacity it would have given to the Welsh Government—and removing it creates greater flexibility, which is obviously to be welcomed. When we were debating the Bill in the Commons, however, I warned the Government that events in Scotland would supersede it, and that has indeed been the case. The Union survived by a thread, and even then only following the famous vow promising home rule, devolution max or something as close to federalism as possible. In that regard, the Smith commission was extremely disappointing.

Westminster has one chance left to save the Union, or the British state as it is currently constituted, but the Smith commission is playing into the hands of pro-independence campaigners in Scotland. It nowhere near delivers the powers promised in the vow, but it is far in advance of what the UK Government are offering to Wales in the Bill. The signature policy of the Smith commission is 100% income tax devolution and the ability of the Scottish Executive to set as many bands as they want at whatever level they want. Indeed, my party put forward such an amendment during proceedings on the Wales Bill in the spring.

[Ian Lucas]

If the Smith commission is not in accordance with the vow that was given, why did the Scottish National party agree to it?

[Jonathan Edwards]

The commission’s remit is not one of its own choosing, but the SNP decided to act in the best interests of the country and move the process forward. Making out that the Smith commission proposals are what were included in the vow is not right. It was essentially home rule or devolution max, and on any definition of devo max, it means the full devolution of all powers apart from defence, foreign affairs, the monarchy and military policy. That is not included in the Smith commission proposals, which were less significant than what was promised to the people of Scotland on the eve of the referendum.

As I was saying, the Smith commission is vastly more progressive in its trajectory of travel, offering 100% of income tax in comparison with the Wales Bill offer of only a paltry income tax sharing arrangement—and even then, only following a referendum many years down the line.

[Geraint Davies]

(Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if Wales has its own powers to set both a higher and a lower rate of tax and it chooses to reduce the higher rate so that a lot of millionaires move to Monmouthshire, the overall tax take to the United Kingdom would be dramatically reduced because those people would all evade tax by moving to Wales? Does he think that is a good thing to set in motion, and does he have any idea whether the Government have calculated the cost of that possibility?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am interested in this line of tax harmony across the UK being put forward by the Labour party. In Wales, of course, we had at the last count 22 local authorities all setting different rates of council tax, and we are a key part of a single market across the European Union with its different members setting different tax rates. If Labour Members’ arguments were to hold water, surely they would argue for tax harmonisation across the whole of local government in Wales and across all member states of the European Union. It does not make much sense to me.

[Geraint Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I think I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s point.

In conclusion, the general election is fast approaching, and I can assure this House and the people of Wales that Plaid Cymru will fight that election on the basis that we will not allow our country to be treated as a second-class nation by the Westminster establishment.

[Geraint Davies]

I come here with an open mind about these tax issues, but I must confess that I have major concerns because I fear that the incentive for the Government to devolve tax powers is not one of freeing the nation of Wales to make its own decisions, but one of distracting attention from the fact that Wales is grossly underfunded both in revenue under the Barnett formula by some £300 million and in capital receipts. If we had our fair share of HS2, for instance, we would have an extra £2 billion.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman and I are both Swansea city supporters and I am grateful that he has been kind enough to allow me to intervene.

[Geraint Davies]

I can see that the hon. Gentleman is wearing black and white.

[Jonathan Edwards]

This is my wedding suit, or rather the suit I had with my wedding suit. It has led to much comment. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I have no idea what is being talked about here. We are not discussing Swansea football club and we are not discussing suits or weddings. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) is supposed to be making an intervention on the tax-raising powers in the Wales Bill. Perhaps he could face me, so I could hear him; and, secondly, he could make sure that his intervention is in order.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for saving me because my good friend was distracting me on the basis of some spurious points. Is it the position of the Labour party, should it form the next UK Government, that HS2 will be seen as an England-only project and not a UK-wide project, thus giving Wales its rightful consequentials of £2 billion, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned?

[Geraint Davies]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr is now trying to tempt his friend—having claimed that his friend was tempting him—to go down a route that we are not discussing today. We are debating Lords amendments on the tax-raising powers in the Wales Bill. Geraint Davies now has the Floor.

[Geraint Davies]

Let me publicly assure Mrs Edwards that the wedding was not spurious. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on both his point and his suit. It is a very nice suit, in black and white.

As I mentioned earlier, the differential rates pose a real problem. There is a presumption that Wales will not lower the higher rate, but a very small number of people in Wales earn more than £150,000 a year. They currently pay 45%, and will pay 50% under a new Labour Government. In theory, if a new Labour Government in Cardiff or Westminster—or any other Government, for that matter—reduced the top rate and a large number of people simply slipped across the border, they would be evading large amounts of tax. Obviously Wales would benefit, because more money would be coming in, but for the overall tax-paying community, the amount would go down, and that is of legitimate concern.

I should like to hear from Ministers what evaluation the Office for Budget Responsibility has made, producing different forecasts with different scenarios. My guess is that it has made none, and that this legislation is being rushed through in the hurried aftermath of what happened in Scotland, so that Wales can be given something comparable to the quick settlement that was made following electoral concerns in Scotland as we move towards a general election. That is not the way in which to establish a new constitutional settlement and a settled financial regime. It is all very well the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) saying “You want harmony, we have difference, so it does not matter what happens.” Such changes and differences bring pressures that are not settled, and which will be replicated in the future.

Air passenger duty has been mentioned. Other things being equal, if someone says, “Can I set my own air passenger duty?”, the response might be, “That’s brilliant: we can raise some money.” But what if Boris Johnson in London says, “Hold on, there is a precedent here, I want the money for Heathrow, and I am going to lower air passenger duty”, which is what he has said about stamp duty? We are talking about major shifts in the financial powers across the Union, which will unsettle the Union itself. Obviously we want a devolved settlement that is stable rather than ever-changing, rather than the setting in motion—by means of a quickstep to avoid short-term political advantage—of a system that will unravel into chaos.

I know that there seems to be consensus across the Floor of the House today. It is a case of “Don’t worry; we will have a referendum, and hopefully it will be all right on the night.” What I have just described will probably not happen in Wales, because what prospect is there of our suddenly having five UKIP Assembly Members and a regional list? Oh, there is such a prospect; well there we are. What prospect is there of a newly emerging rainbow alliance—perhaps a very unfortunate rainbow with not a crock of gold but a crock of something much more unpleasant at the bottom of it, which will generate a cynical, unfair tax proposition that will lead us back into the dark ages? That is possible. [Interruption.] Obviously there is agreement, as laughter leads the room.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am glad to learn that the hon. Gentleman has now joined the Unionists in his heart, but does he accept that once we start to disaggregate the fiscal arrangements for the United Kingdom, real constitutional issues become involved? The danger is that the more fiscal powers are devolved to regional administrations, the looser the Union will become. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. This is ridiculous. The debate is degenerating into some sort of Christmas party. Members are just shouting at each other. This is a proper debate on Lords amendments. Members who have been in the House for a long time know that heckling, or comments from a sedentary position, are not acceptable. Mr Davies, I should be really grateful if you would now focus on the points in the Bill, so that we can hear the rest of your comments, followed by the Secretary of State’s conclusion. I shall do my best to ensure that you are not interrupted, or tempted to answer questions that are not asked formally in the Chamber.

16:15

[Geraint Davies]

Thank you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The focus of this debate is the differential between the lower and the higher rates—how that moves up and down and squeezes in and out, and what the implications of it are. In terms of the last intervention, the implications are that if that gives rise to great differences between the two rates across the border—or, indeed, across the Scottish or Northern Ireland border—it will generate distortions, not just on the border itself, but in terms of investment decisions, where people choose to live and work, and social security arrangements, whether they are devolved or not. It will extend beyond personal taxation because corporations coming in will bear in mind what they think their workers are going to be paying. As has been mentioned, therefore, corporation tax is part of that broader conversation.

The Government are looking to give corporation tax flexibility for Northern Ireland because Ireland has got it. We could then follow through and say that perhaps Scotland should have it or perhaps somewhere else, and we would end up again with a bidding war downwards where—as I have just mentioned for income tax—the overall corporation tax-take for the UK would go down. At a time when corporations are migrating based on research and development and access to Europe as opposed to corporation tax rates, maybe this is the wrong route to follow, when taken together with income tax.

[Mr Llwyd]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

Please do not draw me on to anything wide of the mark.

[Mr Llwyd]

I have no intention of drawing the hon. Gentleman wide of the mark. Experience shows that when corporation tax is lowered, it increases the take because of increased inward investment.

[Geraint Davies]

That is an interesting point, but it does intrinsically depend on the elasticity of demand. At a time when corporation tax is already the lowest in the G8, I suggest that inward investors are not looking to Britain to lower its corporation tax and making a marginal decision to invest. They are looking at the level of research and development and the prospects of being part of Europe. One issue for inward investors is the uncertainty of a referendum ending up with us as a sort of chip shop England floating out into obscurity with UKIP and the Tories.

In my view, if we cut corporation tax again there will be a net reduction in corporation tax revenues. On the income tax issue, I have an open mind. I am just throwing forward some of the scenarios whereby we can lose out in England and in Wales and making a point, which I ask the Minister to respond to in his summing up. I want to know what analysis has been done of the potential downside to the Exchequer of Wales reducing the top rate of tax and people migrating to Monmouth? What are those numbers and what consideration has he made? My guess is that he has made no consideration, and if so we should not be hurtling ahead in this way.

[Stephen Crabb]

I will be very brief as there is another set of Lords amendments that we need to debate.

We spent most of this debate not debating the specifics of the Lords amendments about the removal of the lockstep. Most of the time has been spent listening to the weight of arguments, largely from Labour Members, against fiscal devolution full-stop. So we end the parliamentary passage of the Wales Bill exactly where we started: with three parties in this Chamber recognising the potential benefits to Wales of devolving a portion of fiscal powers—we are not talking about a full step down the road of full fiscal devolution, but a strong step forward —and one party resolutely digging in, trying to pretend that there is some kind of plot or conspiracy; we have had all those words and that language used before.

[Mr Llwyd]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Crabb]

I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who was rightly recognised last year as the MP of the year.

[Mr Llwyd]

And I am intervening on a Member of even higher status.

Is it not interesting that the excuse being put forward by those on the Labour Front Bench is that they need to sort out Barnett? For the last 20 years or so I have been arguing about the need to sort out Barnett when the Labour party denied that there was a problem.

[Stephen Crabb]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We end the parliamentary passage of the Bill exactly as we began it, with Labour trying to place even more hurdles in the way of devolving a portion of income tax. You would have to be Colin Jackson to clear all the hurdles that the Opposition are trying to set up.

[Ian Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Crabb]

I will not, because there is another group of Lords amendments to discuss.

I should like to finish by paying particular tribute to the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies). He set out some powerful arguments, and has done so from a position of real credibility, having been an Assembly Member. He has been ahead of the curve on many occasions in recognising the strategic direction that Welsh devolution needs to go in and the benefits that can be accrued to Wales by taking sensible, moderate and pragmatic steps forward. On that note, I shall bring my remarks to a close.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.

Lords amendments 2 to 13 and 17 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.



Clause 13

Proposal for referendum by Assembly

[Alun Cairns]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 14.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 15 and 16.

[Alun Cairns]

These amendments provide that, when a resolution to hold a referendum on income tax powers is moved in the National Assembly for Wales, the Assembly must state as part of the resolution whether the voting age for that referendum is to be 16 or 18. During the Bill’s passage through the other place, a number of peers sought to extend the franchise in Wales to 16 and 17-year-olds. They highlighted the fact that young people in Scotland had been able to vote in the independence referendum, but young people in Wales would not be able to vote in a referendum on income tax powers. I pay tribute to the younger voters of Scotland who actively registered and voted in that referendum. I know that many people felt that the involvement of 16 and 17-year-olds helped to reinvigorate the political process and the political parties, and I understand why the Bill has reignited the debate on these issues.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

The Minister has mentioned the registration of young voters in Scotland. What was done there to get the registration rates so high was great. Is he aware that the registration rate for 18-year-olds in England and Wales is as low as 55%, so if this provision goes ahead, we will really have to work hard to get the registration rate up?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The Bill contains measures to encourage the Assembly to engage with younger people and encourage them to register, should it wish to extend the franchise in the referendum on income tax varying powers.

[Chris Ruane]

Has the Minister heard of an organisation called Bite the Ballot? It can go into sixth forms and register 100% of the students at a cost of only 25p per registration. Does he think that the Assembly—and, indeed, the UK Government—should be working closely with organisations such as Bite the Ballot to get the registration rate up?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am not familiar with that organisation, so it would not be right for me to endorse its activities at this stage. Clearly, however, any activity that encourages people who are eligible to vote to do so is broadly positive, and I would encourage the Welsh Government, the Assembly and the UK Administration to engage with a range of organisations and bodies to support that aim further.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The Minister is right to say that the referendum in Scotland reinvigorated the political process there, but that is because it was on a definitive issue. The proposed referendum for Wales is on a very technical point—the partial income tax arrangement—and is it not a danger that that is hardly going to excite the masses? Does that indicate that if we are to have another referendum in Wales, it has to be on something meaningful which is going to alter radically the devolution settlement?

[Alun Cairns]

We spent the earlier part of this debate discussing Lords amendments relating to the referendum, and I believed that the hon. Gentleman, in his usual positive way, as well as Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members, thought that the referendum on income tax varying powers would be definitive. It gives a great opportunity for political parties to sell the great prospect that lower taxes could bring to Wales, and the resulting wealth-creating opportunities.

[Jonathan Edwards]

My point is that if we are to have a referendum, it needs to be on a point of principle, and the principle of fiscal devolution has been conceded already in the Wales Bill with the devolution of the minor taxes.

[Alun Cairns]

I am not sure where this is going, but I accept that the engagement of young people is exceptionally important. The purpose of this Lords amendment is to devolve the power for the referendum to the Welsh Assembly, and it can therefore make judgments accordingly.

[Glyn Davies]

I questioned the need for a referendum. Although we accept that it is part of the Bill, does the Minister think there may be a possibility at some future stage of getting to a position where we can proceed with this income tax raising power, despite Labour’s opposition, by including it in a general election manifesto and not having a referendum?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that, and I pay tribute to him for his speech. The debate on devolution is moving quickly and the referendum in Scotland has changed the debate across the whole of the UK. It is up to each political party to make its judgment. It is almost certain that there will be a Wales Bill in the next Parliament, whoever is in government. There will be an opportunity for him to make the case at that stage, and for each political party to make the case leading up to the election and include an element relating to that in its manifesto.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

On the amendment that allows the Assembly to decide on the franchise for the referendum on tax powers, does the Minister agree that allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote on the tax issue and then not allowing them to vote in a subsequent Assembly election would send a very odd message about trust in young people?

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not agree with him on that specific point. The Wales Bill provides the opportunity for the Assembly to introduce a referendum on tax varying powers, to the degree that we have already considered. That will extend the franchise specifically in this area. It learns the lessons from Scotland and creates the opportunity for us to reinvigorate young people in this area. However, the debate on the franchise in general for other elections is very different; there is no general consensus on that across all parties in the House and it is a constitutional matter that will be ongoing. It is not part of this Bill, but I have no doubt that it will form part of future debates that many parties will want to have.

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

Further to the points made by the hon. Members for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), extending the suffrage down to 16 and 17-year-olds could indeed be part of a manifesto commitment. Such an approach might avoid the problem of the referendum being on a narrow issue to do with tax and of this measure being in one Wales Bill, and it would replicate the commitment made by the leader of the Labour party this week to do just that.

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but that is a major constitutional change covering lots of other political areas and it is well beyond the scope of this Bill. I am seeking to address amendments that will allow the Assembly to make progress in this area, should it wish to do so. It is up to the Assembly to make its own decisions. This provision devolves the power for it to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. However, it is important to recognise that there is no consensus across parties on the issue of changing the franchise to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in elections in general.

In the specific case of the income tax referendum, the Government have listened to those who have called on them to look afresh at the issue. When the Secretary of State took office, he said that he wanted to be pragmatic and to listen to the views of the people. Part of that pragmatism is recognising the impact that the Scotland referendum had on politics across the whole of the United Kingdom.

16:30

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

To assist the debate, may I use the example of a 96-year-old person whom I met on Sunday? He was receiving the Ushakov medal for his work on the Arctic convoys. At the age of 14, he enlisted with the merchant navy and spent six months training on HMS Warspite and then sailed up the Amazon nine months later. He was certainly ready to vote, and so were the students who met me in Parliament last week to discuss the importance of voting at the age of 16 and 17. Let us just bite the bullet and do it.

[Alun Cairns]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and to the two constituents in my own constituency who have recently received medals from the Russian Government. None the less, he makes a point that goes well beyond the scope of the Bill, and that will be part of an important debate in the future. He will be able to make his point again when the time comes.

[Mr Mark Williams]

How are we to tell constituents that we are, on the one hand, allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote, but on the other, denying them the franchise to vote in general, local or Assembly elections? How would the Minister explain that inconsistency? I suspect that after this amendment, which I very much welcome, we will need some answers to that question.

[Alun Cairns]

I suggest that the age of majority is different for different processes across the United Kingdom. It is a major constitutional change to extend the franchise for all elections. The scope of this Bill is specific about extending powers to the Welsh Assembly, and it is for the Assembly to decide. Who knows, the Welsh Assembly may not decide to extend the franchise to younger voters. It is up to it to decide on a referendum for income tax varying powers in Wales. That is the answer that the hon. Gentleman might wish to give to his constituents. This measure is not about extending the franchise to 16-year-olds, but about granting the power and the opportunity for the Assembly to decide on that basis.

[Geraint Davies]

It is one thing to say that there is a strong case for people of 16 to have a vote as they have a general knowledge of politics in the round and can make an informed decision, but the argument we are trying to make is whether young voters who have never voted can suddenly grasp the technicalities of setting different rates at different levels and what that implies. That is not much of an encouragement to enter the world of democracy. It is a highly technical issue. Will the Minister now at least serve notice on the fact that he will be championing a general franchise for people of 16 to vote in future elections?

[Alun Cairns]

I think the hon. Gentleman is underestimating the capacity of young people to grasp technicalities. I have far more confidence in younger people to be able to consider such matters. He makes an important point, but it could easily be made in another debate. This is about extending the power to the Assembly to decide, and not about extending the franchise to young people per se. We are simply devolving the power. The Assembly has had a vote on extending the franchise to younger voters, and there was a majority in favour of it, but when it comes to make its own choice specifically on a matter such as this, who knows what will ultimately come forward.

As a result, on Third Reading in the other place we tabled amendments to allow the Assembly to decide whether 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in an income tax referendum. As the volume of interventions we have heard indicates, this is the first opportunity the House has had to consider the matter, and I look forward to hearing the contributions that are to follow. It is the Assembly that will decide when to call a referendum, and it is right that it should decide who can vote in it. The amendment puts that decision in the hands of the Assembly, just as it was put in the hands of the Scottish Parliament for September’s referendum.

These amendments also provide that if the Assembly resolves that the voting age is to be lowered to 16, the resulting order to be laid by the Secretary of State would also provide for the creation of a register of young voters. That register would include those who will have attained the age of 16 on the date of the income tax referendum and those age 17 who are not already listed on the register of local government electors as an attainer—that is, a 17-year-old who will turn 18 before the next electoral register is published. The important point is that those who have attained the age of 16 on the date of the poll will be eligible to vote in an income tax referendum if they appear on either the register of young voters or the register of local government electors.

I should also be clear about what these amendments do not do. They do not devolve competence over the wider franchise to the Assembly, as I have previously stated, and they do not allow the Assembly to decide the voting age for any poll other than that for an income tax referendum. The franchise for elections in Wales remains solely within the power of this Parliament. I know that there are strongly held views on both sides of the House about reducing the voting age—we heard some of them earlier. I want to reassure hon. Members who might be concerned that these amendments set a precedent for future elections that they do not. It is important to underline that they do not set a precedent. They relate specifically to an income tax referendum in Wales, and to no other poll. They give the Assembly a choice for that referendum. If and when a trigger vote is held, it would be for the Assembly to decide whether the voting age will be 16 or 18. I therefore ask the House to support these amendments.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I am pleased to put on record Labour’s support for the Lords amendments to clause 13 and schedule 1, which will enable the Welsh Government to set a voting age of 16 in a future referendum on income tax powers. Labour believes that the National Assembly for Wales should have responsibility for its own electoral arrangements. Lords amendment 14 will insert a new subsection (1A) into clause 13 to provide that if the First Minister or a Welsh Minister moves a resolution in the Assembly under clause 13(1)(a) requesting that an order be made under clause 12 to cause an income tax referendum to be held in Wales, that resolution must state whether the voting age at such a referendum is to be 16 or 18.

I have long been a supporter of votes at 16, on which Labour Members have provided a strong lead. I pay tribute particularly to Julie Morgan, a former MP and now Assembly Member for Cardiff North, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for their campaigning on the issue. We saw the success of allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to take part in the Scottish independence referendum. Following the Smith commission, responsibility for electoral matters is on the cards to be devolved to Scotland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the leader of the Labour party, has urged the UK Government to ensure that that happens in time for the 2016 elections to the Scottish Parliament. Control over electoral arrangements should likewise be devolved to Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Lords amendments reflect our belief that electoral arrangements should be devolved to Wales and our commitment to extending the franchise for all elections to 16 and 17-year-olds. Furthermore, this week my right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear that a future Labour Government would legislate to lower the voting age to 16, and it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s position on that issue. We would also legislate to devolve electoral arrangements to the Welsh Assembly.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Plaid Cymru tabled amendments similar to those that the hon. Lady mentions during the Bill’s passage through this House, but I do not recall Labour supporting us. Has there been a sea change in Labour party policy since then?

[Nia Griffith]

I have made it clear what our policies are.

With the advent of individual voter registration and the worry that many people, including many young voters, will fail to register under the new rules, which was a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), lowering the voting—

[Chris Ruane]

A good way of ensuring that there is 100% registration of young people, instead of the current registration rate of 55%, would be if, at the same time as they are issued with a national insurance number at the age of fifteen and three quarters, they were automatically registered to vote.

[Nia Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Lowering the voting age to 16 could provide an impetus for registration campaigns in schools, as all young people are in compulsory education until 16. Such campaigns would be another opportunity to encourage young people to register to vote before their 16th birthday, and most would have at least one opportunity to use their vote before leaving home for university or job opportunities elsewhere.

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that as well as a drive to get registration as high as possible, efforts should be made to teach civics in schools to let pupils know the importance of the vote and the issues that they will be voting on?

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed. The Welsh Government have made significant progress on that matter with the Welsh baccalaureate.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a fundamental inconsistency in the Government’s position? I totally agree with their wish to devolve responsibility to the Welsh Assembly on matters to do with the referendum, but why cannot there be the same devolution in respect of the age at which people vote in Welsh Assembly elections? It is nothing short of patronising to 16 and 17-year-olds to say, “You might be able to vote in a referendum, but not in constituency or regional-based Assembly elections.” It makes no sense.

[Nia Griffith]

Perhaps the Minister will clarify that later.

In my long experience as a teacher, I always found that young people are ready to engage in discussion on a range of issues, and I have every confidence that 16 and 17-year-olds can be as well informed as other adults in respect of voting options. They have access to a far wider range of media and sources of information than back in 1969, when the voting age was last lowered. Indeed, when many of us were at school, our only access to current affairs came through being encouraged to read the daily papers in the school library.

Sixteen-year-olds can join the armed forces and, with parental consent, get married. Many of them are active in the world of work, whether full or part time, and are therefore subject to employment law and health and safety law, or the lack thereof. They are subject to the law on national insurance contributions and income tax. It is wholly appropriate that the Bill should allow the Welsh Government to state in a resolution to cause an income tax referendum whether the age for qualifying to vote in that referendum should be 18 or 16. We support the Lords amendments.

[Geraint Davies]

In general, for the reasons that we have just heard, I am in favour of reducing the voting age to 16, both because of the increased awareness of young people and because the focus of budgetary control and discussion in the parliamentary arena will shift more towards education and investment in our future. My concern about this move in isolation, with 16-year-olds being allowed to vote on the highly technical issue of marginal tax rates and thresholds, is that the turnout in the referendum will be low, and the turnout of 16 to 18-year-olds will be extremely low and may discredit some of the excellent arguments that have been made for reducing the voting age to 16. I wonder what efforts the Government will make to educate these prospective voters so that they have an informed view about this technical issue.

I was fortunate enough to study economics at university—obviously I understand all these issues—but a lot of people aged 16 to 18 will not have had that benefit. The issues are difficult. I support the move in general, but I am concerned that the turnout will be low, so I wonder what the Government will do about that.

16:45

[Chris Ruane]

I welcome the Government’s proposals to give 16 to 18-year-olds a vote in a referendum on income tax raising powers. I would also like those young people to have a general right to vote in all elections —general elections, Assembly elections, local elections and other referendums.

I share the concern of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), however, as the move needs to be accompanied by civic education. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) has a degree in economics, but even the great Member himself does not quite understand everything about the subject.

[Geraint Davies]

On a point of information, I do.

[Chris Ruane]

That is as may be.

It is incumbent on us and the National Assembly for Wales to make sure that, if young people aged 16, 17 or 18 are to have the right to vote in the referendum, they have the relevant education, background and knowledge.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Surely part of our function is to ensure that we have an informed debate, and assisting people as they come to a conclusion about how to vote is part of our function as well, is it not?

[Chris Ruane]

I agree entirely, but that should not be left to a short campaign two or three weeks before a referendum; it should be as of right.

I was a teacher for 15 years, admittedly in a primary school rather than a secondary one. We should try to teach these issues at a level that young people will understand. By the age of 18, someone has the right to have a mortgage. We need to make sure that young people are educated, in ways they understand, about mortgage rates, interest rates and student loans.

[Stephen Crabb]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is in no way belittling primary school children, but I should say that I have faced some of my most challenging questions when visiting primary schools, not least about the Chartist movement when I visited a Newport primary school.

[Chris Ruane]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I used to delegate the collection of the orange squash money to the brightest child in the class, whose money-counting skills were greater than mine.

We need to educate young people, especially about student loans and VAT, so that when they put their X in the box, they are making an informed decision. They need to know the crucial difference between progressive and regressive taxes.

[Mr Mark Williams]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I used to teach primary school children. He will be aware of the sense of injustice that primary school children and older children will feel. The biggest injustice does not relate to not being educated on these matters, but to being denied a vote in one election and then allowed a vote in another. Yes, we welcome what the Government have done—I pay tribute to Lord Tyler and Lord Thomas of Gresford in the other place who pushed the issue forward—but is not the biggest injustice the inconsistency between different elections?

[Chris Ruane]

I agree entirely. I would prefer it if young people were able to vote in all elections. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) said that he was wary of Tories bringing gifts, but I welcome this gift from them to 16 and 17-year-olds, especially as such gifts do not usually come from their party.

The move represents a foot in the door for opening up voting rights to 16 to 18-year-olds in other elections. The small precedent of voting in one referendum has been set. A path has been paved ready, I hope, for when Labour gets in in May, and we can point to this as a precedent and say, “If it’s been done for a referendum, it can be done for all other votes.”

We need to look particularly carefully at the registration of 16 to 18-year-olds, as that will have to start quite early on. Using the precedent that 18-year-olds can be registered to vote at the age of 16, perhaps these young people should be registered at the age of 14. As I said earlier, a golden opportunity comes when a young person’s national insurance number is issued at the age of 15 and three quarters. I have raised this point in parliamentary questions. Currently a young person can be registered at 16. Could not that be taken back three months to 15 and three quarters, when their national insurance number is issued? With the introduction of individual electoral registration, a person’s national insurance number is required when they fill in the registration form. Why not arrange to have that form filled in on the day when the elector gets their national insurance number? That would make eminent sense, and it would also get over the fact that only 55% of 18-year-olds are registered, as I said earlier, and only 44% of them vote. Only 25% of young people take part in the democratic process.

That has consequences for young people as individuals and for the whole of society. Let me give a practical example. One of the first steps the coalition Government took was to increase student loans from £3,000 a year to £9,000 a year, so, for an average student, the total rose from £9,000 to £27,000. Would they have taken such measures against pensioners, whose registration rates are 96% and whose voting rates are 86%? The fact that young people are not registered and voting means that political parties—all political parties—will bear that in mind when they are drawing up their policies. It is important that we have maximum registration from the outset for 16-year-olds who will have the right to vote.

[Mr Llwyd]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that when we come to discuss things economic with young people who may not be highly qualified, it is best to avoid phrases like “post-neo-classical endogenous growth theory”?

[Geraint Davies]

That was what I learned in school.

[Chris Ruane]

My hon. Friend is taking issue with the right hon. Gentleman. There is a place for such terminology in some debates, but perhaps not those with 16-year-olds.

The issue of civics should go beyond finance and how we organise our economy. The finances of a country can impinge on wider issues such as racism, sexism and consumerism. There are threats from parties out there that are against the fabric of our British society. They want to promote the issue of race. It is fine if they want to discuss that, but it has to be done with intelligence, not bigotry.

The introduction of voting rights for young people at the age of 16 for the income tax raising powers referendum is a good idea. We should be very wary of what the Electoral Commission has done—or has not done—in the past if we are to make sure that these young people are registered. The Electoral Commission should be contacting electoral registration officers in the 22 authorities in Wales to make sure that they know how to register these young people. It should be regularly monitoring best practice from around the UK—indeed, around the world—and relaying that information to the Welsh Government in Cardiff to make sure that best practice is pursued in Wales for the purposes of registration for the referendum.

Best practice in registering young people exists in Northern Ireland. The EROs in Northern Ireland are proactive in going out to schools to register young people. We should be doing that, but the Electoral Commission has refused to replicate in the rest of the UK what is now done in Northern Ireland.

The Electoral Commission has failed to ensure that electoral registration officers obey the law. Statutorily, they must knock on the door of non-responders. If a 16-year-old was not registered to vote for the referendum, for example, the local ERO would have to go round, knock on the door and register that 16-year-old. Even though that requirement has been set out in law for many years, there has not been a single prosecution of an ERO who has broken the law. One ERO in Devon has broken the law by not conducting a door-to-door canvass for five years on the trot, but the Electoral Commission has done nothing about it.

We should make sure that the Electoral Commission warns EROs in Wales about that. We do have best practice in Wales. My own electoral registration officer, Gareth Evans, is one of best performing EROs in the whole country, but not all officers are as good as him, and we need to make sure that they all perform at the standards of the best so that young people are registered.

The Electoral Commission has failed miserably to use the most effective and efficient third-party organisations, such as Bite the Ballot, to get young people on to the electoral register. Bite the Ballot can register young people for as little as 25p per registration, but when one compares the cost of the Electoral Commission’s advertising campaign with the number of registration forms downloaded from the internet, it spent £80 per registration in 2005. The commission should therefore work with EROs in Wales, as well as with Bite the Ballot, to encourage them to ensure that 16-year-olds are registered from the outset.

This is a great opportunity, and I congratulate both elements of the coalition, especially the Conservatives. It is not in their nature to extend the vote. They are rightly fearful of young people, which is perhaps why they are not talking much about the lack of registration at national level. Registration rates in some wards in student areas of big university cities such as Manchester and Liverpool are as low as 20% following the move over to IER. I congratulate everyone, including my Front-Bench colleagues, and I hope that we will learn from this opportunity and go on to extend to 16 to 18-year-olds the right to vote in all elections.

[Alun Cairns]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) for the positive way in which he has ended this debate. He contributed to it by highlighting the need for young people to be educated about the process, and the need for us to engage with the activities of electoral registration officers, which were mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Ceredigion (Mr Williams).

The Lords amendments are intended to be positive. They will extend the powers of the Assembly. They provide greater powers than those in the original Bill, and this is the first time that we have had the opportunity to discuss them. At some stages of the debate, I felt that although all parties are in favour of those powers, they were being welcomed almost through gritted teeth. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd for finishing on a positive note.

Some hon. Members said that they have campaigned for votes at 16 for a very long time, but if there was such support, the extension of the vote could have been done during the 13 years of the previous Labour Administration. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) pointed out that he tabled amendments at the time and they were certainly not accepted by Labour. However, I want to be positive.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

It is a shame that the Minister is speaking on a sour note. May I ask him to bear in mind the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) made about encouraging electoral registration officers and others to register young people at age 15, when they get their national insurance number? That seems a good idea, so will the Minister contact his colleagues in the Cabinet Office to encourage it? It would be administratively neat and I suspect that, as my hon. Friend suggested, it would help boost voter registration among young people, which has to be a good thing. We should have this debate in that positive way rather than go in a sour direction, as the Minister has done.

[Alun Cairns]

I do not intend to be sour in any way, shape or form. I want to be positive, because the Bill will extend the powers of the Assembly and is welcomed by all parties. It is important that it is recognised in that way, rather than in the churlish way in which it has been welcomed in some quarters. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point positively, and the Cabinet Office will have heard his suggestion and the contributions of other Members, including the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd. Those points go well beyond the scope of the Lords amendments, but they have been well made and received in a positive way, which is how the debate should finish.

The Bill has passed through both Houses, and we all need to recognise that it represents a major shift in powers and that there is a great opportunity for Wales, the Assembly and the Welsh Government if they use those powers productively and enthusiastically. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for how he has handled the Bill since taking office, but also to his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), for his contribution in steering the Bill through the House, and to Baroness Randerson for her activities in the other place. I also pay tribute to the officials and everyone else who has worked on the Bill, particularly in the Wales Office. I hope that the House will support the Lords amendments.

Lords amendment 14 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.

Lords amendments 15 and 16 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Revenue Scotland and Tax Powers Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Mr Wallace.)

Question agreed to.

Prison Officers (Work-related Stress)

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Wallace.)

17:03

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

The background to the debate is the publication last month of a report on work-related stress and the well-being of prison officers. It was commissioned by the Prison Officers Association because of the union’s ongoing serious concerns about the health of its members, especially in the light of the Government’s policy of increasing the retirement age to 68 for prison officers and the startling cuts that have taken place.

The report was undertaken by three experts in the field of occupational health, and particularly occupational psychology, at the university of Bedfordshire. I pay tribute to those researchers for their assiduous work. They were Dr Gail Kinman, who is professor of occupational health psychology; Dr Andrew Clements, a lecturer in occupational psychology; and, assisting them, Jacqui Hart, a PhD candidate and researcher. All of them are appropriately qualified and have high reputations in the field.

Let me take the House through some of the findings of the research, which many of us have found shocking to say the least. The Health and Safety Executive establishes benchmarks to measure and monitor work-related stress among employees. Those benchmarks have been developed into a framework after extensive consultation with employers and the unions, and they are agreed standards by which organisations employing staff can assess the work-related stress experienced by those staff.

There are seven elements of work activity—described as the psychosocial hazards—and they are the most critical predictions of employee well-being. They relate first to the demands of the job—the work load, pace, and hours of work—and to control of work, which is the way a person can control their working environment. There is also management support, peer support—the help workers receive from their colleagues—and relationships, which includes interpersonal relationships, interpersonal conflicts and bullying. The benchmarks also include the measurement of the role and whether the job requirements are clear, and whether or not there is belief in the objectives of the organisation. The final benchmark is about change and how well that is communicated and managed in an organisation. The Health and Safety Executive has developed a self-reporting questionnaire that is widely used across industry and the public service.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Last week I met representatives from the Prison Officers Association to discuss mindfulness in the Prison Service. Mindfulness has been accepted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence as an intervention for repeat episodes of depression, but it also improves compassion, reduces absenteeism, helps with relationship building, and reduces stress. Does my hon. Friend think that mindfulness in the Prison Service could help improve job satisfaction and the mental and physical health of prison officers?

[John McDonnell]

I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend in this House in introducing mindfulness training for Members as well as staff, and developing that whole concept. I have explored the development of mindfulness which, despite elements of contention, has become extremely popular in its application in working environments. I will suggest to the Minister that we need a meeting to talk about the strategy from here on in, and one provision we could include in that is the offer of services such as mindfulness in the sector, which could prove extremely effective.

[Chris Ruane]

A new prison is to be built in Wrexham and the chief executive of North Wales health authority is predisposed towards mindfulness. Does my hon. Friend think that teaching mindfulness to prisoners and prison officers at that new prison from the outset would be a good experiment and pilot scheme for mindfulness in prisons?

[John McDonnell]

Given our concerns about that prison—a Titan prison that will house a larger number of prisoners than any other prison has housed—and about the scale of such a prison and the problems that will result from it, I think mindfulness would be an important strategy that should be built in from the beginning.

As I was saying, the health and safety questionnaire was developed in consultation with employers and union representatives. It is now used widely across the public and private sectors and is based on a self-report questionnaire. It is a standard procedure used by academics who in this case established a survey online. They received 1,682 respondents, which is as large as any national opinion poll, and it was a fairly representative sample.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman warmly on obtaining this Adjournment debate. The Prison Service is little short of being in crisis. Since 2010, prison officer numbers have been cut by 41%, but the prison population has gone up. The ratio of prison officers to prisoners has never been so bad, and that is a danger. Both the hon. Gentleman and I are officers of the justice unions parliamentary group, and I hope that the Minister will agree to meet us to discuss this important issue.

[John McDonnell]

I know that the Minister cares about this issue, and I alerted him in advance of this debate that that is one of the requests that we would make. The survey is shocking. Even the in-house survey carried out by the National Offender Management Service has some shocking results in comparison with other areas of the public service. I will come on to my request for a meeting on how we might take this issue forward.

In the survey, the prison officers scored considerably worse than any other sector on all the seven hazard indicators. There were large gaps—the well-being gap—on issues such as demands of the job; the control that people feel they have of their work; management support, which is extremely disappointing; and relationships and change. The gap was less on peer support, so prison officers appear to get better support from their colleagues than they do from management.

The survey was compared with the London prisons survey of 2010. The levels of well-being for peer support were similar, but the scores for management support, control, the roles that people play and relationships were considerably poorer. The management of change was rated considerably poorer than in the earlier survey.

The quotes from the individual members surveyed can be more revealing than the figures. One of the questions was about time and other pressures of work. I could cite numerous quotes from the report—I have provided the Minister with a copy—but I shall give just a few:

“The pressure is on from the time you walk in to the time you walk out. It is full on all the time. You try to get a moment to yourself but something always crops up and you are off again.”

Another officer says:

“Currently, with the staffing shortfalls and the new regime they’ve got in place, it is constant crisis-management every day of the week. There is no let up.”

On every question, the individual responses are stark and revealing. On management support, one officer said:

“No support or care. No compassion. More time spent defending ourselves against management than against inmates.”

Another said:

“Previously, every person I had to line manage I knew as an individual. I knew their strengths and their weaknesses. Now I’m lucky if I see the staff I report on once every couple of months.”

Prison officers work in a very specific environment, dealing with challenging individuals, so there is always a risk of violence and intimidation, but I did not realise the scale of that until I read the survey.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prison Service is not only in crisis, but is a powder keg? Somebody must be held accountable because someone, somewhere will be seriously hurt in the Prison Service. Nine members of staff are assaulted daily, which means 3,400 a year, up 9.4%. More dramatically, serious assaults on staff have increased by 36% since 2010. What does that say about the Prison Service at this time?

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend refers to the crisis in our prisons, which is a consistent theme coming out not just from this survey but from all the discussions that have taken place, including the representations we have received from both prison officers and former governors.

A total of 49% of prison officers said that they receive intimidation and threats from prisoners often and regularly, and 30% had been assaulted with more than half of those having to take time off as a result. On the level of management support, 70% said there was little support from management. There is one quote from a prison officer that I found particularly startling:

“I have seen active service whilst in the army, but I have never felt as vulnerable and threatened as I do in my current role.”

On stress, one third reported that their doctor had diagnosed them with stress-related illness—a clinical diagnosis of stress—since working for their current employer. It was also felt that there was a stigma attached to disclosing stress, and that it could make a prison officer subject to discrimination. That is extremely worrying.

The survey included a general health questionnaire that is used to assess aspects of psychological health and somatic symptoms, such as feeling run down or suffering from headaches, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction—not being able to enjoy everyday life, or not being able to make decisions—and depression, where people felt that life was hopeless. I was shocked by the figures. Six out of 10 reported that they were under strain. The worst figure was that one in 10 reported that sometimes life was just not worth living. The researchers who undertook the survey are experts in this field. They said that there were unusually high levels of psychological distress and that a high proportion required some degree of intervention to improve their well-being.

Another issue considered was emotional exhaustion— the concept of burn-out. This was extremely high, with 74% saying that they felt emotionally drained at work at least once a week. Some of that related to physical health, with 18% reporting chronic health problems. Hypertension is the most common problem. The survey also included questions about work-life balance, which is one of the psychosocial issues that comes up when assessing one’s enjoyment of work and career. Eight out of 10 responded that their time at work stopped them participating in family life, and six out of 10 frequently felt too emotionally drained to participate in family life. They were asked a question that is fairly common in such surveys: whether they dwelt on work problems outside of work. Some 70% said they could not switch off, while 50% were troubled by work-related issues when not at work. On job satisfaction, six out of 10 had considered leaving the Prison Service in the near future, and seven out of 10 said that if they could choose again they would choose a different job.

What conclusions can be drawn from this? First, it is blindingly obvious from the survey that psychosocial working conditions are far from satisfactory. None of the Health and Safety Executive’s objective benchmarks has been met. The researchers said that the psychological stress levels for this group of workers were far higher than in other emotionally demanding occupations, including police and social workers, with reports of anxiety, sleep disruption, cognitive failure including memory loss and, most worryingly, the one in 10 who felt that life was not worth living. The researchers said that there is an urgent need for employment bodies to take steps to protect the psychological well-being of their staff.

Some of these issues have to be addressed urgently. Like other Members, I have talked to POA members, front-line staff and representatives, and the same story comes up time and again. Staffing cuts have placed the service in crisis, and the staff and the prisoners they look after are suffering. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) mentioned the number of assaults. Nine members of staff are assaulted every day—up 9.4% recently—which is 3,400 a year, while the number of serious assaults is up 36%. Last year, we published a report on prison violence. It was circulated to hon. Members, but I will place it again in the Library. It was a shocking report, and I make no apologies for insisting that pictures of assault victims be published as well, because they are absolutely horrendous. Nobody should have to experience or risk that on a daily basis in their working lives.

As we know, the number of prison suicides has increased by 69%. It is a tragedy for the prisoner and their families, but it also has an impact on other prisoners and the staff who have to handle and deal with the suicide. All the evidence suggests that it can be devastating for the members of staff, and there is evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder among staff who have to deal with suicides.

I return to the conclusion that many have reached, which is that much of this is related to staffing cuts. I have asked for the figures provided by the Prison Service to the Prison Service Pay Review Body, because I thought that they would be the most accurate. There has been a cut in staff numbers from 51,212 to 37,218 in the past four years—a cut of 27.3%. In the prison officer grades, there has been a cut from 25,553 to 18,934 members of staff—a 25.9% cut. I know that various figures are bandied about—the Minister and others have presented us with various figures—but whatever the exact figures, the scale of the cuts has been acknowledged overall.

As I said in the Justice Committee, I think the Government miscalculated the prison population and cut too many staff, and I am told that they are now recruiting up to 1,700 officers—almost in a panic measure—and trying to recruit the 800 staff laid off in the last year into a reserve army to be used almost on an agency basis. As a result of the staff cuts, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said, there has been a significant increase in the staff to prisoner ratio from 1:2.9 in 2010 to 1:3.8. Overall, that means we have fewer members of staff looking after more offenders.

Staffing numbers are an issue, but staffing support also matters. The Minister has a responsibility—well, we all have a responsibility—to build sufficient staff resource into the system to address the stress and psychological well-being issues identified in the report. I have heard reports of what is available to staff now, but there seems to be a significant lack of confidence in the facilities available and in the management support given to staff.

The POA and prison officers generally have also raised the issue of the retirement age. Prison officers now face having to work until they are 68. When he reported on public sector pensions provision, Lord Hutton recommended that exceptions be made to the overall increase in pension age for uniformed services, where

“the Normal Pension Age should be set to reflect the unique characteristics of the work involved. The Government should consider setting a…Normal Pension Age of 60 across the uniformed…services…and keep this under…review.”

Unfortunately, the only uniformed services identified were the police, armed forces and firefighters. For some reason I have yet to discover, prison officers were not included, even though they are a uniformed service and even though, as we see from the research, they are suffering from greater stress and psychological problems arising from their work load—more than the police or social workers.

[Ian Lavery]

Is it right that in 2014, we as a nation should be asking 68-year-old men and women to tackle some of the most dangerous people in the country?

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. A question was put to prison officers in a survey, and 75% indicated that working after 60 would very much or significantly impair their job performance. The prison officers do not think that they can do their job effectively after the age of 60. I have to say that sometimes we just have to listen to the people who do the job.

I had some discussions with prison officers and a number of them agreed with the view that they were being asked to do an impossible job. They said that they were being put under unacceptable further pressure and that the Government needed to look again at the issue of pension age and at why this uniformed service was discriminated against in comparison with the others.

Let me suggest a way forward. We received research commissioned by the POA but undertaken independently by the university of Bedfordshire, and there is also the Prison Service’s own survey. Particularly concerning are the differences between the scores highlighted for members of the Prison Service in comparison with others in the civil service. There were large discrepancies between how people felt about their job and how they were being treated. Let me cite an example. When it came to recommending Her Majesty’s Prison Service as a great place to work, only 21% were positive. In the area on “my work” there was a score of minus 15% in comparison with the civil service survey and from high performers the score was minus 18%. On “my manager”, it was minus 24%; and on “resources and workload” it was minus 19%—and so it goes on. When it came to discrimination, bullying and harassment, 19% said that they had experienced discrimination at work over the past 12 months, while 18% had experienced the bullying or harassment themselves. Even in the National Offender Management Service survey, some of the figures are somewhat worrying.

The overall evidence from the university of Bedfordshire and even from the Government’s own survey shows clearly that we need another way forward. First, we need an urgent meeting between the justice unions parliamentary group and the Minister to discuss the research and to establish how to develop support for staff and tackle some of the identified issues of work-related stress.

Secondly, in light of this research, I urge the Government to look again at the pension age of prison officers. If necessary, they should commission further research if the current research is not satisfactory. If we need a more detailed examination of forcing prison officers to work until they are 68, I would welcome the opportunity at least to engage in a further review of that decision, backed up by further research.

The third issue is about staffing. I know that the Minister will report that new staff are being recruited. I hope that that happens as quickly as possible and that we can get them trained and into our prisons. We have, however, lost a lot of experienced trained staff as a result of the cuts. As a consequence, I believe that our prisons are now not only less safe, but are not fulfilling the role of rehabilitation that we want them to fulfil. Thus, for now and the future, lessons need to be learned from the staffing cuts that we have seen. I am convinced that we will have a constructive response from the Minister to the idea of having a meeting and working on these issues together to resolve what I find to be an extremely worrying situation.

[Mr Llwyd]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I gather that the right hon. Gentleman has the agreement of the Minister.

[Mr Llwyd]

Perhaps I could ask the Minister whether I have his agreement.

[Mr Speaker]

It is the normal convention. The Minister is a very agreeable and agreeing sort of fellow, and so is the right hon. Gentleman. I therefore think that we can probably proceed in a harmonious manner, subject only to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) being content. I anticipate that he will agree, because he is a caring, sharing Member.

17:30

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

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, and, given the number of years that I have been in the House, I am amazed. One learns something new every day, and I am obliged to you for having taught me something extra today.

Over the years, in my capacity as a lawyer, I have visited many prisons. When prisons are overcrowded, the atmosphere can almost be cut with a knife. Some years ago, I visited someone who was on remand in Bedford prison. In those days, Bedford was as overcrowded as some of our prisons typically are today. It was not a very comfortable place to be in, even for an hour’s conference with an accused person, and I wonder what it was like for prison staff, and for the prisoners themselves, when there was lockdown for 15 or 16 hours a day. Lockdown is one of the facets of overcrowding. It means no rehabilitation, and it means that there is little likelihood of someone coming out of a prison in a better frame of mind than the one in which he or she went in.

I applaud the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for seeking time for discussion of this matter. I was also at the launch of the report to which he referred, and I think that it is a valuable document. We are always talking about the need for evidence-based policy, and this report is evidence-based if ever anything was. Three academics, specialists in their field, were commissioned to prepare it, and I am sure that the Minister will not in any way seek to impugn their integrity by suggesting that because it was commissioned by the Prison Officers Association, they might have reached a view before the evidence had been collated. That would be unfair and unjustified, and I can see no basis for it.

I shall truncate my speech, because the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has made all the points that needed to be made, but I shall make one or two brief observations. As the Minister will know, overcrowding increases the risk of violence. Unfortunately, the risk of violence is very high at present. I know that there is a difference of opinion between the Ministry of Justice and the Justice Committee, of which the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and I are members, but something that could well be described as a potential crisis is now on our doorstep.

Prison officers are, by and large, rough, tough individuals. They are not shrinking violets by any means; if they were, they would not be in the job in the first place. However, in the report, one prison officer said:

“I feel…let down. I signed up with the prison service at 21 to work until I was 60. 1 am now 48, and my health and stamina are starting to weaken. I do not feel strong enough to cope with the young prisoners who are more violent than ever before and have more freedom to attack staff and get away with it. Being told I have to work till 68 is the last straw—I will be burned out or dead before I get to retire”.

Another said:

“When involved in restraining prisoners I find I pick up little niggling injuries a lot more than I did 10 years ago. I know I will not physically be able to deal with this part of the job when I am over 60.”

And another gentleman said:

“No matter how fit you are, at 68 you are not going to be able to fight or roll round the floor doing C and R with a 20-25 year old who goes to the gym every day and pumps iron.”

I do not think that we need to stress those points. Suffice it to say that prison officers feel greatly under threat. As the Minister knows, there is now a higher incidence of lockdown, which is never a happy position for prisoners, staff or anyone to be in. It creates a bad atmosphere, and it sets any thought of rehabilitation backward. That, in my view, is fairly obvious.

The report is excellent, and it provides good evidence. If the Minister thinks that other reports should be prepared, so be it, but I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington in asking him to meet members of the justice unions’ parliamentary group, of which the hon. Gentleman and I are officers. We want to discuss this matter not to make any political points, but to ensure that we have a healthy and safe environment for prisoners and prison staff in order to maximise rehabilitation and, above all, safety. One of the ways forward is to reconsider the definition of uniformed agencies. That point has been made and brings to mind Lord Hutton’s view. I urge the Minister to take heed of both what has been said in this debate and the need for an urgent meeting so that we can discuss these matters fully—not, as I said, to make political points and for point scoring, but because they are urgent issues and we as parliamentarians and Ministers need to address them in the best way we possibly can.

I thank the Minister for agreeing, in that rather strange way across the Chamber, for me to have my tuppence-worth, and you, Mr Speaker, for your forbearance in this matter.

17:36

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I echo the thoughts of the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), and thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Minister for letting me speak, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I also congratulate him on securing this debate.

I had not intended to speak. I was halfway out the door when I heard the subject of the debate, and I came back to listen to it because it is an important subject. My hon. Friend has given some crucial facts to us, such as that 60% of prison officers feel under tremendous strain and one in 10 feel that life is not worth living. These are terrible statistics. I would like to add to those the statistics that I have received from parliamentary questions, such as that 90% of prisoners have one of the top five psychiatric conditions, and, as my hon. Friend said, that there has been a 69% increase in prison suicides over the past year alone. If we have prison officers on one side who are highly stressed and prisoners on the other side who are highly stressed, that is a recipe for disaster. It is a potentially explosive situation which I think needs to be looked at in the round.

I want to be consensual in what I say, but I do think stopping prisoners receiving books, or proposing to do that, was a step backwards. It was a step towards the 19th century, not the 21st century. I hope the rest of my speech will be consensual, however.

Within society itself, there is a mental health crisis. According to another parliamentary question I put down, there was a 500% increase in the issuing of prescriptions for anti-depressants between 1991 and 2011, from 9 million prescriptions to 49 million. There is an issue in society, therefore, but it is exacerbated within prisons.

As I mentioned in my intervention, I believe that mindfulness can play an important role in helping us to get on top of these issues. Mindfulness was introduced in Parliament by me and Professor Richard Layard, a Labour Lord, in January last year. Some 115 MPs and Lords have been involved, and 10% of MPs have had mindfulness training. It has been introduced here in Parliament, which is a hothouse—there is a lot of stress here—and I think it can be rolled out to the Prison Service, the police service and the armed services.

What matters is how we pitch mindfulness as an intervention, so that it is accepted. In fact it is quite chic. Arianna Huffington of The Huffington Post practises and preaches it. It is done by Apple, Google and all the top international companies. If it is good enough for the captains of industry, it is also good enough for ordinary workers like prison officers and police officers, and, indeed, their clients, in tandem—because mindfulness works best when it includes the teacher and the pupil, the GP and the patient, so that compassion is increased.

I believe that if we were to introduce mindfulness in prisons, it would help with a whole range of issues. Prisoners are literally a captive audience. They are in there 24 hours a day, and what do they do? Do they learn the skills that mindfulness brings—the skills of gratitude, appreciation, personal balance and equanimity that would help them to be better prisoners? Those skills would help them to be less violent towards the prison guards and to be better citizens when they move out into society.

This has worked in the past. Prison officers and police officers face stressful situations. A £5 million grant was given to the US Marines to undertake mindfulness training in a pre-combat situation. They were trained in the US before they went out to Afghanistan and Iraq and it worked. Indeed, it was such a success that it is now being rolled out to the US army. If it can work for big beefy Marines, it could work for British prison officers. The work with the Marines involved a five-year pilot project. The results are still coming in, but they are all positive.

The biggest impacts for the Marines were not only in the field among the officers and their fellow Marines, but in their relationships with their spouses and children when they got back to the US. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned the fact that prison officers felt disconnected when they went home at night and were unable to take part in family activities because they were so stressed out. Also, they do not earn fantastic wages. All jobs are stressful, but sometimes these officers’ family lives and community lives are destroyed because of needless stress. Sometimes we politicians take decisions that make people’s jobs even more stressful, and the stress for those officers has been cranked up in recent years with the increase in the number of prisoners and the reduction in the number of prison officers.

We have a golden opportunity to introduce mindfulness in prisons. Prison officers and police officers were in Parliament last week, in Westminster Hall, to meet representatives of the Mindfulness Initiative, which is looking into the use of mindfulness in the criminal justice system, in education, in the health service and in the workplace. We have taken evidence from experts across the UK and around the world, and we are now drawing up policies that we hope to present on 15 January next year. I will send the Minister a copy of those policies, and I hope that he will be able to make an assessment of the role of mindfulness in the prison service and the emergency services.

I hope, too, that the Minister will consider introducing mindfulness in the new prison in Wrexham. Health services are devolved; they are a Welsh Government issue and a North Wales Health Authority issue. Prison services, however, are not devolved. There needs to be a meeting between the health authority, Ministers in Cardiff and Ministers here in London to consider setting up a pilot project to measure key indicators such as the absenteeism of prison officers, the recidivism of prisoners and the stress levels of all involved. If mindfulness worked in the Wrexham setting, perhaps it could be rolled out across the whole of the British prison service for the benefit of the prison officers, of the prisoners and of wider society.

17:43

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who initiated the debate. He is a member of the Justice Committee, as is the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd). I almost regretted allowing the right hon. Gentleman to speak, for fear of being unable to pronounce the name of his constituency, but I hope that I have done it justice.

Last, but certainly not least, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) for his remarks. Let me deal with his points about mindfulness straight away. I can tell him that the NHS has set out five ways to well-being, the fifth of which is mindfulness. The Ministry of Justice has already started working on this issue and will launch projects on mindfulness in the new year. The director of NOMS in Wales, Sarah Payne, takes a particular interest in this important issue, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it.

Let me say at the outset that prison officers face significant demands on a daily basis, and that working effectively with some of the most difficult members of society face to face takes a special set of skills, values and ability. I am immensely proud of the commitment of our prison staff in delivering their work. Behind the closed walls of prisons, these civil servants undertake essential services on behalf of society, and they do so professionally to keep us all safe. The POA-commissioned survey on work-related stress among prison officers draws attention to several important themes. Although there are some differences in the outcomes of the separate 2014 NOMS staff survey, it would be wrong to dwell on those at the expense of a more focused debate. We need to understand the work environment that prison officers encounter on a daily basis and what is done to support those charged with carrying out one of the most difficult but rewarding jobs in society. It is also important to recognise that the challenge that prison officers face has increased over recent months as a consequence of staffing shortages, an unexpected rise in the prisoner population and the unprecedented change being delivered by the prison benchmarking programme. That programme has the support of the POA.

Substantial work is under way to address the shortfalls and to support change but, in the short term, it is understandable that many staff have felt under significantly more pressure during 2014. It is also important to acknowledge that, regrettably, that position has been exacerbated by an increase in prisoner assaults on staff and prison violence in general. Understandably, in some cases staff have reported to governors that they feel less safe. I want to make it absolutely clear that NOMS understands that, and that every incident and every event of violence against NOMS staff is taken extremely seriously. It is not acceptable that any member of staff is injured in the line of duty.

[Ian Lavery]

Does the Minister share my concerns about the situation at HMP Northumberland, which is in my area? When that prison was privatised, Sodexo immediately reduced the work force by a third, yet the prison population has been increasing. Have not prison officers who are left to carry out the work every right to be stressed? What will the Minister do about it?

[Andrew Selous]

Those who manage contracted prisons absolutely have a duty to make sure that they keep their staff as well. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will go on to say what we are doing about this important issue.

NOMS takes its responsibilities under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 very seriously. We are working towards a new protocol for escalating matters when prison staff are victims of assault to the Crown Prosecution Service, which rightly recognises the seriousness of these incidents. In my time as Minister, I have encountered excellent examples of how governors and their teams have worked closely with staff and trade unions to listen to concerns and to introduce more structured regimes that better reflect the resource available and provide more reassurance for staff.

It is also relevant to this debate that we are clear about what NOMS is doing to address the staffing situation and that we explore in more detail the significant welfare support that NOMS already has in place to support this group of front-line public servants in critical roles. To address the staffing shortfalls, NOMS has over the past few months recruited new prison officers at unprecedented levels: 850 will have joined by Christmas, with a further 250 by February; and NOMS is on target to have recruited 1,700 in total by April. Plans are already in place to meet the future prison officer recruitment plan for 2015-16, with a further 1,000 prison officers starting at that point.

In addition, NOMS has an active staff reserve, which is made up of experienced former prison officers, to provide flexible additional support as part of a modernised service. As those resources come into place in prisons, the operational pressures on staff to work additional payment-plus hours and to provide detached duty support to other prisons will reduce significantly and beneficially in the new year. That information has been welcomed by POA colleagues and will impact positively on staff well-being.

In the new year, as prisons begin to reach their new benchmark staffing levels and transition to new safe, decent and secure operating levels, staff will have an increased opportunity to focus on the quality of the work that originally interested them, namely to reduce reoffending and to change lives for the better.

The evidence that the Prison Service continues to provide a rewarding career in which staff are able to change lives is irrefutable. It is demonstrated in the commitment and tenacity that prison officers have shown in recent months in the difficult circumstances that I have described. It is also evident in the organisation’s ability to attract 1,700 new prison officer recruits.

Staff turnover is only 2% for NOMS employees. Officer leaving rates for 2013-14 were 3.8%. More than 96% of the officers employed by NOMS choose to stay. The average length of service of a prison officer is 14 years. This is a demanding but rewarding role in which staff can and do make a significant and positive impact on offenders’ lives.

NOMS will continue to support staff and to provide them with the skills and development opportunities that they need to be able to perform their duties with confidence. New prison officers are tested for their suitability to work in a prison environment. They must pass a fitness test and full occupational health assessment before they are appointed to the role. Importantly, NOMS training investment also includes a strong focus on providing the necessary training and development that line managers need to support, coach and mentor staff.

For those staff who are regrettably assaulted on duty or who suffer ill health as a result of the impact of their work, there are well-established support mechanisms in place to help. It is perhaps one of the disappointing aspects of the POA-sponsored survey that it does not reflect the exceptional work between staff, managers and occupational health that has, in many cases, led to staff returning successfully to full duties through phased return-to-work programmes and counselling support.

We are committed to running safe establishments and are working hard to reduce violence in our prisons. We do not tolerate violence of any kind in prison and any assault is taken extremely seriously. A new violence reduction project is being established. There will be guidance to governors on that issue in early 2015, and we will implement a coherent set of short-term tangible actions that are aimed at reducing violence, some of which may involve trialling innovative approaches in targeted establishments.

The violence reduction project has been created to gain better understanding of the causes of the current levels of violence in prisons and to ensure that there is strength in the handling of violence in terms of both prevention and response. The project will consider such issues as the use of body-worn video cameras for prison officers, raising our intelligence capability to protect those officers and staff, developing more robust case management of violent prisoners, and the potential impact of the growing use of new psychoactive substances. We expect to be able to announce more in the new year.

We have always had a complex and challenging prison population, but we are taking appropriate steps to ensure that we carefully manage the increased levels of violence. We are also committed to managing violence and supporting the victims of assaults. The new joint protocol, to which I have referred, which is produced by NOMS, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers, will set out that when there are serious assaults on prison staff, the perpetrator will be prosecuted unless there is a good reason why not. As I have said, that initiative has been warmly welcome by the Prison Officers Association.

The increase in serious assaults is wholly unacceptable. However, we are holding a more violent population and, as I have told the Justice Committee, the number of people sentenced to prison for violent offences has increased by 40% over the past decade. We will never tolerate violence against our staff. We do not underestimate the hard work and challenges that they face on a daily basis and are continually looking at new ways to offer support. We are exploring new technology to protect staff, including body cameras and slash-resistant material to be worn under shirts.

The access that prison staff have to a range of counselling interventions is on a par with the very best of employers. Staff are provided with an occupational health adviser, who will work with them and their line manager to support them in the goal of a successful return to work. We have many examples of that working well. When staff are involved in a difficult prisoner incident, a structure that involves the use of in-house staff care teams, staffing debriefs and continuing support comes into effect as a matter of course.

Equally, the access that staff who are unable to work for a period of time have to sick pay provides a full opportunity for them to recuperate before returning to work. For staff who are unable to work for a period of time due to sickness absence, NOMS will pay six months on full pay and six months on half pay as part of the individual’s terms and conditions of employment. That can be extended in the case of an injury at work, as the governor has the opportunity to grant sick absence excusal in appropriate cases.

In recognition of the stressful nature of the prison working environment, NOMS is committed to supporting the well-being of staff by reducing stress and increasing employee attendance. There is also well-publicised support available to staff, including a comprehensive employee assistance programme, which operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It includes access to counselling and other therapies as required, a health promotion website and well-being zone, specialist trauma support services and mediation. A network of peer support in the form of care teams also operates in every prison and can be extremely effective.

Work on improving the management of stress in NOMS includes: regional stress action plans; individual stress risk assessments; a 24-hour helpline for staff; the inclusion of stress-related issues in people plans, listen-to-improve sessions and team meetings; governors using team meetings and focus groups to identify local stress issues, to show transparency in decision making and to offer feedback in resolving them; and the roll-out of stress-awareness workshops across the estate.

In addition to that support, I want to take this opportunity to share some of the good practice happening in the prison estate. There are numerous examples of governors maintaining regular contact with staff who are off and of presenting deputy director of custody commendations in cases where staff have been assaulted. The young people’s estate is also developing and implementing a post-assault protocol for supporting staff, which identifies a process to follow to ensure that staff are fully supported when they return to work.

Well-being days are also actively pursued as establishments recognise what a positive impact they have on staff. Staff who have been off sick are being given a mentor outside their line management. Staff have also been visited by their governor, either at home or in a neutral venue, and numerous establishments have referred staff to bespoke counselling sessions. I want to put all that on record to show the full extent of the care we take to look after our staff when they are assaulted, wholly unacceptably, in the line of their work.

In 2013-14, NOMS delivered 49 staff well-being events across the agency. Approximately 3,200 staff members attended those events for advice, support and health checks. Additionally, most prison staff are able to use the prison gym facilities at allotted times and may access support from local physical education instructors to design their own bespoke fitness and well-being programmes.

NOMS conducts an annual staff survey that includes elements that focus on well-being and motivation. This year’s survey had a 44% response rate, and 75% of respondents stated that they wanted to remain working for NOMS for at least the next year or three years. In line with the focus of the POA-sponsored survey, NOMS has adopted the Health and Safety Executive’s stress management standards as a framework for the prevention and control of stress, and it has issued a toolkit containing guidance and useful documents for use locally. NOMS encourages all staff, irrespective of their role or position within the organisation, to contribute actively towards the identification, prevention and management of stress. As I said, stress awareness workshops for staff are provided, as well as a 24-hour confidential helpline that staff can ring.

I am conscious that the well-being report makes reference to the retirement age of prison officers, so I wanted to respond to that by being clear that safe systems of work are in place across the prison estate to ensure that staff work in an environment that is as safe as reasonably practical. In this context, the current fitness standards and assessments for prison officers are based on the requirements of an individual to perform the job safely. Since July 2007, NOMS has been recruiting staff to work until the age of 65. It has employed new prison officers in their 60s who have passed the fitness test and are performing their roles effectively. In addition, a number of staff who have the right to retire at 60 now choose to work beyond their retirement age. A recent statistical report identified a total of 814 prison officers over the age of 60, with an average length of service of 24 years, who are working within NOMS.

I know that the Prison Officers Association will wish to put its case forward for further consideration on the retirement age of prison officers, as it is entitled to do. Following a meeting with my officials and the POA on 1 December, I agreed that officials and the POA could meet to discuss changes to the pension scheme and the associated retirement age. I know that members of the POA met officials on 1 December and I will consider the next steps on this matter with the Cabinet Office.

I conclude by thanking the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington and all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken this evening. I have a personal commitment to this extremely important matter. I find it wholly unacceptable that anyone who works for the state in any capacity should be assaulted in their line of duty. I take this issue seriously, I raise it regularly with officials and I will follow up on the initiatives that we have announced. Of course, my door is always open. I will agree to meet the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd at some point, our diaries permitting.

Question put and agreed to.

18:01

House adjourned.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 10 December 2014

[Albert Owen in the Chair]

Tibet

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(John Penrose.)

09:30

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I am delighted that Mr Speaker has granted this debate on freedom of expression in Tibet, which I believe is the first debate on Tibet for some years. I am particularly pleased that it is taking place on international human rights day, which is appropriate given the human rights abuses that Tibetans have suffered for decades, ever since the occupation of Tibet by China in 1950.

Chinese Government representatives and diplomats will say that Tibet has always been a part of China. They say that it has never been a separate nation or an independent state, but that is simply not true. However, gradually over the past 60 years or so, Tibetans have become second-class citizens in their own land.

I had the huge privilege of visiting Tibet in 2006, thanks to the insistence of colleagues on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, in particular the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley). The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was initially reluctant for members of the FAC—of whom I was one at the time—to go to Lhasa and other parts of the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region, but we insisted and, in May of that year, a small group of five British MPs was eventually given permission to travel from Beijing via Chengdu to Lhasa. We were accompanied by Barbara Woodward, then a senior British diplomat at our embassy in Beijing—I believe she is now the ambassador-designate—who spoke excellent Tibetan, and about 15 officials from the Chinese Government’s Foreign Ministry, who were there to look after our security and attend to any medical needs, given the high altitude of the Tibetan capital. The new railway from Chengdu was yet to open later that summer.

I did not expect that the visit would have such a profound effect on me and my colleagues. The sheer beauty of the ancient home of the Dalai Lamas, the Potala palace, and the surrounding Himalayan mountains make Lhasa a unique capital city. It is, as Tibetans often say, the roof of the world. On disembarking the aircraft at 13,000 feet above sea level there is a sensation of dizziness, which can last for several days at that altitude. Heinrich Harrar’s book, “Seven years in Tibet”, had given me some background to what we were about to see, but nothing quite prepares one for the reality. The city had changed quite a lot over the years and there were many more Han Chinese residents in 2006 than there ever had been. However, the old Barkhor area in the centre of Lhasa was mainly intact and the Buddhist temples have been carefully preserved in recent years, following their initial destruction at the beginning of the Chinese occupation.

Our hosts were impeccably polite and helpful, but they always kept a watchful eye on us by sitting in the lobby of the Yak hotel in the centre of town where we were staying. It was hard to get away from the minders, even just to go to the noodle bar next door, but on the final evening in Lhasa the former Member for Thurrock, Andrew Mackinlay and I managed to escape past the security people out of a back door and into the labyrinth of small streets that eventually led us to the Barkhor. Once there, we tried to speak to local traders, but most of them did not speak English or were too frightened to engage with a foreigner, or both. The overwhelming sense we felt from the Tibetans we managed to speak to was that they were highly religious Buddhists and that they missed the Dalai Lama, who was forced to flee from Tibet in 1959 after being told of a Chinese plot to murder him.

The reverence for Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet, was clear, but the fear of expressing any support for the exiled religious and political leader meant that few obvious signs of support were evident among most of the population. Local Tibetan Communist officials told us that the mediaeval feudalism that used to characterise Tibet before the enlightened Chinese Communist party liberated the Tibetan people meant that every Tibetan now had a far better lifestyle: they could live in a good home and have enough to eat.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene so early in his contribution and I am delighted that he is having this debate on this day. I wonder whether he or Andrew Mackinlay, or any of the other visiting Members, had the opportunity during their 2006 visit to obtain evidence of, or to discuss, human rights abuses, including torture, in Tibet. Will he enlighten us about that in his contribution?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution. Sadly, we did not have much of a chance to talk to anyone about what Tibetans had to suffer day in, day out, because we were not allowed access to any Tibetans without our minders from Beijing. However, we asked the abbot of one of the monasteries about the missing monks for whom we had records and names. He was extremely embarrassed and refused to answer our questions because of the people who were watching him. There was a sense of fear the whole time that we were there, but subsequently we discovered quite a lot, especially when we did our full inquiry into Britain and China. The people we were with said that the Tibetans were now better off under the Chinese People’s Republic, without a feudal monarchy over which they had no say or control—that they no longer had to be subjected to an ancient religious system of government that had subjugated them for centuries.

After leaving Lhasa, we travelled for several hours along dusty, deserted roads in a treeless wilderness towards the concrete-block town of Tsedang, a place that foreigners rarely visit, where silence greeted our entry into a run-down old bar on the evening of our arrival. The next morning we were to visit the oldest Buddhist monastery in Tibet, the eighth century Samye monastery, which is being carefully restored to its full glory by the Chinese after the damage wrought in the 1950s following the invasion. It was a truly remarkable place, but even there the interpreters were reluctant to mention the name of the Dalai Lama, who still had a throne waiting for him in one of the many rooms.

On our return to the UK, news of the trip quickly spread to the Tibet support groups and the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet, which I now have the privilege of chairing. I was asked to speak and to show my many stunning and extraordinary photographs, which I was happy to do. Just over a year later, in September 2007, I joined a visit organised by the APPG and the Tibet Society to Dharamsala to meet the exiled Tibetan community and, of course, His Holiness the Dalai Lama.

The Dalai Lama always talks about his middle way policy towards China. He jokes in his broken English that because Tibetans are no good with firearms, the Chinese are welcome to provide an army to defend Tibet and that Tibetan cooking is pretty awful, while Chinese food is very tasty, so most Tibetans would prefer to eat Chinese food. However, he thinks that the autonomy they are given should mean just that: the ability of Tibetans to have a say over their own future; to decide for themselves who their rulers should be; to speak their own language; to practise their own religion; and, most importantly, to have their Dalai Lama back among them, not continuing to live in exile.

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

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing today’s debate. I had the privilege of accompanying a delegation on a further visit to Dharamsala. Does he agree that the ability to express one’s own culture and to show religious affiliation is not available to Tibetans, who could find themselves in fear of their lives simply for having an image of their own national flag or spiritual leader?

[Fabian Hamilton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will go on to detail some of the human rights abuses perpetrated against Tibetans simply for expressing their support for their religious leader or displaying the Tibetan flag, which is something that we can freely do outside Tibet. That is reprehensible.

The middle way approach for genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people was a policy conceived by His Holiness in 1974, in an effort to engage the Chinese Government in dialogue and find a peaceful way to protect the unique Tibetan culture and identity. It is a policy adopted democratically through a series of discussions over many decades between the Central Tibetan Administration and the Tibetan people, and there is no doubt that it is a “win-win” proposition that straddles the middle path between the status quo and full independence—one that categorically rejects the present repressive policies of the Chinese Government towards the Tibetan people without seeking separation from the People’s Republic of China.

The most recent series of talks between Dharamsala and Beijing began in 2002, with a total of nine rounds of talks being held since then. During the seventh round of talks in 2008—the year in which unprecedented and widespread protests broke out across Tibet—the Chinese Government asked the Tibetan leadership to put in writing the nature of the autonomy it sought. The “Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People” was presented during the eighth round of talks in 2008. The Chinese Government expressed a number of concerns and objections to the memorandum. To address those concerns, during the ninth and last round of talks in January 2010 the Tibetan leadership presented the “Note on the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People”.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He gave an answer to a previous question about discussions that were held, and he outlined that there was not much engagement with people. Was there any engagement with the youth of Tibet in particular or with the educationalists, to hear their views?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question; the answer is no, not while we were there. On subsequent visits to Dharamsala we engaged with many young people who had escaped from Tibet to seek refuge and sanctuary in India. They made their views very clear, and how they saw the oppression by the Chinese Communist regime in Lhasa and other parts of Tibet. Sadly, however, while we were in Tibet, we did not have access to anybody outside those who were dictated to by our hosts. Those were the strict rules under which we were allowed to visit Tibet at all. It was a privilege to be in Tibet, but sadly it was not a very enlightening visit as far as learning the views of the people was concerned. Nevertheless, being there and seeing things for ourselves meant a great deal.

As I was saying, the Chinese Government expressed a number of concerns and objections to the memorandum. To address these, the Tibetan leadership presented the “Note on the Memorandum on Genuine Autonomy for the Tibetan People” during the ninth and last round of talks. The memorandum and the note outline how genuine autonomy for the Tibetan people could operate within the framework of the People’s Republic of China—its constitution, its sovereignty and territorial integrity, its “three adherences” and the hierarchy and authority of the Chinese central Government.

Sadly, there has been no dialogue between the Chinese and the exiled Tibetan leadership since 2010. Despite that, however, the Tibetan leadership remains steadfast in its commitment to the middle way approach, and to finding a lasting solution through dialogue between the envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the representatives of the Chinese leadership. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is this. Would the British Government support the resumption of dialogue between the envoys of His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the representatives of the Chinese leadership? The Tibetan leadership has reiterated on numerous occasions its commitment to seeking genuine autonomy, not independence, and to finding a resolution to the Tibet issue through peaceful means. The British Government have a particular responsibility, unique among all western Governments, because of the relationship that we had with the Tibetan Government in Lhasa prior to 1959.

[Lady Hermon]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him once again. He referred to the special commitment that Britain has to Tibet. Bearing in mind the special commitment that the UK had to Hong Kong and the recent reaction by China to Hong Kong, is he saying to us and to the Foreign Office that he is concerned about China tightening, rather than loosening, its grip on Tibet?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question, which is very pertinent. I have deliberately avoided mentioning Hong Kong, but she makes an important point. My impression, having studied Tibet and Chinese relations with Tibet for the last eight years, is that China is tightening its grip. There is further oppression of the Tibetan people and China is clamping down; there is no doubt about that.

In the eight and a half years since I was in Lhasa, Tibet and its people have come to mean a great deal to me, as they do to so many supporters of a free Tibet, both in this country and throughout the world. In a materialistic consumer society, the teachings of the Dalai Lama and the ideals of Tibetans living in exile provide us with an alternative to the lives we live today. It is not that I have become a kind of Jewish Buddhist—[Interruption.] Well, there might be such a thing. It is not that we should all convert and that the world would then be a better place, but this is an ancient culture with warmth, wisdom and a message of peace and love for all humanity—I do not mean Judaism—and that is a message that we rarely hear in the world today. The 14th Dalai Lama never stops telling anyone who will listen—many millions do listen to him—that we can live in peace and harmony together, without war or conflict. I can never understand why the Chinese Government believe he is such a threat to them, and even call him a terrorist.

Today is not only international human rights day but the 25th anniversary of the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to His Holiness. To quote from the announcement of the Nobel peace prize for 1989, which was made in Oslo on 5 October that year,

“The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize to the 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, the religious and political leader of the Tibetan people. The Committee wants to emphasize the fact that the Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people. The Dalai Lama has developed his philosophy of peace from a great reverence for all things living and upon the concept of universal responsibility embracing all mankind as well as nature. In the opinion of the Committee, the Dalai Lama has come forward with constructive and forward-looking proposals for the solution of international conflicts, human rights issues and global environmental problems.”

Later today, I will attend a ceremony in London to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the awarding of the Nobel peace prize to the Dalai Lama. It is important that we never forget the contribution that he has made to global peace and understanding. Despite their best efforts, the Chinese Government can never remove the love and respect that the Tibetan people have for him. His message continues to be highly relevant in the modern world.

The cause of Tibet and freedom of expression is important, and not just to Tibetans. Let me outline some of the cases that have been drawn to my attention. One of the earliest cases I became involved in was that of Dhondup Wangchen, the Tibetan film-maker who produced a documentary that was critical of the Chinese Government in the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics. For his crime of making a film called “Leaving Fear Behind”, Dhondup was given a six-year prison sentence, and he was only released on 5 June this year. When he was imprisoned, I raised his case in the House with the then Foreign Secretary, and subsequently wrote to the Chinese ambassador and the authorities at the prison where he was incarcerated.

Dhondup’s wife, Lhamo Tso, came to stay with my wife and me in Leeds three years ago while she was on a tour of the UK to raise awareness of her husband’s plight, which had left her and their four children living in extreme poverty in Dharamsala. This family’s story was typical of stories of the families of any Tibetan who dared to speak out against the Chinese Government and the way that Tibetans are routinely treated in their own land. “Leaving Fear Behind” is critical of the Chinese Government and records the feelings and thoughts of ordinary Tibetans about the Olympic games. It does not advocate violence or the overthrow of the state; it is not subversive in any way; and it would be considered quite mild if it had been a documentary about this country’s attitude to what the Chinese Government label an ethnic minority. However, such freedom of expression is forbidden in Tibet, so Dhondup had committed a criminal offence.

The outrageous and severe punishment he received almost took his life, because he contracted hepatitis B while he was in jail. Born in Amdo, Dhondup is now 40. He is free again and will soon be reunited with his wife and children, who are now in the United States. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and Students for a Free Tibet took up his case and organised a worldwide protest, but it made no difference to the severity of his sentence; he was not released early.

Let me leave Dhondup’s case by quoting him on why he made the film:

“At a time of great difficulty and a feeling of helplessness”,

the idea of his film was to

“get some meaningful response and results. It is very difficult”—

that is, difficult for Tibetans—

“to go to Beijing and speak out there. So that is why we decided to show the real feelings of Tibetans inside Tibet through this film. Nowadays, China is declaring that they are preserving and improving Tibetan culture and language. That’s what they’re telling the world. Many organisations and offices have been set up for these things. What they say and what they do are totally different, opposites. If they really want to preserve and improve Tibetan culture and language in Tibet then they should withdraw Chinese people living in Tibetan areas. Tibetan culture and language has to be practised in all Tibetan areas. If it’s not practised, how can it be preserved?”

Throughout the ages, music has often been used as a way of expressing protest. A number of Tibetan musicians have written and performed songs and made CDs, for which they have been arrested and severely punished. Lolo, a 30-year-old male Tibetan singer, was first detained on 19 April 2012, shortly after releasing an album with political lyrics. After a brief period of detention he was released but was later re-arrested. In February 2013, Lolo was sentenced to six years in prison by a court in Xining, Qinghai province, on charges of “seditiously splitting the state”, a catch-all offence that allows the Chinese authorities to punish ethnic minorities defending their rights. Lolo’s album, “Raise the Tibetan Flag, Children of the Snowland”, contained 14 songs that called for Tibet’s independence, the unity of the Tibetan people and the return of the Dalai Lama. The title track is a direct challenge to China’s rule.

Other musicians convicted for publishing controversial Tibetan songs include Kalsang Yarphel, who on 27 November, just two weeks ago, was sentenced to four years in prison by a Chinese court in Chengdu, Sichuan province. Pema Rigzin, 44, was sentenced to two and a half years in prison and a severe fine of 50,000 yuan for composing, releasing, and distributing music with alleged political overtones. Among the songs he produced were “In Memory of Tibet” and “Tears”, which have since been banned. Rigzin was detained on 7 May 2013 in Chengdu city, and held incommunicado until the trial. Rigzin’s family were barred from hiring the lawyer of their choice.

Kelsang Yarphel, who is 39, and a popular Tibetan folk singer and composer, was sentenced to four years in prison and given an immense 200,000 yuan fine. He was detained by the authorities in Lhasa on 14 July 2013 on charges that he performed a song with alleged political overtones in a concert. Though some of Yarphel’s music encouraged Tibetan unity, none has been known to express overtly political ideology. Song titles included “We Should Learn Tibetan” and “We Should Unite”. At the Lhasa concert he performed a song called “Fellow Tibetans”, which calls on Tibetans to learn and speak Tibetan and to “build courage” to think about Tibet’s “future path”.

Finally, I draw to the attention of hon. Members and the Minister the case of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, a senior monk sentenced to life imprisonment on false charges. He is not a musician. He was arrested on 3 April 2002 following a bomb blast in Chengdu, along with his student Lobsang Dhondup. In November 2002, both were sentenced to death. At the trial, the main evidence presented against Tenzin Delek was a confession from Lobsang Dhondup, which Lobsang later retracted, claiming that he had been tortured. However, the appeal hearing in January 2003 upheld Lobsang Dhondup’s death sentence and he was executed on the same day. Tenzin Delek Rinpoche’s death sentence was suspended for two years, and then commuted to life imprisonment in 2005.

Tenzin Delek Rinpoche has consistently maintained his innocence. He is now suffering from severe ill health and there are serious concerns for his well-being, so much so that family members and others are calling for the international community to help press the Chinese authorities to grant him medical parole. Tenzin Delek is a highly revered Tibetan Buddhist lama and a community leader from Litang in Sichuan province. He has worked on numerous social, medical and educational projects and campaigned for the protection of Tibet’s fragile environment, working to stop indiscriminate logging and mining activities. I hope that the Minister adds his voice to the international calls for Tenzin Delek’s early release.

There is no doubt that the Chinese Government use a mix of systematic oppressive measures, propaganda and disinformation to stifle free expression and to present a positive image of their actions in Tibet to the outside world. Since peaceful demonstrations spread across Tibet in 2008, the Chinese authorities have adopted a harsher approach to suppressing dissent. In its current approach, which can be more accurately characterised as totalitarian, the state recognises no limits to its authority, imposes a climate of fear, and strives to regulate every aspect of public and private life to crush all forms of dissent against Communist party rule. There has been a dramatic expansion of the powers of China’s policing and military apparatus in Tibet. This has created a climate of fear and lack of trust, even among families and close friends. Many Tibetans in exile report that they cannot talk to their families in Tibet on the phone, because of the danger to their families of their having contact with them as exiles.

The Chinese Government have stepped up Communist party presence in Tibet, sending thousands of Chinese officials to carry out surveillance and so-called “political education”, and to disseminate propaganda. The Chinese state media call it a “war against secessionist sabotage”, in which the Chinese Government seek to replace loyalty to the Dalai Lama in Tibetan hearts and minds with allegiance to the Chinese party-state and, in doing so, to obliterate memory and undermine Tibetan national identity at its roots.

Just nine days ago, on 1 December, the Chinese Government announced a programme of sending artists, film-makers and TV personnel to ethnic minority and border areas to help local artists

“form a correct view of art”.

Announcing the programme, the state-run news agency, Xinhua, commented:

“Art and culture cannot develop without political guidance”.

It also congratulated Chinese President Xi Jinping for

“emphasising the integration of ideology and artistic values”.

Since last May, following the killings in Xinjiang, an expansive counter-terrorism drive has been launched by the Chinese Government and has expanded across China, including Tibet. In Tibet, the Chinese authorities have organised large-scale military drills and intensified border security, and are holding training exercises for troops on responding to self-immolation and on dealing with problems in monasteries, in spite of the absence of any violent insurgency in Tibet. Armed responses to protests, including killing with impunity and the torture and imprisonment of individuals, have become the cause of instability and are therefore deeply counter-productive.

In conclusion, I have a number of requests for the Government to consider, which I believe will help the cause of Tibet and allow Tibetans the right to free expression that we in Europe and the west take so much for granted. I hope that the Minister will discuss these points with the Foreign Secretary, and that on this international human rights day of 10 December, the British Government will continue to be proactive in supporting the human rights of Tibetans in Tibet.

My requests are these. First, as a matter of urgency, I urge the British Government to call on China to engage in a broader and more substantive dialogue with Tibetan representatives, and to involve the Dalai Lama in discussions on Tibet’s future. There needs to be a more robust approach, given that the current approach is clearly not achieving anything.

Secondly, I urge the Government to strengthen policies towards China and Tibet, and to be more robust, with a clear stance and directive regarding human rights, civil society and democratic rights. The Government should adhere to their stance that human rights are integral to the United Kingdom’s foreign policy. Thirdly, I want the Government to challenge China’s policies in Tibet, in particular where the Chinese Government are flouting international standards on human rights and civil liberties. Fourthly, the Government should take the lead in the European Union in explicitly calling on the Chinese Government to address the policies in Tibet that threaten Tibetan culture, religion and identity and are the root cause of the crisis. These are the key grievances of the Tibetan people.

Fifthly, I urge the Government to prevail on the Chinese leadership to end the military build-up and to limit the dominance of the security apparatus in Tibet. Sixthly, I want the Government to initiate a scholarship scheme in the UK for Tibetans inside Tibet, as well as for Tibetan refugees. Seventhly, the Government should explore the possibility of cultural exchanges with Tibetans inside Tibet or, if that is not possible, with Tibetan refugee communities in India and Nepal, to help promote and preserve Tibetan culture. Eighthly, I want the Government to provide funding for a BBC Tibetan service. Ninthly, I urge the Government to call for medical parole for Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, who is serving a life sentence and is seriously ill.

Over the past seven years, I have been privileged to meet His Holiness the Dalai Lama no fewer than eight times: twice in India, five times in London, including when he was awarded the Templeton prize at St Paul’s cathedral in May 2012, and once when he came to my home city of Leeds. I am grateful to both the office of the Dalai Lama in London and to the Tibet Society for their help in organising the visits of His Holiness to the UK, and to Mr Speaker for hosting the Dalai Lama in Parliament in 2012, against the advice given to him from certain quarters that such a meeting could damage relations with the People’s Republic of China. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister also deserve praise for agreeing to meet the Dalai Lama in 2012 at St Paul’s cathedral, an event that had repercussions for UK-China relations for many months afterwards.

I thank Philippa Carrick and Paul Golding from the Tibet Society and Chonpel Tsering from the office of the Dalai Lama for all their help in preparing my speech today. Finally, I strongly believe that Tibet and the Tibetan people should be free, and I will never give up my support for their struggle. I give everyone today the traditional Tibetan greeting: tashi delek, or blessings and good luck.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Before I call Mr Loughton, I remind the Chamber that I will call the shadow Minister at 10.40 am. We have 40 minutes and four speakers have indicated that they wish to speak.

10:01

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Owen. I can do the maths. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on battling against his health to be here today for a long overdue and important debate. It is right that the House has an opportunity to express solidarity with Tibetans and to question the continued oppression in the Tibetan autonomous region and of Tibetans across the world at the hands of the Chinese. I cannot rival his Jewish-Buddhist perspective or the number of times he has met His Holiness the Dalai Lama. I have only had the opportunity to meet him twice. I have not been able to go to Tibet, but I have travelled to Dharamsala and met many members of the Tibetan community there and heard the appalling stories they have to tell us. At the outset, I pay tribute to the Tibet Society and in particular to Philippa Carrick. It does fantastic work in keeping the flame of hope lit and the flag flying for the Tibetan cause in this country and beyond. I declare an interest as an officer of the all-party group for Tibet. I welcome the Minister, who has shown a genuine interest in this cause in the past, and I am sure he will be listening carefully to what everyone has to say.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East rightly said that today was an appropriate day for the debate, as it is human rights day, but it is also 25 years since the Tiananmen Square massacre, which is another reminder of China’s inability to allow free speech and expression within its borders. I am particularly concerned—I will not go into the detail of all the cases that he articulated—that the situation has been getting worse over the past six years, since the Beijing Olympics. There have been severe security crackdowns and restrictions on freedom of expression, religion, movement and assembly. The climate within the Tibetan autonomous region can be likened to that of a military occupation. I do not think it alarmist to say that the Chinese Government have effectively created a climate of fear within Tibet. They strive to regulate virtually every aspect of public and private life in order to crush any form of dissent against Community party rule.

There has also been a dramatic expansion in the powers of China’s policing and military apparatus in Tibet. As the hon. Gentleman said, many Tibetans in exile report that they cannot talk to their families in Tibet on the phone because of the danger they might be put in through that contact.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is outlining the deteriorating situation regarding Tibet and China, but does he agree that as a society and a Government, we have to analyse the benefits of the UK-China human rights dialogue to see whether it is productive? It would appear that it was productive in the past in trying to de-escalate tensions between the United Kingdom and China. Should we analyse its benefits for the future?

[Tim Loughton]

Of course dialogue is best, but dialogue needs to take place on both sides. Everyone with an interest in Tibet needs to be given the freedom to express themselves in a peaceful way, and the Tibetans just have not been given that privilege within their borders or in other parts of the world. The Chinese Government, with their tentacles even in this country, try to suppress people who plead the cause for freedom of expression and freedom of movement for the Tibetan people. We need to adopt the guise of a critical friend and be in dialogue with China. We have much to benefit from trade and engagement with China, but it does not serve that cause or the cause of democracy that we hold so dear in this place if we turn a blind eye to the blatant suppression of the rights of millions of people who happen to live in part of what is China. It serves no purpose for what we are here to do if we carry on regardless. As a critical friend, dialogue is everything, but remember that some people are put in prison for trying to exercise just that right.

I am concerned about the escalation of surveillance and the issuing of propaganda by the Chinese within Tibet. They sent thousands of Chinese officials to carry out surveillance and what they call “political education”, and to disseminate propaganda. The example of forming a “correct view of art” shows how China’s tentacles go into every element of Tibetan society. The Chinese authorities have deemed it a counter-terrorism drive and, under that guise, they have organised large-scale military drills and intensified border security, and are holding training exercises for troops on responding to self-immolations and dealing with problems in monasteries—despite the absence of violent insurgency in Tibet. All the protests we have seen are peaceful.

Yesterday, the all-party group had a briefing from someone who recently travelled to Tibet and was allowed in as a tourist. Some of the worrying accounts he gave us of everyday life for Tibetans in their country are worth recounting. He had a Tibetan driver with a Tibetan car. There are fantastic new roads across the Tibetan autonomous region. In my constituency, we would die for such roads and the lack of congestion. The speed limit for Tibetans is 40 kph. Their arrival and departure from certain towns is closely monitored to see whether they have exceeded the speed limit. They are prosecuted or under fear of prosecution if there is any minor infraction of that speed limit, yet someone with Chinese plates is allowed to go a bit faster, it would appear. Police checkpoints are littered liberally across those roads, in the middle of nowhere—for what purpose?

Huge urbanisation is going on in the Tibetan autonomous region and, worryingly, most of the new businesses springing up are Chinese-owned. All the road signs are in Chinese, with the Tibetan language version in a small font underneath. People are unlikely to get work with Chinese businesses unless they speak Chinese, even within Tibet. We saw photographs of drones surveying monasteries across Tibet in a rather sinister way. We saw security cameras disguised as prayer wheels within monasteries and towns. We saw what Lhasa has become: a much changed place, I am sure, from when the hon. Member for Leeds North East visited some eight and a half years ago. For what is a holy place for many Tibetans is a sprawling modern city with the ubiquitous cloud of pollution overhanging it, as we see in so many parts of China. The region is home to some 3 million Tibetans, but receives approximately 13 million Chinese visitors. There has been huge immigration of Han Chinese into Tibet, swamping the language and culture and trying to dilute Tibet’s history by sheer weight of numbers. It happens day in, day out, and Tibetans have to suffer this oppression with a depressed resignation that can be seen in the faces of the people in the photographs and film we were shown.

Surveillance happens not only in person, but online. Reprisals are likely following searches for subjects such as “democracy”, “the Dalai Lama” and “Tiananmen square”. State censorship and the suppression of free expression are widespread across China, but since the protests that broke out across Tibet in March 2008, the Chinese Government have strengthened attempts to impose an information black-out across Tibet. That it is an offence to display the Tibetan flag—even a digital image on a mobile phone—because it is deemed to be a separatist activity punishable with a prison sentence, shows just how paranoid the Chinese have become. Singing a song can lead to a jail sentence. People who were legitimately protesting online about abuses in the fur trade earlier this year have also ended up in jail. It is an outrage that people suffer persecution and torture in prison and are then released before they die so they are not deemed to have died from their injuries in jail.

This House has a duty to flag up the abuse suffered by one of the most peace-loving peoples I have ever come across. To liken the Dalai Lama to a terrorist is quite extraordinary when he has spent his life preaching peace and harmony between peoples around the globe. He stands for freedom of worship and of expression. The Tibetans’ struggle for their culture, language, heritage and soul is one we have a duty to do everything we can to support.

I will end on the chilling note that the suppression is not only happening in Tibet. The tentacles of the Chinese Government reach into other Governments and local authorities and within education establishments and universities. I am particularly worried about the Confucius institutes or cultural centres that are co-operating with universities across the world. They have discriminatory hiring practices and seek to impose censorship on topics such as human rights, the Tiananmen Square massacre and any dialogue about Tibet. We must seek out, expose and resist such censorship of our freedom to speak out. When I was a Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who cannot be here today, and I were warned off meeting the Dalai Lama at a private lunch because it might upset the Chinese—tough. We need transparency of dialogue and to be able to speak freely. When speaking freely in the House, we must say loud and clear that the Tibetan people’s struggle is a struggle for democracy and free speech in which all of us have an interest.

10:14

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), as I am also a member of the all-party parliamentary group for Tibet. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on getting this timely debate. I will not go into the individual cases that he carefully and properly raised. An important aspect of today’s debate is that we get the names of those brave Tibetans who are being held in custody or have been imprisoned for long sentences out to the rest of the world, and that has been done well this morning.

Looking through Tibet Watch’s excellent booklet, “Broken promises”, I was reminded of how we were all were duped—or how many people were; I feel personally that I was not—into feeling that if China got the Olympics, it would make such a difference and China would do all these wonderful things, changing its whole attitude to human rights. We went along with that, but what has happened? Not a single thing has changed in relation to Tibet. Indeed, as has been mentioned, things are getting worse by the day.

I, too, had the privilege of hearing from the gentleman at yesterday’s meeting who had recently been to Tibet. It is clear that the Chinese Government are making a huge attempt to rapidly change the face of Tibet—not just to change civil liberties and human rights, but to change the physical structure of Tibet. Some 13 million Chinese tourists visited Tibet last year, and we are seeing a concentration of Chinese people who are given money to go and settle in Tibet. The Chinese Government want to eliminate every last sign or vestige of Tibetan culture and the history of that wonderful country. We must be clear that none of our warm words about working closely with China seems to be having any effect whatever. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about that.

I want to go into a little more detail about something that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned. I am also concerned about the Confucius institutes, of which I think there are now 24 in the United Kingdom. These are Chinese Government-funded cultural centres that are set up at universities all over the world, although the UK has the second highest number after the United States. Several universities in the United States and Canada—including the university of Chicago, Pennsylvania State university and the Toronto district school board—recently pulled out of relationships with Confucius institutes because of accusations and proof of discriminatory hiring practices and censorship of certain topics. In order for a university to receive Chinese money, the Chinese do not want any mention of Tibet or any criticism of anything that is happening.

I was privileged to hear recently from an American professor at a meeting in Parliament about how China’s influence on an American university is threatening freedom of speech. If we cannot have freedom of speech in our universities, we really are on a slippery slope. It is worrying and sad that one of our most famous universities, the London School of Economics, has been reluctant to give out information on how much money it has been getting from China. It is only through journalists’ use of freedom of information requests that we have discovered the exact amounts given out. It has been revealed that the LSE

“has received £863,537.91 from the Chinese state for housing a Confucian Centre and a further $33,000 for teaching Chinese government officials via BHP Billiton, a mining conglomerate.”

If China has 25 of these cultural outposts right at the hearts of our main universities, that funding will extend to several million pounds. Of course that may sound wonderful—isn’t that great: universities that are suffering from a shortage of resources are getting money directly from China? The danger, however, is that no matter how much the university hierarchies say that that will not influence or affect what they do, the reality on the ground is that it does. In fact, they are taking what could be said to be Chinese gold in return for getting out Chinese propaganda—sometimes subtly, sometimes less subtly. I really believe that our Government should be investigating this and making sure—[Interruption.]

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady’s phone is vibrating and being picked up by the microphones.

[Kate Hoey]

I am sorry. The phone is turned off. I am glad I am not in Tibet, because it would have been monitored.

There is a serious issue. We are seeing Chinese developments coming into this country, into London, and the big money coming in to build tower blocks and hotels. On the subject of hotels, let me say how shocking it was that InterContinental Hotels went ahead and built one in Lhasa that employs Chinese people and is part of efforts there to destroy Tibetan culture. Tibet groups across the world are trying hard to organise some kind of boycott of InterContinental Hotels, because of what the company is doing in that part of Tibet. We must get to the bottom of the money that is coming in

There have also been incidents, such as the ones we heard about only yesterday, which happened recently in Sheffield, where there are substantial numbers of Chinese students. Many of those students are very political indeed, and we heard about the example of a shop owner who had put a Tibetan flag in the window. I do not think it was a huge flag; nevertheless, they were threatened that if they did not take it down, things would happen. In fact, the windows were broken, which was reported to the police, but the attitude was, “Well, this was just students being a bit silly.”

The reality is that this is not students being a little silly. What is happening here is coming from the very top in China. I am very worried indeed that unless we face up to it early, China will do in this country and other parts of Europe what it has done in Africa, which is to go in and simply use its money as a way of getting its message across and its way of doing things. That relates directly to Tibet, in the sense that Tibet is the issue in this country that gets the most publicity in our universities, and yet many of our students are being stopped from getting their message across because of the worry about China.

I would add that South Africa recently refused to give His Holiness the Dalai Lama a visa, which meant that the conference of all Nobel prize winners had to be cancelled—it is now happening in Rome, in Italy, this week. Meanwhile, the Chinese Government, having put pressure on South Africa, immediately thanked the South African Government and more or less said, “We will now do something for you, as you were so kind as to stop the Dalai Lama visiting.”

We are getting to the point where I want to ask our Government, “What dreadful thing would the Chinese Government have to do in order for our Government to start standing up to China?” What would have to happen for us to start calling in the Chinese ambassador and doing things that make a difference, such as saying, “I’m sorry, we might need the money—the investment is great—but you, China, are fundamentally a pariah state and we’re going to treat you as such”? Unless we start standing up to China, as the European Union or as a country, it will not buckle to anything other than force, in terms of what we are saying—I am not suggesting we invade China, but I am suggesting that we start to mean what we say.

Warm words have come out of all Governments, including this one and the previous one. We were the last country not to recognise that Tibet was part of China, but David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary in the previous Government, changed that, telling the House that it would make a great difference and that China would start behaving better. Of course that did not happen.

China has a terrible human rights record not only in Tibet, but all over China. I want the Minister to outline clearly what more the Chinese have to do to people in Tibet and through their influence in this country before we as a British Government say, “Enough is enough.”

10:25

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to make a contribution, Mr Owen, thank you.

I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for bringing the subject to the House for consideration. As the Democratic Unionist party’s spokesperson for human rights, I am delighted to be in a position to contribute to today’s debate. Religious persecution in Tibet is not only a matter of ethnic or religious conflict, or discrimination by a majority against a minority, but is politically motivated and consciously implemented as a policy to realise political aims. That is what is happening in Tibet, which is why are speaking about it today. I am always pleased to see the Minister in his place, because he is totally committed to addressing the issue of religious persecution wherever it may be in the world. I have heard his contributions in the House, but I am also aware of his work and of the many countries that he visits. We appreciate that very much.

The issues in Tibet started in the 1950s and heightened throughout the 1960s, and the Dalai Lama and some 100,000 Tibetans fled to India. Within a few years, nearly all of the more than 500,000 monks and nuns were driven from the 6,000-plus monasteries and nunneries of Tibet, virtually all of which were destroyed. Many monks and nuns were tortured, killed, imprisoned or forced to disrobe. A few years later, during the cultural revolution, any display of religion was prohibited, punishable by beatings and imprisonment, and all religious objects were confiscated and destroyed.

A campaign for political re-education, the so-called “patriotic education campaign”—sounds very Chinese—was instituted in the monasteries in 1996 to implement the goals of the third work forum. Political work teams were sent into monasteries and nunneries throughout Tibet, including many where monks and nuns had never been involved in demonstrations or protest. The work teams are frequently accompanied by armed police, who stand guard over the monks and nuns as the members of the work teams speak.

Re-education combines investigation and interrogation of individual monks and nuns with lectures by political workers. It is clear that individual liberties have been taken away and religious views discounted, with monks and nuns given the correct answers to a series of questions on Tibetan politics, history and religion. They are then required to take written examinations and sign a written affidavit of loyalty to China. To pass and to be allowed to remain, monks and nuns must agree that Tibet has always been part of China. Asking a Tibetan to be part of China is like asking me, as a British citizen, to be part of Ireland. It is impossible; I would not accede to it and neither should they. Monks and nuns must also assent to characterisations of the Dalai Lama as a criminal, unfit to be a religious leader and not worthy of veneration. Refusing to participate in the re-education is not allowed. Monks and nuns who attempt to boycott the sessions are arrested and imprisoned. Failure to comply with the demands of the work team and to denounce the Dalai Lama results in expulsion or arrest. That is a clear violation of individual liberties and an attempt to direct religious viewpoints.

In 2014 the situation in Tibet has not improved, as all the Members who have spoken today have outlined. Every aspect of Tibetan life is under siege from a Chinese leadership determined gradually to eradicate a whole culture. That cannot be allowed and it is an issue that must be addressed. The Tibetan flag and national anthem are banned. Possession even of a picture of the Dalai Lama can result in torture and imprisonment.

[Lady Hermon]

Chinese companies are now investing in Northern Ireland. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether his party leader—who is by happy coincidence the First Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly—makes any representations about Tibet to those Chinese companies before they invest?

[Jim Shannon]

I am not aware of what the First Minister does, but I suggest that we should have done so and that he needs to do so. Similarly, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned direct contact and using all available opportunities. I know that the Minister who is here today does it, and I am sure that he will outline such issues.

Even children in Tibet face abuses of their freedom and human rights. Tibetans are not free to protest or speak openly about their situation, and even peaceful demonstrations are met with heavy-handed military crackdowns. In 2008, thousands of Tibetans staged the largest protests in Tibet for over 50 years, and demonstrations swept across the entire Tibetan plateau. Chinese authorities arrested an estimated 6,000 protesters; about 1,000 of them are still unaccounted for. Where are they? What questions have the Government asked about those forgotten people and forgotten prisoners—if they are still alive?

We are all aware of the Tibetan monks who, horrifically, have set fire to themselves as a method of protest to highlight these issues. Every one of us can remember those horrific, horrendous stories of people driven to extremes to express themselves and to seek liberty, the democratic process and the right to religious freedom through their deaths.

Prisons in Tibet are full of people detained for simply expressing their desire for freedom. People have been arrested and sentenced to prison for peaceful acts, such as distributing leaflets or sending information abroad about events in Tibet. We take such things for granted in this country because they are part of our democratic right—we are speaking about them democratically here today. Yet those everyday freedoms—those small acts of democracy—that we enjoy, as part of the great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Tibet can lead to imprisonment and even torture. The clear violation of human rights is shocking. As a country, through this debate today and through our Government, we have to take action.

Reporters Without Borders ranked China 175th out of the 180 countries on its press freedom index. There are more foreign journalists in North Korea than in Tibet. Despite what by our own standards we can describe only as atrocities, this week a top Chinese official in Brussels told reporters that China does not need lessons on human rights from the EU; well, actually, it does. Li Junhua—putting a Northern Ireland accent on a Chinese name—a director-general in the Foreign Affairs Ministry, has said that China has its own model of human rights. It does, but that model does not conform to the model that we have in the free west. He claimed that China had a clear understanding of how human rights will be carried out in his country and was confident of its own model.

The US diplomat Sarah Sewall recently claimed that there was

“not a degree of freedom for Tibetans within China”

after meeting Tibetan refugees from Nepal and India and gleaning first-hand information about their lives in the country before they had to flee because of persecution. Clearly the ongoing hardships and crimes against them that Tibetans still face on a daily basis back up Ms Sewall’s point. Tibetans cannot enjoy any freedoms, which in turn means they are denied their basic human rights. That is the issue. The Chinese may well measure their version of human rights differently from those of us in the EU and the USA, but that does not mean that we should simply sit back and accept the situation, because ultimately it is not good enough.

It is not good enough that people are denied their freedoms—freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of speech, to name just a few. People have fought and died to secure those rights; in 2014, Tibetans are either fleeing, being imprisoned or being killed to try to secure them. We must let the Tibetans know that they are not struggling in vain or suffering in silence. We must do all that we can—at Westminster, in Brussels and on the world stage—to persuade China to change its oppressive ways in its bid for political support.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

I will be calling the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson at 10.40 am at the latest.

10:33

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Thank you for allowing me to contribute to the debate, Mr Owen, albeit fairly briefly. The debate is timely and I applaud the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for securing it.

The situation in Tibet is very sad, given the impression we get in the west these days of China as a whole. China’s situation is one of enormous progress, with an incredible reduction in poverty and a scientific and intellectual flowering the like of which we do not often see in a country of its size. We ought to celebrate and welcome that.

Yet when it comes to Tibet, we still see what appears to be a throwback to a darker and harsher era in China’s history: the catalogue of human rights abuses that hon. Members have referred to, arbitrary and unjustified arrests, suppression of freedom of speech and the systematic undermining of Tibetan culture. We hear a language that harks back almost to Maoist terminology—reference to “correct views of art” or to “secessionist sabotage”, or the Xinhua news agency congratulating President Xi on

“emphasising the integration of ideology and artistic values”.

That post-Maoist language has a chilling tone with regard to Tibet in particular, because it suggests that the impression of progress and positive development in China as a whole masks some very negative developments.

If I had to say something about the Tibetan Government in exile—now with an elected leader in Lobsang Sangay, as the Dalai Lama has handed over political power—it is that the Chinese are astonishingly lucky that that Government in exile are campaigning for liberation and freedom in Tibet. There are so many more violent models for resistance—so many more disruptive, antisocial and potentially threatening ways in which various peoples around the world try to achieve self-determination and freedom of expression—yet the opposition in Tibet has consistently advocated peaceful change and dialogue with Beijing. It has even accepted that the sovereignty of Tibet is probably not going to be re-established and that it is really searching for some kind of accommodation with the Chinese state. Yet that opposition is met with incredibly aggressive language and a heavy-handed and oppressive response from the Chinese authorities.

As for the wider situation, I seem to take part in a lot of debates—whether on cybercrime, wildlife crime, militarisation in east Asia, China’s aggressive relations with some of its neighbours, including Taiwan, Japan and Vietnam, China’s indulgence of various dictatorships in Africa, or the situation in Hong Kong—during which, in each case, we say that China is not pursuing the responsible and statesmanlike approach we would expect of a new world power or superpower. Yet we never seem to join up the dots or sit back to look at the situation and ask, have we had a sophisticated enough policy towards China? Has that policy simply been too focused on trade, investment and the economic benefits of our relationships with China—not just as the UK, but as part of the European Union and the international community? Do we now need to wake up to some of the worrying developments: abuses of human rights, suppression of freedom of expression, and aggressive stances towards—in the case of the people of Tibet—some of the most vulnerable and disempowered people in the world? Do we need a more sophisticated and developed policy towards China?

At the end of his speech the hon. Member for Leeds North East read out a list of specific things he was asking for. If I had to pick out one as the most important, it would be to take a lead within the European Union on developing a new approach and asking the Chinese Government to address the issue of policies toward Tibet that threaten Tibetan culture. As the European Union, we are not so subject to the divide and rule approach. Other hon. Members referred to relations between this country and China, or between South Africa and China or Norway and China. When one country takes a stand, it is more vulnerable than we will be if we take a collective and collaborative approach across the international community.

There is much to celebrate in our relationship with China. I know the Minister has enormous expertise on the part of the world we are debating. However, the current situation, in which the international community appears to be showing a rather aimless indifference towards the plight of the people of Tibet, simply cannot go on.

10:38

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this debate. His long-term commitment to the Tibetan people and their cause is outstanding.

As my hon. Friend said, it is particularly fitting to be debating the subject this morning, as today is human rights day. The UN’s theme for this year’s human right’s day is “Human Rights 365”, which makes the point that we should be concerned about human rights not just on one day a year, but every day of the year. As has been said, it has been several years since the subject of Tibet was debated in Parliament, so it is useful to make the point that it is not a concern that should just pop up occasionally. As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) has just said, Tibet should be raised as an issue of concern whenever our Government have dealings with China, be it a trade mission meeting or another form of engagement. I hope the Minister can reassure me that that is indeed the case.

The sovereignty of Tibet is not really on the table at the moment; the discussion is more about a middle way, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East outlined. I should make it clear that the Labour party recognises Tibet as part of China, but that does not mean that we cannot support meaningful autonomy for Tibet. The issue can be resolved only by genuine dialogue between the Government of China and representatives of the Dalai Lama, but talks have been stalled since 2010. I do not want to repeat all the questions that have been put to the Minister, but the British Government could play an important role in getting those talks moving again, and I hope we will hear from the Minister about that.

As the hon. Member for Cheltenham said, the Chinese are fortunate that the approach taken by the Tibetan leaders has been to urge a peaceful solution. They have shown remarkable restraint and taken a measured approach. The Chinese Government should recognise that and be prepared to engage with them.

We have heard several strong speeches about the abuse of human rights—particularly the restrictions on freedom of expression and the use of violence as a means of repression. We have also heard about how the human rights situation seems to be deteriorating and about the growing influence of Chinese culture—how its pervasive impact is gradually making Tibetan culture secondary. That is particularly true of the development of Lhasa.

I do not want to repeat all those points, but I would reiterate a number of concerns. I was particularly struck by the number of musicians my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East mentioned. Often, they are at the forefront of expressing dissent, even though the examples he gave could hardly be regarded as incitement to great political insurgency. The fact that China is cracking down on the arts and cultural diversity by sending artists to rural areas to form a “correct view of art” is quite a totalitarian response, and we should be very concerned about that.

Campaigners have been jailed for messaging each other even about an anti-fur campaign. Bloggers have been jailed. Nuns were expelled from a nunnery last month after they failed to denounce the Dalai Lama during a police raid. There are many other examples, and the fact that I am not going into great detail about them does not mean we are not hugely concerned—it is just that we have heard from the people I mentioned, and I am also keen to give the Minister time to respond.

We did not hear that much about self-immolations. There have been 133 since 2009, and the vast majority of the people involved have died, while details of the well-being and whereabouts of some of the others are not known. The fact that people are prepared to resort to such extreme measures and feel that is the only way to get their views across is the most harrowing indictment of human rights in Tibet.

The Chinese Government have now criminalised self-immolations, rather than responding to the underlying reasons why people would resort to such drastic measures. Since December 2012, anyone potentially associated with a self-immolation risks a charge of intentional homicide, which is subject to the death penalty. Family members could be arrested even for their involvement in the funeral of someone who self-immolated. Last year, Lobsan Kunchok received a death sentence, suspended for two years, on such a charge, while more than 40 Tibetans were sentenced to prison last year. I hope the Minister will tell us what representations he has made about those cases, against the intentional homicide law and against the use of the death penalty.

I recognise why the Government are so keen to promote trade links with China. Our bilateral relationship is incredibly important and we value it, but that does not mean we should be silent on human rights. We need a much more strategic engagement that allows the UK to raise human rights concerns and to meet the Dalai Lama without fear of being frozen out. I hope the Minister will agree that the Government’s commitment to business and human rights—the business and human rights action plan was published just over a year ago—should mean that no Minister from any Department visits China without being prepared to raise such issues.

The Foreign Office’s latest “Human Rights and Democracy” report noted

“concerns around the consequences of resource extraction and allegations of corruption.”

British businesses do not tend to operate in Tibet at the moment, although we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) about InterContinental’s regrettable decision to open a resort in Lhasa. It would be helpful if the Minister told us whether concerns about corruption and human rights in Tibet have been reflected in the advice the UK offers British businesses, and whether the UK uses its trading links with China to address those concerns.

I want to touch briefly on environmental considerations, which have not been mentioned. Tibet is often referred to as the third pole, as it is home to the largest concentration of ice and glaciers outside of the Arctic and the Antarctic, providing an invaluable water source but also making Tibet especially vulnerable to the impact of climate change, and meaning that Tibetans face the threat of forced migration. China’s new commitment to action on climate change and its agreement with the US provide welcome leadership on the international stage. Talks are going on in Lima, leading up to Paris 2015, but it is important that China demonstrate responsible stewardship in Tibet and look after the environment there. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us—he can do this in writing, because he has a lot of questions to reply to—on any talks the Government have had with the Chinese authorities about the Tibetan environment and Greenpeace’s report earlier this year exposing illegal mining on the Tibetan plateau. Greenpeace says that that operation covers 14 times the area of the City of London, and it believes that the mining violates water protection laws.

My final point is about access for the media, non-governmental organisations and other groups wanting to visit the Tibet Autonomous Region. It is disappointing that the British embassy’s requests to visit it last year were declined. Perhaps the Minister can update us on the prospects for future visits. The EU special representative for human rights and a number of diplomatic missions have been permitted. I hope the Minister will agree that it is important that the UK and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have discussed with China the possibility of visiting Tibet. I hope the Minister and the British embassy will do all they can to support that and visit Tibet.

10:39

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing the debate, particularly given that it is international human rights day. I pay tribute to his expertise on these issues, which he spoke about so eloquently. Of course, he has two advantages over me: one is that he has met His Holiness the Dalai Lama on a number of occasions; the other is that he has actually visited Tibet—something that I have yet to do.

The subject commands such interest right across the House that it deserves rather more than an hour-and-a-half Westminster Hall debate, and it would be good if we could return to the subject. I will try in the time that remains to answer all the points raised, but if I miss any out, I will undertake to write to hon. Members.

So as to avoid any misunderstanding, I will restate the Government’s policy on Tibet. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined in Parliament on 8 May 2013, our position on Tibet is clear and unchanged from that of the previous Government: we regard Tibet as part of the People’s Republic of China. We do not support Tibetan independence.

We have a strong relationship with China, and we understand that, for China, Tibet remains a sensitive issue. The Chinese Government are well aware of the United Kingdom’s position; in fact, the Prime Minister reaffirmed it with Premier Li during the UK-China summit in London in June. Those high-level discussions form part of a broader engagement with the Chinese Government, in which we seek to ensure that all citizens, including Tibetans, fully enjoy their rights under the Chinese constitution.

We welcome the significant economic investments the Chinese Government have made in Tibetan areas, leading to improvements in the standard of living, health care and life expectancy, as shown in the fact that the area’s gross regional product is estimated to have seen average annual growth of 8.5% over the last 50 years.

We welcome President Xi’s public commitment to ensure that, by 2020, China is ruled according to the law, respecting and protecting human rights. We would expect that to apply to Tibetans as much as to people in Shanghai, Wuhan or Beijing. However, as the Chinese Government have acknowledged, proper implementation will be key, so we, along with our EU partners and the United Nations, will follow those matters closely. Importantly, we have shown clarity and consistency in our position on human rights in China. That happens through the UK-China human rights dialogue, which the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in his place, mentioned. The UK is one of a handful of EU member states that engage with China in that way. It happens also through our Foreign and Commonwealth Office human rights report and its quarterly updates; through our work at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva; and through actively pressing for an EU-China human rights dialogue.

Hon. Members rightly raised some individual cases. During the UK-China human rights dialogue in London this year, we raised more than 20 individual cases, a quarter of which related to freedom of expression. The hon. Member for Leeds North East spoke about Dhondup Wangchen, and we have raised his case. He was of course arrested in 2008 for filming a documentary recording the reactions of ordinary Tibetans to the Olympic games.

Ethnic minority rights remain a concern; my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has consistently raised that issue in relation to Tibet, even when he was a Minister. As he pointed out, cultural rights are incredibly important in all societies and should be actively protected in all countries. We have discussed ethnic minority issues with China on numerous occasions, including during the UK-China human rights dialogue in May and during China’s universal periodic review in October 2013. We would like further progress on promoting freedom of religion and belief in China, particularly in minority areas. We regard freedom of thought, conscience and belief as a universal human right and, as such, it is a priority for the FCO across the world.

The hon. Member for Leeds North East raised a number of questions. We continue to encourage dialogue and we raise human rights concerns. We work through the EU, and the EU-China human rights dialogue happened only last week. We encourage proportionate security responses in China, as, indeed, we do everywhere else. As to scholarships, we have a big Chevening programme in China, which I have been actively promoting. Tibetans have taken places on the Chevening scholarship programme in the past and are welcome to apply again. We commend the work of non-Government groups in the area of cultural exchanges. I think the British Council could probably do more, and I will ask it to consider what more it could do. The point about the BBC is an issue; it comes just as we have got rid of responsibility for the World Service. It is bombarded with requests relating to where it should broadcast around the world. Matters to do with where to broadcast, and programming and radio, are best addressed to the BBC.

We share the concern of the hon. Member for Leeds North East about the conviction of Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, and about his health. We have raised the matter in Beijing, and I urge consideration of parole on medical grounds. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) raised the issue of immolations. We had a spate of questions about self-immolations about a year ago, when there was a series of them. It is not something that we should take our eyes off. We urge the Chinese authorities to ensure the protection of their citizens’ constitutional rights in line with the international frameworks to which China is a party. The development of civil society and the application of human rights under the rule of law are essential to China’s long-term prosperity and stability, and it is with deep concern that we note that at least 130 Tibetans have attempted self-immolation, often fatally, since February 2009.

The hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and for Bristol East talked about the InterContinental hotel in Lhasa and our advice to British businesses about investment. We encourage all British companies to be aware of the human rights risks in the countries where they propose investing. Our overseas business risk guide for China provides information on key risks, including human rights risks, that UK businesses may face when operating in China. Last September, we were the first country to publish a national action plan on business and human rights, setting out our commitments as a Government to implementing the UN guiding principles.

I want to deal head-on with the question raised by the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and for Vauxhall about whether there is a binary choice between human rights and investment in doing trade with China. I utterly reject that. I do not think that there is such a choice, and I do not apologise for this Government’s desire to rebuild the economy as part of our long-term economic plan to attract increasing inward investment from China. That is critical to renewing our national infrastructure. Bilateral trade is as important to companies in my constituency as it is to the constituencies of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady. I do not think that we have anything to apologise for on that. We are robust in maintaining a dialogue with the Chinese Government on a range of issues, and Tibet is of course one of those.

We work increasingly closely with the Chinese Government on various issues. We are both members of the UN Security Council, and we work together as part of the E3 plus 3 process on Iran. The hon. Member for Bristol East mentioned climate change; we have invested an enormous amount in our relationship with the Chinese in relation to combating climate change. It would simply not be possible, as she pointed out, to reach any kind of meaningful global deal at next year’s COP 21 in Paris without a constructive approach from Beijing. We need to work side by side with the Chinese on global challenges of the moment, such as combating Ebola and—this is timely—today’s London summit, hosted by the Prime Minister, on ending the online sexual exploitation of children. Our relationship with China is dynamic and must be carefully balanced, but I utterly reject the point that we are in some way subjugating our principles on human rights because of Chinese money. It is not the case at all.

I want to reiterate the Government’s position on His Holiness the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama is recognised worldwide as an important religious figure and esteemed Nobel laureate, having been awarded the peace prize in 1989. Given that he has stated publicly that he does not seek Tibetan independence, we encourage the Chinese Government and Tibetan interest groups to seek a peaceful resolution to their differences through a resumption of dialogue. Dialogue with non-governmental organisations and interest groups is something that the British Government undertake as a matter of course in every country that we engage with. As part of that, I met a number of Tibetan groups in June, and my officials consulted them ahead of our human rights dialogue in May. We will continue to use broad-based engagement as an integral part of promoting our values around the world.

[Kate Hoey]

The Minister has not said anything about his or the Government’s view of the Confucius institutes and the university funding issue.

[Mr Swire]

May I write to the hon. Lady on that? I want to conclude.

Our long-standing position remains that we do not support Tibetan independence, but we believe that Tibet’s long-term stability is best achieved through respect for universal human rights and genuine autonomy within the framework of the Chinese constitution, so we continue to engage actively and constructively with the Chinese Government as they work to improve human rights and the rule of law across China, including in Tibet. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North East for this opportunity to re-state the Government’s position, and other hon. Members for their remarks today. I am sure that they will keep questioning the Government, as is their duty and right. I in turn will, as I said, undertake to write to them to answer the questions I did not have time to address in this morning’s extremely good debate.

Sickle Cell Anaemia

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

11:00

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

It is a pleasure to debate this matter under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. Sickle cell anaemia affects an estimated 12,000 to 15,000 people in the UK and around 400 people in the west midlands, where my constituency lies. The associated condition, thalassaemia, affects around 1,000 people, although hundreds of thousands more in our country carry the trait for these conditions. They mainly, but not exclusively, affect the Afro-Caribbean community.

Sickle cell anaemia is the most common genetically inherited condition in the UK. Roughly one baby every day is born with the condition in our country. There is no known cure and for those who have it, the symptoms can vary from relatively mild, infrequent pain to much more serious episodes of crisis, frequent hospital admissions, strokes, often in very young people, organ damage and reduced life span. At the heart of the debate about treatment for the condition lies one simple question: why, with all the progress that has been made—there has been progress—is there still such variability in the treatment for sufferers, leading to enormous and debilitating pain, unnecessary and expensive hospital admissions and damaging consequences for the families of those who suffer from sickle cell anaemia?

Some hospitals and some specialist care units do a fantastic job, but patients with sickle cell anaemia do not want islands of excellence. They want an excellent system that offers high quality integrated care that minimises hospital admissions, manages pain treatment and enhances quality of life wherever they live in the country. The experience of patients, as told to me and to others, is that we are still a long way from having a system in place that delivers that standard of care wherever people live.

I pay tribute to the work of the Wolverhampton sickle cell care and social activity centre based in Bilston in my constituency and to the other patient-led groups around the country, to the Sickle Cell Society, which is the national organisation that speaks up for sufferers, and to the work of the all-party group on sickle cell and thalassaemia, which is chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The right hon. Gentleman and the House know that people are living longer. On average, people live into their 80s or thereabouts, but life expectancy for those with sickle cell anaemia is 40 to 50, which is better than it was. Can the Minister and the NHS do more with private pharmaceutical companies to try to find a method of prolonging their life? It may not be as good as 80, but it could certainly better than 40 to 50.

[Mr McFadden]

That is a very good point. Shortened life span is one effect of the condition, and there is certainly more to do on the research and treatment fronts.

Organisations such as those I mentioned are doing a tremendous job in explaining what the condition means for sufferers, calling for more attention to it, and pressing for better training for NHS staff and a more rounded way of providing treatment. I have had extensive contact over the past seven years or so with the Wolverhampton sickle cell care group. It provides hugely needed and valuable support for sufferers, which may be anything from helping patients to deal with different governmental agencies and helping their families through crises when they have to be admitted to hospital, to a broader advocacy role. The group praises many NHS staff locally, but their biggest and most consistent complaint is about lack of understanding of the condition among GPs, A and E staff and some other NHS staff, leading to pain and delay for sufferers and bad consequences for their families.

The group told me about Sharon, a single parent of two children under the age of 10 who has full sickle cell disease and is in frequent crisis. Every time she is admitted to hospital, there is a desperate scramble among friends and relatives to ensure care for her children. There is no proper system in place to support her children, and the stress on her and her family is enormous. She discharges herself from hospital early, often before proper treatment is complete, because she has to look after her children, so the whole pattern soon begins again. Is there not a better way to manage Sharon’s pain than through frequent hospital admissions and incomplete treatment? If she does have to be admitted, should there not be a better system of support for her children?

The group also told me about a local man in his 40s who has gone for years without treatment for bleeding at the back of his eyes as a result of sickle cell disease. His sight is now at risk, but earlier treatment might have brought about a different outcome.

The Sickle Cell Society told me about a patient who was costing the NHS a fortune through repeated hospital admissions, exacerbated by the fact that her children slept in the one bed in her flat and she did not have a bed. Eventually, the charity was able to help her to buy her a bed and that made a huge difference. The cost of her hospital admissions could have paid for a hundred beds.

We will never reach the stage where no patient with sickle cell anaemia needs to be admitted to hospital, but getting the care right has the potential to reduce hospital admissions, making the condition easier to manage for the patient and saving the NHS a considerable amount of money. The fact that there is no cure does not mean that good professional care cannot make a difference.

That brings me to the national picture and the peer review of specialist care carried out by the west midlands quality review service and the UK Forum on Haemoglobin Disorders, which was published last year. The review visited 29 hospitals and reviewed the care provided. The aim of the care standards that have been developed is quite simple: there should be specialist haemoglobinopathy teams based in hospitals, backed up by a local haemoglobinopathy team. In other words, the system should have both the expertise to offer the best care and properly connect primary and hospital care. That is a good aim, but the reality is much more varied and therein is one of main causes of frustration for sickle cell disease sufferers and the organisations that speak out for them.

The peer review process found instances of excellent joined-up practice. It found committed staff going the extra mile to deliver the best care, but it also found overstretch, patchiness, breakdowns in care pathways and an unacceptable degree of variability across the country. The report says:

“Cooperation between acute and community nursing teams was sometimes very good but this was not universal. The availability of social work and psychology support was variable”.

It continued:

“In many teams there were inadequate numbers of nursing staff for the number of patients, or in some cases no acute nurse specialist at all. Even where these posts were in place they often had a very high workload which included inappropriate tasks”

such as

“filling in benefit forms…with very poor cover arrangements.”

The peer review process also found that, particularly in non-haematology parts of the system, patients

“perceived they were viewed as ‘second class’ haematology patients.”

That point about how sickle cell patients view their own experience is critical. They often feel that they are treated either with a lack of understanding or, even worse, sometimes with suspicion when they try to explain their condition or arrive at A and E in need of urgent pain relief. Lack of understanding can lead not only to poor care, but to patients feeling they have not been treated with dignity and that their need for treatment is not respected.

I do not need to remind the Minister that the very principle of the NHS means there should be no such thing as first-class and second-class patients. I do not want to see anyone treated as, or feeling as though they have been treated as, a second-class citizen. The whole basis of the NHS, paid for collectively with treatment on the basis of need, is that everyone is a first-class citizen. If there are sufferers of a genetically inherited condition who do not feel they are being treated as such, that is not acceptable and something we should take very seriously indeed.

Another issue identified by the peer review process is poor quality of data. That leaves us unsure about the number of sufferers and unsure, beyond emergency admissions, about the resources devoted to treating the condition. How can we ensure that there is the right treatment if we do not know how many sufferers there are or where they are? What is the Minister doing to improve those clearly identifiable data problems?

The peer review made a number of good and important recommendations about access to specialist care, staffing levels, training, psychological support and managing the important transition between paediatric and adult care. Those issues are absolutely central to the experience of sickle cell patients. Can the Minister tell us this morning what is happening to those peer review recommendations? Will he undertake to go through them not in a general way, but point by point, and to give a progress report to the House if not today, then soon and in writing? Such a report would be welcomed by sufferers and would ensure that there was follow-up on these important recommendations.

Then there is, for patients, the basic cost of living with the condition. To live with sickle cell is to live with pain, and that often means frequent prescriptions. For some patients, the cost can be prohibitive. This is not just a matter of money, but of behaviour. If people do not use their pain relief efficiently because they cannot afford more, it can affect their condition. I appreciate the cost pressures on the NHS, but will the Minister agree to commission a departmental analysis on whether free prescriptions for sickle cell sufferers would cost money or lead to net savings because they would reduce avoidable hospital admissions?

What of how sickle cell care is to be delivered in the future? NHS England is currently the body responsible for commissioning care for rare diseases. That is sensible, because sufferers might be concentrated in different parts of the country and sometimes there may be few sufferers. However, a review is taking place into how that will be done in the future, the results of which are due next year. There are three possible models: continuing with national commissioning, co-commissioning with clinical commissioning groups locally, or leaving it all to CCGs. Given that concern already exists about the large variation in the quality of treatment, knowledge of the condition and the priority given to it, sickle cell organisations fear that a move to only local CCG commissioning will exacerbate the problems. Can the Minister ensure that the way treatment is organised in future is in line with the central aim of the peer review exercise—to deal with the variability of treatment issue—rather than its being organised in such a way as to make it more difficult? I repeat that our aim should be a system that makes the best the norm, rather than balkanising care and creating a lottery, depending on where sufferers live.

Sickle cell anaemia is an issue that deserves more attention than it has received and a greater priority in the delivery of high-quality health care. In some ways, it is less about knowing what the best care looks like and more about ensuring that it is delivered to the highest standard throughout the country, regardless of where patients live. The condition also requires some smart, joined-up thinking between different agencies. Repeated hospital admissions because of a lack of a bed to sleep on is not a smart way to deal with a condition such as sickle cell.

Sufferers have to put up with a life of pain, but good treatment, the right information and the right lifestyle can make an enormous difference. That treatment, information and help vary so much is not acceptable. Dignity and respect are essential for all NHS patients: sickle cell patients feeling they do not always get that should be a concern for us all. It is time we ensured that the best care is available to all sufferers, delivered by a system that understands the condition, fully respects the patient and allows sufferers to live as full a life as possible. I hope the Minister can respond to the issues I have raised today in a way that makes that more likely. On the issues for which he does not have immediate answers, I hope he will go back to the Department and press his officials to make sure the changes we know are needed happen.

11:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (George Freeman)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen, and to respond to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), whom I congratulate on securing the debate. I hugely welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue.

Sickle cell anaemia is a really terrible condition and diagnosis for all those who are affected, but especially for our African and Afro-Caribbean communities. I want to start by acknowledging the work that the right hon. Gentleman has done for his constituency and his community, and I join him in paying tribute to the all-party parliamentary group on sickle cell and thalassaemia, chaired by the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I also pay tribute to the Sickle Cell Society, the Wolverhampton sickle cell care and social activity centre and the patient groups. As with so many rare diseases, it is the advocacy of the few that in the end leads to changes in mainstream provision, and I am serious about paying tribute to that. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East made a number of important points that I will try to deal with in detail. If I run out of time, perhaps he would allow me to follow them up in more detail in writing.

I stress that for those who have had a sickle cell diagnosis, it is a life-changing moment. All of us who are involved in policy making should not take our eyes off the personal suffering that patients—those with the diagnosis—and families and loved ones experience. Some 250,000 people in the UK carry the sickle cell trait, with about 15,000 affected by sickle cell anaemia, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. For those affected, it can mean a life of constant pain management, including, often, extensive periods of hospitalisation when the pain is bad, blood transfusion and red cell therapy, and tiredness, dizziness, palpitations, jaundice and gallstones. All those in combination mean that people are denied the quality of life that the rest of us take for granted.

However, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, the worst aspect of all is a substantially reduced life expectancy. Even today, sickle cell sufferers will, on average, survive until their 40s or 50s. Even though that is a massive improvement on the position 40 years ago, when the average life expectancy was only 14 years of age, it is still a shock when the rest of us are expecting to live very much longer than that. We can only pay tribute to the bravery shown by the people who have to deal with all the problems that this condition brings. However, bravery and resilience are not enough; we need to look at the way in which we support and treat people and bring on innovative care pathways and medicines. That is why we are continuing to invest in improving services, especially blood, bone marrow and stem cell services, which are vital for the condition.

Let me say something about what we are doing. In England, NHS Blood and Transplant provides blood for transfusion services. There is targeted donor recruitment, extended donation testing, and supplements, through a national frozen blood bank suitable for the long-term storage of blood for those with rare conditions. NHSBT’s therapeutic apheresis services provide a range of services to patients through NHS trusts from its six units situated across England, in Bristol, Liverpool, Oxford, Sheffield, Manchester and Leeds. Those units undertake procedures that provide direct treatment to patients with a range of medical conditions, as well as collecting stem cells from both patients and donors. Therapeutic apheresis treatments and services provide both life-saving and life-enhancing treatments for patients referred in sickle cell crisis or for ongoing sickle cell management. NHSBT is working with commissioners further to improve access to automated red cell exchange for sickle cell patients as part of those services.

One option for patients is a stem cell transplant, which requires genetically matched stem cell units, either from bone marrow donated by an adult donor or through stem cells harvested from cord blood. In the past four years, the Government have provided an additional £12 million of new money to help with transplant services. The Department of Health, working in partnership with NHSBT and the Anthony Nolan charity, has overseen the delivery of improvements way above what we originally anticipated.

The achievements include the following. More than 60% of black, Asian and minority ethnic patients are able to find a well matched donor now, compared with 40% at the beginning of the Parliament, and 258 more UK patients received a potentially curative stem cell transplant in 2013-14 than in 2010-11. The process for stem cell provision has been significantly streamlined, with single access searching in both England and Wales. I am delighted to say that there are now 60,000 young donors on the so-called fit panel, whose volunteers are eight times more likely to have donated stem cells than other registry volunteers.

Increasing use of UK-sourced cord blood to meet the needs of UK patients is crucial. This year, more than 25% of cord blood transplants will use donations from UK donors, costing about half the price of imported units. That compares with 10% in 2010. The time taken to provide stem cells from adult donors has improved. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East knows that that is a crucial issue. Samples for confirmatory HLA—human leukocyte antigen—typing are provided from more than 80% of donors within 15 days now, compared with 35% in 2010.

The NHS and its key delivery partners are committed to continuing service improvement—I will say more about that in a moment—in collaboration with patients and patient group representatives, which is crucial. In the NHS today, if a child is diagnosed with sickle cell anaemia, they will be referred to a care team in a specialist sickle cell centre. Those are specialist units usually based, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in large hospitals and staffed by front-line health care professionals with a high level of expertise in treating people with sickle cell anaemia. A detailed treatment and care plan, which outlines future medical care, is now drawn up for each patient, and parents are given information and support to help them to manage their child’s condition.

Due to the complexity of sickle cell anaemia, multidisciplinary teams are now assembled. Typically, they include paediatricians, haematologists, clinical psychologists, social workers and specialist nurses. The purpose of the care plan is to avoid sickle cell crises and to provide adequate pain relief when a crisis does occur, as well as reducing the risk of serious complications developing, such as infections, stroke and other associated symptoms of sickle cell anaemia.

Clearly, we want to see improvements in health care services for all types of patients. The right hon. Gentleman made that point well. The Government have committed to specific strategic plans in key areas. One of those plans is “The UK Strategy for Rare Diseases”, which covers sickle cell anaemia. The strategy sets out a shared UK vision for all those affected by rare diseases. It is owned by each country in the UK and commits them to more than 50 commitments. The strategy focuses on five areas: empowering patients, identifying and preventing rare diseases, diagnosis and earlier intervention, the role of research and, most importantly of all, co-ordination of care. As I have said, people suffering from long-term conditions are resilient, but that resilience can easily be undermined by the constant to-ing and fro-ing that occurs when a patient’s care pathway is not properly managed.

[Mr McFadden]

I thank the Minister for outlining the nature of the specialist care teams that are in place. He is right, but the critical point made by the report from the peer review exercise was that although that approach worked well in some places, it did not work as well in others. The specialists whom he talked about—the specialist consultants and specialist nursing staff—were not always there in sufficient numbers, and there is still something of a lottery, some might say, or at least unacceptable variability in the quality of treatment and the understanding of the condition, depending on where the patient lives. I therefore want to press the Minister on the recommendations from the peer review exercise, which were all about making the best the norm. What will he and the Department do to ensure that those recommendations are followed through on in that way?

[George Freeman]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have my eye on the clock, and I will deal with it.

I conclude my opening remarks by saying that it is no longer acceptable to make the patient fit the pathway. We need to fit the pathway around the nature and progression of the disease in patients. These patients in particular have to see a wide range of professionals, and we need to look at that model. The final thing that I want to mention in terms of our strategic response is the genome project. We are funding 100,000 full genome sequences, to be put together with phenotypic data, with cancer and rare diseases as the initial focus. I am confident that that will quickly start to unlock some insights into possible preventions and new treatments.

The right hon. Gentleman made a number of important points, and I want to acknowledge them. If I cannot deal with all of them now, I will come back to him in writing. He made points about the lack of understanding among GPs across the system; the need for better care pathways to try to reduce hospital admissions; the importance of data underpinning our understanding of good outcomes, best and worst practice and variability; and the important insights in the report. I want to come back to his two specific requests. I would be delighted to ask the various organisations involved to give me a progress report on where they have got to in implementing the various measures, and I will obviously share that with him; perhaps we will have an opportunity to debate it. I will also happily ask NHS England and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to look at the health economics of free prescriptions in terms of short-term costs unlocking longer-term savings. I cannot prejudge the outcome of that, but I will happily look into the issue.

In the three minutes left to me, I want to touch on a couple of the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman made. How do we promote understanding and get sickle cell disease higher up the agenda? The 100,000 genomes project also includes a substantial investment in training in rare diseases for clinicians across the NHS as we launch our genetic medicines service. NHSBT and the Anthony Nolan charity continue to promote donations of blood and stem cells, but there is also the issue of the training that goes with that. The Department of Health is working with those key delivery partners to see what more can be done to improve not only donation, but the understanding of the condition and the training across the system.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what measures were being put in place to support care for people with long-term conditions. Our aim is to make the NHS among the best in Europe at supporting people with long-term conditions such as sickle cell disease. In the past, we have not done as well in that area as we would have liked. Through the mandate, we have asked NHS England to make measurable, tangible progress and commitments to supporting people with ongoing health problems to live healthily and independently. The NHS outcomes framework contains a range of improvement areas, and I will happily ask it to give me a progress report on that work.

NHS England is tasked with responding to the UK rare diseases strategy. Earlier this year, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, it issued a statement of intent that sets out how it intends to play its part in delivering that strategy; and in the recent NHS England “Five Year Forward View”, it has set out various commitments on exploring specialist centres for rare diseases to improve the co-ordination of care for patients in line with the strategy. I understand that NHS England will be looking to those specialist providers to develop networks of services, integrating different organisations and services around patients. As I said, I will happily ask for a progress report and share it with the right hon. Gentleman. Possibly we will have a chance to debate that in a format similar to this.

I again pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership on this issue. I think that the advocacy of Members of Parliament and particularly those with high concentrations of patients who are especially heavily affected by this condition, along with that of patient groups and charities, will be seen in years to come to have played a major part in helping to drive new care pathways and the integration of research, medicine and care, so that patients who are suffering are given the support that they need.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Ofsted

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Dr William McCrea in the Chair]

14:29

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to introduce a debate on the accountability of Ofsted, not least because Her Majesty’s chief inspector’s annual report was published today. Few issues can be more important for our country than standards and attainment in education. Ofsted plays, and has played, a pivotal role in trying to ensure that all our schools are stretched to demonstrate excellence in what they do, and that they are held to account publicly for their failures and shortcomings.

At the start of such a debate, one can do little better than to refer to the chief inspector’s conclusion in today’s report, in which he states:

“We are at a watershed moment in the history of our education system. As we near the next general election, no major political party is talking about reversing the trend towards the greater autonomy that our schools now enjoy.

I believe the time has now come to move away from the debate that has raged for the past five years about school structures and towards a sharper focus on what works in all schools, regardless of their model of governance or status.

The essential ingredients for success are no secret and have been well documented from time immemorial—strong leadership, a positive and orderly culture, good teaching and robust assessment systems.”

I want to concentrate on that last phrase. Without robust assessment systems, it is difficult for Ofsted to demonstrate that it is objective and consistent. Ofsted must be accountable publicly for its actions and judgments, and particularly for ensuring the factual accuracy of the data on which such judgments are made. Only then can we be sure that the assessments it makes are robust.

On 30 October this year, the National Audit Office published a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General on oversight and intervention in academies and maintained schools. The NAO states:

“Our public audit perspective helps Parliament hold government to account and improve public services.”

As the report makes clear, it has been the policy of the Department for Education since 2010 that a maintained school with sustained or serious underperformance should normally expect to become a sponsored academy. A sponsored academy is directly accountable to the Secretary of State rather than to the local authority. The latest figures from the NAO show that there are some 4,200 academies in England, and that 17,300 maintained schools are still overseen by local authorities. Academies have been an important vehicle for improving standards. They have helped to ensure that the majority of schools that Ofsted rates inadequate improve by their next inspection.

As the NAO reminds us, however, 1.6 million of the 7 million children aged four to 16 are still educated at schools that are not rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. Against that background, we must be concerned by the NAO’s conclusion that the Department for Education has not demonstrated that the £382 million of taxpayers’ money that was spent on oversight and intervention in 2013-14 is delivering value for money. The NAO states that

“the clear messages about acceptable standards of performance must be paired with more ways to spot problems early on and a demonstrably consistent approach to tackling underperformance when it occurs.”

Ofsted responded, in a sense, to those comments on page 25 of its annual report:

“We are also taking action to improve the quality of inspection.”

That is an implicit acceptance of the fact that, hitherto, the quality of inspection has not been sufficiently good. The report states that

“from next year, Ofsted will contract directly with inspectors, rather than through third party providers. This will enable Ofsted to take direct control of the selection, quality assurance and development of its inspection workforce.”

Having provided some background, I want to draw attention to what has happened to a secondary school in my constituency. In today’s annual report, the chief inspector states:

“Over 170,000 pupils are now in secondary schools rated inadequate, around 70,000 more than in 2012.”

On that basis, more secondary schools are becoming inadequate at a time when everybody is saying that we have to improve standards. My concern is that some of the judgments about whether schools are inadequate or good are extremely subjective.

Pupils at Ferndown upper school in my constituency are among that cohort of 70,000. When the school was inspected on 24 and 25 November 2010, it was rated good, which is the second highest of the four categories. In its report on that inspection, Ofsted stated:

“Ferndown Upper is a good school that has improved appreciably since the last inspection and has the capacity to improve further.”

The report also states:

“There is a rising trend in students’ attainment and the majority of students make good progress regardless of their background, starting points or special educational needs. Teaching is good and there is a strategic policy to ensure that regular and systematic assessment takes place in all subject areas.”

According to the report,

“examination results for 2010 show a continuing trend of improvement…there has been a significant increase in the number of students attaining five A* to C grades at GCSE, including English and mathematics. This figure has risen by 12 per cent since last year and is now above the national average.”

The report goes on to say:

“The school has worked hard to improve attendance and has put in place monitoring and support systems”.

It also states:

“The headteacher and his leadership team have a clear vision for the school. They are committed to driving through a range of improvements to raise standards and develop students as ‘confident, independent learners and responsible citizens’.”

Just over three years later, another Ofsted report was published. The school has the same head teacher and chair of governors, and, speaking as the Member of Parliament, there is no dispute among local people about the fact that the school, although by no means perfect, has not deteriorated but has improved during those three years. In the inspection of 9 and 10 January 2014, Ofsted rated the school as inadequate, which is the lowest of the four grades. Ofsted said that the school had “serious weaknesses” and stated:

“Achievement is inadequate because both past and current students have not made sufficient progress, especially in English.”

It stated that teaching was inadequate and that leaders

“have not taken the actions needed to improve teaching and achievement, particularly in English”.

The school was, understandably, incensed that it had been marked down in such an arbitrary fashion.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

What has happened to the school’s GCSE results since 2010? What happened to the number of pupils receiving five A* to C grades in the period between the two inspections?

[Mr Chope]

I do not have those figures in my head, but I have figures showing that, in the period since the inspection, there has been a significant increase in GCSE performance at A* to C. Those figures compare very favourably with many other schools in Dorset that are rated not inadequate but good. If in due course I look at the detailed material I have here, I might be able to answer the hon. Gentleman’s specific question.

The school and its governors decided to appeal against what they regarded as an inadequate conclusion to the inspection. The report was published on 19 March 2014, and when the head distributed it to parents, as he is obliged to do, he said that the inspectors had ignored various issues. He said that, although

“there remain areas for improvement, the Governors and Senior Leadership Team of the school share with the whole staff the belief that this inspection was unfair and deeply unjust…We knew and accepted that English had under-performed”.

He stated that the school was taking action about that, which is why the school was

“predicting…good results in English this summer”.

Indeed, the school did get good results in English in the summer of 2014, and the head expressed concern about predictions for the future:

“a point the inspectors seem to have ignored. Instead they focused on data from the last 3 years, including 2012, the year in which grade boundaries were suddenly changed leading to a national outcry. This directly contradicts their own guidance which urges inspectors not to focus just on the last 3 years but to take into account current progress.

Inspectors also appear to have ignored the wealth of opportunity that the school continues to offer through the wide variety of trips, activities, clubs and achievements that cannot be measured as easily as English results.”

He drew a contrast with the inspector’s report from 2010, saying that

“everyone who knows the school well would say that it is actually a better school today than in 2010!”

One of the concerns the head and the governors have is that Ofsted compared the school’s attendance and exclusions—the inspection was carried out not by Ofsted inspectors but by Tribal, a subcontractor to Ofsted—with secondary schools that were not comparable. Ferndown upper school has only years 9, 10, 11 and a sixth form, whereas the schools with which Ofsted compared it also have years 7 and 8. Obviously, in years 7 and 8, as national figures make clear, attendance is better and exclusions are fewer. Ofsted was not comparing like with like, which is a fundamental error.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Using the evidence of one school, he seems to be saying that there are concerns about standards within Ofsted. He just mentioned that the inspection was carried out by a subcontractor. Does he agree that the answer to improving the consistency and quality of Ofsted is to ensure that all inspectors are directly engaged, as Sir Michael Wilshaw has recommended in recent months?

[Mr Chope]

Indeed, Sir Michael Wilshaw has recommended that, and I assume that the only reason he has done so is because in his experience there has not been such consistency and quality assurance under the old regime. I support his judgment on that, but it is no consolation for a school that has fallen foul of the old and inconsistent regime. Future improvements may lead to more consistency; indeed, the purpose of this debate is to try to find out what can be done to ensure consistency. So much turns on Ofsted’s judgment of a particular school.

What happens if a school is dissatisfied with an inspection? All it can do is appeal. Under Ofsted’s internal appeals process, Ofsted inspectors judge the work of other Ofsted inspectors. In the case of Ferndown upper school, a more junior Ofsted inspector judged the work of a more senior inspector, which I would submit is quite an invidious position to be put in—it certainly lacks the transparency and objectivity that we should demand of such organisations.

The school then appealed to the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted, which deals with appeals against Ofsted. Unfortunately, the ICASO is effectively toothless because it cannot adjudicate on the important issues. The school made what is called a stage 4 complaint, which said, for example, that the inspectors who went to the school made notes and said orally to the school that they found that the pupils’ behaviour was good and that there were no examples of bad behaviour, but that they changed their judgment at a later stage in the process and said that they were concerned that there had been examples of bad behaviour.

Not surprisingly, the school said, “Well, let’s see where those examples of bad behaviour were noted by the inspectors at the time.” The school was told, “That’s all confidential information and it’s not available under freedom of information.” The school raised that issue with ICASO. The response from ICASO, which came through in the summer, stated that the complainant’s concerns relating to the Freedom of Information Act lie entirely outside ICASO’s remit, so it was not able to look at that. ICASO also said that it is not within its remit to overturn Ofsted judgments or to scrutinise its inspection criteria. Indeed, the only thing ICASO can do is look at the process, which is not really what we want in an appeals system.

Once a school has gone through that stage and had its ICASO adjudication, what can it do next? All it can do is send the matter to the parliamentary ombudsman. If ever there was the long grass, it is the parliamentary ombudsman—I am not insulting him, but the parliamentary ombudsman, again, can only consider administrative processes. Because of his work load, a complaint referred to the parliamentary ombudsman is unlikely to be determined for a significant period of time, by when the school will have a completely different cohort of pupils. That does not seem to be an adequate process of accountability. I would be interested to know whether the Minister—whom I am delighted to see in his place—agrees and whether he has any proposals for change, because the more emphasis we put on the regulatory and inspection process, the more important it is that it should be seen to be objective and above reproach. The trouble is that the consequences of such judgments feed into the school’s morale and the esteem in which it is held by potential pupils. That in itself can result in it suffering to a greater extent.

The school has now shown, through its results in the July exams, a significant improvement in the quality of its education. That is surely good news, but when one looks at the inspector’s follow-up letter, one does not get the impression that he is as pleased as the school is with the progress made and the way in which it is now outperforming many other schools in Dorset in the exam league tables. That raises another issue: because the school has a grade 4 assessment from Ofsted, while comparable schools in Dorset have grade 2 assessments—that is, good—people immediately reach the conclusion that it is less good than the others. However, because of when those other schools had their inspections, we may well not be comparing like with like.

That is one of the problems, which we know is not unique to Dorset or to Ferndown upper school. Evidence from throughout the country shows that Ofsted will quite often fail to see things in a school that are going badly wrong. Just to show that the debate is not purely about the Christchurch constituency, I will refer briefly to what happened at Saltley school and specialist science college. The International New York Times had an exclusive interview with the former principal of that school who talked about “harassment” from the local board over courses. He referred to the “relentless criticism” that he faced from a “Muslim-dominated school board”—he being a Sikh—and spoke about how he was eventually forced to step down as principal.

We now know that that school was the subject of an emergency report, “Report into allegations concerning Birmingham schools arising from the ‘Trojan Horse’ letter”, which was published in July 2014 and made severe criticisms. In a statement issued to Parliament yesterday, the Government drew attention to the gross inadequacies of Birmingham city council in dealing with those and other issues and they have proceeded, as near as they can, to put Birmingham city council under special measures. At a time when the Government are talking about the importance of devolving even more power to local authorities, that finding shows that one of the largest local authorities—I think Birmingham has more children under its control than any other local education authority—is severely lacking.

One might ask, “What do Ofsted think about Saltley school and specialist science college?” It was inspected on 9 and 10 May 2013 and under every category—achievement of pupils, quality of teaching, behaviour and safety of pupils, and leadership and management—it was marked as good. The report said that the school was “good” and that:

“Students made good progress from their low starting points,”

and so on. It also said:

“The new head teacher and senior leaders have accurately identified strengths and weaknesses in the school and have continued to improve teaching and raise achievement.”

We now know that that was substantially wide of the mark, yet does anything in Ofsted’s annual report explain how it was able to produce that inspection for Saltley school on 9 and 10 May 2013, when just over a year later, in July 2014, it became clear that what was alleged to be a really good school was far from that?

I give that as another example of Ofsted’s inconsistency and lack of accountability. When parents who were thinking about sending their children to Saltley school and specialist science college looked at the Ofsted report, they must have thought, “This is brilliant; this is fantastic.” Yet just over a year later, they would have been ashamed about having made that judgment.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that the increasing numbers of educational practitioners who it is hoped will be on Ofsted teams from now on will decrease the likelihood of his experience being repeated in the future?

[Mr Chope]

I certainly hope so, but whatever system is in place—this is the essence of the debate—there needs to be some means of appeal, if needs be, into the substance. In such situations, conciliation and discussion is much better than formal, adversarial appeals processes. Ultimately, there must be a way for a school head to engage with an inspector or a group of inspectors and say, “Sorry, you’ve got this wrong.”

One of the difficulties in the case of Ferndown upper was that the moderation process was not allowed to be developed early on. It was said that because the school had been assessed as grade 4, it needed to be dealt with first by the inspectorate before the concerns expressed could be moderated. We need a system that ensures that where schools feel they have been judged incorrectly, they can have that put right in a timely fashion, because there are implications for their viability. In this debate we are talking about publicly funded schools, but if we look at how inspection processes can affect commercial organisations, we can see that the consequences of an unjustly bad report may be disastrous for their viability.

I am delighted that other people have come along to participate in the debate. When we get to the conclusion, I hope that the Minister will set out exactly how we can improve Ofsted’s accountability to teachers, parents and pupils—everyone involved.

Nothing I have said is designed to detract from the importance of ensuring that we have the highest standards in our schools. Standards have been improving, and a lot of credit is due to the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who will respond to the debate, as well as the previous Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and the current Secretary of State for being vigorous in saying that we must try to move away from a culture in which producer interests prevail to the disadvantage of the consumer. I am all in favour of these reforms, but they would be even better if we could get more objectivity into the way Ofsted is held accountable to the public, to the Secretary of State for Education and ultimately, through the Secretary of State, to this House.

15:00

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing this important debate. He has made a compelling case for ensuring the accountability of Ofsted. He has given a number of examples where it has fallen short and made arbitrary and subjective decisions.

Of course, Ofsted inspects not only schools but whole children’s departments and the protection and care of children. I will talk about a report that Ofsted produced on Manchester city council’s children’s department on 1 September, but first I want to reiterate what the hon. Gentleman said: inspection and monitoring are vital parts of public services. They are necessary parts of the accountability process, and it is important that we get them right and understand what is happening.

It is also important that the metrics are right. I will give just one example of how difficult metrics can be. When the Conservative Government in the early ’90s brought in metrics to measure the performance of planning departments and introduce a level of accountability, they said that planning applications should be determined within 40 days, and if they were not, the department concerned was seen to be failing. I was leader of Manchester city council then, and our average time for turning applications round was about 43 days. We were very pleased with that, because there were very few appeals against our decisions. As a lot of work was put in beforehand, the decisions were often better and all parties were happy. However, an arbitrary metric misguided the public as to the competence of the department.

One also has to look at who the inspectors are. My guess is that people do not start out life deciding to be an inspector of planning or an Ofsted inspector. Ofsted inspectors probably start off in child protection of some sort, as a social worker, or as a teacher. Sometimes they become inspectors because they have not done so well, or have failed, in those professions, and sometimes it is because they want more money, but my experience is that as a result they often have a jaundiced view of the inspection process. One has to be wary, and aware that that is a possibility, when looking at how effective these inspections are and what the accountability should be.

I will talk about Manchester’s children’s services department, but I want to place on the record that this is not a defence of that department. I have been concerned about a number of areas; I have written to the council; and I have published statistics that did not show the council in the best light with regard to what happened to referred children, because often they were not dealt with quickly enough, and in some cases they were not dealt with at all.

I have expressed public concern about referred children. I knew of a number of cases where the culture of the department had inhibited the fostering and adoption of children: the process was too lengthy; people had not turned up on time, or at all, to interview potential foster parents and adoptive parents; and interviewers often asked questions that were intrusive and—to my mind, and the minds of the potential foster and adoptive parents—irrelevant. So this is not a mindless defence of Manchester city council’s children’s department from an ex-leader of that department. It is really a case of asking whether we understand more about what is going on in the children’s department after Ofsted’s inspection.

On 1 September, Ofsted said in its report that for

“Children who need help and protection”

the service is “inadequate”. Similarly, it said that for

“Children looked after and achieving permanence”

the service “requires improvement”. Adoption performance was judged “inadequate”, and

“Experiences and progress of care leavers”

also “requires improvement”. Finally, it said that “Leadership, management and governance” were “inadequate”. That is not a glowing report. It was produced by eight inspectors over a period of about five or six weeks, and it must have been quite expensive.

Having complained about the department previously, I went to the report with some interest, but I have to say—this is the core of my contribution—that I was extremely disappointed. The department had had inspections in 2010, 2011 and 2013. The 2013 inspection was on fostering, the 2011 inspection was on adoption, and the 2010 inspection was on safeguarding looked-after children. Those inspections produced two “good” ratings and one “adequate” rating, so they were not cause for concern. However, as there had now been a report giving an “inadequate” rating, I wanted to look at numbers, to see exactly how the service had deteriorated during the period in question.

Although there were some numbers in the report, they were absolute numbers, telling us how many single assessments had not progressed, for example—there was a number in the report for that. However, that was not compared with any of the previous reports, and the comments were generally things such as “slow”, “quality of care record keeping: not good”, “could do better”, “too long to get help” or “too many children waiting for help”. Not only were there not absolute numbers but it was not possible to compare the numbers in the report with those in previous reports.

There was one particularly odd thing. It was not really a metric, but a comment that too many of the looked-after children did not go to good schools. The report did not say how many of the schools in Manchester were good and whether it was possible for all the looked-after children to go to them.

I wrote to Ofsted and asked if it could produce the comparative tables that would enable me to see if the department had gone backwards or forwards, and to see what the situation was that had justified the change to “inadequate”. Ofsted replied to me within about a fortnight; I have no complaint about its speed of response. The response was from Jo Morgan, Ofsted’s regional director, north-west. She said that it was not possible to produce those tables and she gave the reasons why. I will quote from her letter:

“The recent inspection differs from previous inspections as it has a different methodology. It is therefore not possible to make any direct comparisons between judgements. The current single inspection framework is an unannounced universal inspection. It is conducted in a three year cycle and judges local authority services for looked after children, alongside the arrangements to protect children. Ofsted acknowledges that the ‘bar’ has been raised in two ways. Firstly, ‘good’ is now the minimum acceptable standard. The new framework sets out the criteria for ‘good’ in respect of the protection of children, the care they receive, and the arrangements in place to lead and manage services. Any local authority that is unable to provide evidence that the characteristics of good are in place will be will be deemed to ‘require improvement’. The second aspect of our raising the ‘bar’ relates to our explicit and unrelenting focus on both the experiences of children, young people and families and the difference that the help they receive makes to their lives and life chances. Whilst it is recognised that this methodology presents a challenge to local authorities, our priority remains the contribution inspection can make to the help, protection and care of vulnerable children and young people.”

The philosophy behind that is sound, but if the local authority and anybody interested in what is happening are to know whether those serious criteria are being met, they have to be able to measure things and put numbers on them, but the letter and the report make no attempt to do that. Therefore, when Ofsted says that the methodology presents a challenge to local authorities, I would say it makes it impossible for them to know, other than in terms of a generalised report, why they are succeeding or failing. Unless a percentage or a rate of improvement is given for the speed at which children are assessed when they are referred to the local authority, or for the number of children placed in foster care or accepted for adoption, it is difficult for the authority to know what is happening.

Ofsted is failing in terms of inspectors’ basic task of enabling those who want to hold it to account to do so. One does not have to be too cynical to say that in Rotherham, Rochdale and, previously, Haringey, and a number of the other terrible situations we have seen in many of our towns and cities where children were not properly protected by the local authority, the police and others who should have been looking after them, Ofsted had given virtually all the local authorities involved a clean bill of health. After Rotherham was given a clean bill of health, we found that 1,400 children had been abused. From memory—I did not look it up—Haringey had been given an excellent rating before the baby P case.

[Mr Chope]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Does he share my hope that the Minister will be able to explain how Ofsted was held to account for its manifest failures of judgment in those cases?

[Graham Stringer]

I am looking forward to the Minister’s reply to the hon. Gentleman’s contribution and mine. After those awful events, I am led to the conclusion that, when Ofsted raises the bar, as it puts it, without giving quantified criteria, it is engaged in an exercise that is about not inspection and the accountability of child protection services, but the protection of Ofsted. If Ofsted says that Manchester city council or some other local authority is inadequate or requires improvement, and something terrible happens—I sincerely hope it does not—Ofsted is not to blame, whereas it clearly could be blamed for the reports it gave on the authorities I mentioned earlier. What we are seeing is not an inspection regime that helps us to understand whether our children are being protected, but one that puts out a lot of propaganda for its own protection. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

15:13

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I wish to make a short contribution, and the title of the debate enables me to do precisely that. I want to raise a matter on behalf of a constituent.

The debate relates to the accountability of Ofsted, and we all hope that Ofsted inspectors do their work in a fair, constructive and objective way. However, occasionally, judgments can go awry, and they sometimes have a serious impact.

A constituent submitted concerns to Ofsted about her son’s school and his treatment in that school. She was assured by an Ofsted inspector in writing that Ofsted had not revealed to the school that she had made a complaint. However, she has had sight of official documents showing that Ofsted did make the school aware that she had been in touch with inspectors.

I would like to ask the Minister specifically how my constituent and I can challenge Ofsted about its behaviour, which is unacceptable, a complete breach of trust and contrary to the whole notion of whistleblowing.

15:14

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on securing the debate and on his thoughtful and important contribution, in which he sought to outline the experience of a school in his constituency of going through the Ofsted inspection process.

I intervened on the hon. Gentleman earlier about the school’s exam history, and it would have been helpful had he been able to tell us a little more about it. Perhaps the Minister knows the details and can tell us whether it was a factor in Ofsted’s judgment. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman raised some important issues.

The hon. Gentleman made the important point that, in making serious judgments about the quality of schools, we should not forget the wider aspects of schools or the wider curriculum. I certainly agree that no school should be able to be rated as outstanding unless it has a broad and balanced offer for its pupils, including an excellent cultural offer. Perhaps we need to think more about that, and I might say more about it later.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Trojan horse affair in Birmingham. I do not intend to go through it in any great detail again today, but it would be useful if the Minister told us his view of what has happened since the Trojan horse affair, and of how Ofsted is inspecting schools in the light of the newly introduced need to teach British values in the aftermath of that affair. If he could update us on the Department’s view of how that is going, that might benefit the House and would certainly relate very much to Ofsted’s accountability, which is the subject of the debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) on his contribution. He expressed concerns about the quality of inspections of children’s services in Manchester. He made some important points about safeguarding and the failure of inspections sometimes to pick up problems with safeguarding children. Those are serious issues, and the Minister will have taken those remarks on board and will want to say something about them.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who was born on the same day as me, although she looks a lot younger. She raised a serious constituency issue, which should be the subject of a formal complaint. I am sure that she, as a constituency MP, will take that up directly, but it would be useful to hear the Minister’s response.

As many Members here know, I used to be a teacher, so I have been through the process of being inspected, albeit not under the current dispensation. I can tell Members, and any teacher will agree, that it is not necessarily a pleasant experience, but it is a necessary experience. I absolutely accept that inspection forms an important part of the process. Before the Minister starts looking up how I did in that inspection, let me say that I was perfectly happy with how it turned out.

We should acknowledge that inspection is a stressful process and that head teachers, teachers and even pupils and parents can find it stressful. Although inspection is an extremely necessary process and must focus forensically on ensuring that children are not being failed in our system—a principle that the Opposition absolutely support—we should bear in mind the human side of things when schools are inspected.

One of the sad things about discussions of Ofsted is that they are very much based on the headlines we tend to see in the newspapers when things such as the Ofsted annual report are published. Very few people read beyond the headlines and into the detail of what the chief inspector says in his report. People tend to take up political positions on what has been said, but Sir Michael Wilshaw made some extremely sensible remarks in his commentary on the annual report, some of which are things we have known for a long time, such as that for a school to be outstanding it needs great leadership. It is also necessary for it to have great middle-level leaders; and that depends on the great senior leadership. We could do a lot more to strengthen the role of middle leaders, particularly in secondary schools. Sir Michael said in his report today that he is concerned that they are not making progress and that more children are being taught in schools rated inadequate. The necessary things include good leadership and good teachers, effective and accurate assessment, and dealing with such things as low-level disruption.

As a former teacher I do not think it is really possible to teach without first creating a quiet, orderly environment. Beyond that, many things are possible and teachers can move on to all sorts of innovative and interesting activities; but it is and always has been the starting point—the basis and foundation of the craft of the classroom. I would not go as far as saying, as we used to when I was teaching, “Never smile until Easter,” but it is necessary to establish the proper quiet and orderly environment in a classroom if a teacher is to teach effectively and make sure that learning happens. I understand why Sir Michael is concerned about low-level disruption; about the stretching of able pupils; about many schools’ failure to do enough to narrow the gap between disadvantaged pupils and those from better-off backgrounds; and—topically, after the Government’s announcement today—about the current poor careers advice in schools, which is almost universally accepted, except by the Department for Education, to have worsened significantly since 2010.

Perhaps the Minister will expand a little further on today’s announcement about the new careers company—particularly why it was not put out to tender and how the choice was made to give a particular sum of money to a particular individual and group to run it. I should be interested to know what thinking was behind that. Was it to do with the time it would take to get that done before purdah, or was there a genuine operational, strategic reason for doing things in that way instead of by the normal governmental tendering process? The Public Accounts Committee might be interested to know about that.

Sir Michael Wilshaw also talked about governance not being strong enough. We all need to listen to that, and to address the issue. He also flagged up a severe concern about teacher supply. I know the Minister is interested in that, and he noted the 17% fall since 2010 in the numbers entering initial teacher training. I should be interested in his view of Sir Michael’s remarks. Does he agree that teacher supply is an emerging issue, and if so what will he do about it?

Under the present Government there have been problems relating to the proper relationship between the Department for Education and Ofsted. Indeed, there have been accusations of an attempt by the Department to politicise Ofsted in the current Parliament, not least because of the sacking of its chair, Sally Morgan, and the memo from senior advisers to the former Secretary of State suggesting that it might be right to sack Sir Michael Wilshaw. Those revelations have led to accusations by people speaking on behalf of the Schools Minister—he is here this afternoon—of a Government attempt to politicise Ofsted. The report of 9 October in The Guardian said:

“A Liberal Democrat source close to schools minister David Laws said: ‘The fact is that, Gove, Cummings and others around them have been deeply disappointed by Michael Wilshaw’s refusal to play ball. This is almost certainly what lay behind their previous attempt to politicise the inspectorate.’”

So that is confirmation from the Schools Minister, or rather his spokesperson, whom he might perhaps want to identify—it might have been him; I do not know, but whoever the source close to him was, I am sure he would like to tell us—that the previous Secretary of State and his advisers have been involved in an attempt to politicise Ofsted. Of course, that is a dangerous path to take, so when the Minister talks about the accountability of Ofsted, perhaps he will tell us how he valiantly fought off the attempts in his Department to politicise it, who was involved in them, and what he is doing to rein in that tendency in the Department.

That is not to say that Ofsted is a perfect organisation, as anyone would admit. Concerns are frequently expressed to Ministers, shadow Ministers and others. We have heard in the debate some of the concerns about the way Ofsted inspections are carried out. We need to think about how to move on and reform it. It might help if I say something about Labour policy on Ofsted. The Opposition recognise that school inspections play a crucial role in upholding standards in schools, but we oppose the Government’s attempts to politicise Ofsted, which the Schools Minister has complained about, because they would ultimately undermine the integrity and independence of the schools inspectorate. National systems of inspection and accountability should be collaborative rather than confrontational—an issue that perhaps contributes to some of the concerns expressed in the debate. Otherwise, the effect of inspection could too often be to narrow children’s educational experience.

We need to prevent that from happening. We want schools to be innovative; we do not want them to operate in an accountability framework that makes them fear innovating, developing new pedagogies and using new technologies. Of course they must meet the requirements on standards, but we do not want an atmosphere in which schools always play a conservative part. We want innovation and we need pedagogies to be developed. We need to use and unleash the talents of teachers in what Ofsted called in 2010 the finest generation of teachers we have ever had in this country—albeit one dreadfully undermined by the Government’s disastrous policy, with which I understand the Schools Minister also disagrees, of allowing unqualified teachers in schools.

Labour believes that the role of the schools inspectorate needs to be examined. In government we will ensure that the inspection process is more collaborative and that school improvement involves schools reviewing one another, and monitoring by the middle tier. We have talked about creating directors of school standards to clear up the muddle that has occurred since the present Government’s piecemeal, rapid and politically motivated timetable of academisation. What Sir Michael Wilshaw said today about the obsession with structures, rather than the things that really matter for school improvement, was extremely helpful. The name over the door does not matter. What matters is the quality of leadership and teaching in a school, not the name and title. An end to a Government-favoured brand of school will be a positive step forward, and I am glad that Sir Michael said what he did.

[Mr Chope]

On that point, does the hon. Gentleman accept, on behalf of the Labour party, that there should not be an obsession with being for or against academies, free schools or maintained schools, but that we should look at each school on its merits?

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes, I accept the hon. Gentleman’s proposition that each school should be considered on its merits, but we should be creating a framework of fairness within which schools of all types and denominations can operate, with a fair and proper admissions procedure, an effective admissions code and a stronger adjudicator on admissions, to ensure that schools are operating together in a collaborative framework. We do not believe in using naked market forces to drive schools out of business. We believe in weaker schools being helped by stronger schools in the system and insisting that such collaboration must happen, because ultimately that is how an increase is standards is achieved. That is what happened under the framework of London Challenge, for example, through a collaborative approach, rather than relying on creating an over-supply to drive schools out of business and, ultimately, putting pupils in ever-failing and declining schools over time and ruining their lives with an obsession with market forces. Unfortunately, that certainly was the philosophy of the previous Secretary of State and some of his closest advisers.

We will ensure that there is more collaborative work on school improvement, involving schools reviewing one another and monitoring by the middle tier; we have talked about creating directors of school standards, as well as the national inspectorate. We will ensure that early years settings and primary schools are judged against how well they develop children’s knowledge, skills and qualities through a broad and balanced curriculum, alongside tests in English and maths. We have already called for Ofsted to have the power to inspect academy chains and we are committed to monitoring its role. That confirms what I said to the hon. Member for Christchurch: we want the same treatment for all schools, so that, as well as inspecting local authorities, which may have responsibility for groups of schools, Ofsted can inspect not just individual schools in an academy chain but the operation of the chain itself.

I hear concerns that schools in some academy chains have less autonomy and are given directions from head office about exactly what they have to do. That head office is sometimes in a remote part of the country, far away from where the school is operating. Those schools’ policies are being determined from far away and there is little accountability in the system, so inspecting academy chains is important. I hope the Schools Minister agrees. We were not able to persuade the previous Secretary of State or the current one to permit that, but Sir Michael Wilshaw has asked for it and we support it. I hope the Schools Minister confirms that he supports that, too, because he seems to support an awful lot of what we say nowadays about schools and education policy, in contrast with his colleagues in the Department for Education.

Does the Minister agree with Sir Michael Wilshaw, who said today that in the last couple of years 70,000 more pupils are being taught in inadequate secondary schools? If so, what is his policy response and how should we deal with it? Obviously, if that is so—I have no reason to believe that the chief inspector of schools is wrong—there needs to be some policy response. It is not adequate simply to say, “Our academisation programme and our free schools policy will solve all problems”, because we know that is not true. What are we actually trying to do to put that right? It is a challenge to all of us, if such a process is occurring.

I recognise the improvements made by many schools in recent years, under this Government and the previous one, and their raising of standards. That is to be celebrated and commended but it is down, principally, to the hard work of school teachers, school leaders, governors and others, probably far more than to politicians and education policy makers, who often have little experience of the front line—the classroom—and more experience of policy think-tanks. However, if over the past couple of years 70,000 more pupils are being taught in inadequate schools, the Government should be concerned about that and should have something to say about it. I hope that the Minister has.

Will the Minister update us on what is happening about accusations that the Inspiration Trust in Norfolk was given prior notification of inspection? As has been said, this system has to be fair across the country and everybody must have the same notification—or no notification—of inspection. I am sure that Members would be grateful for any information the Minister could provide to update the House.

Will the Minister comment on the following, from an article in The Guardian on Tuesday 9 December?

“In September 2013, an Ofsted stipulation that inspectors should ‘consider the food on offer at the school and atmosphere of the school canteen’ was introduced, following pressure from organisations including the Jamie Oliver Foundation. But this August, it I was quietly removed, in a streamlining of inspection guidance. Ofsted’s latest consultation on a new inspection framework, which closed last Friday, has also omitted to mention school food.”

I know the Minister has a genuine interest in this subject. Can he shed any light on whether there is to be a dilution of the inspection of the quality of school food?

What does the Minister think of the following remark by Sir Michael Wilshaw in the annual report?

“The proportion of secondary schools in which leadership and management are judged inadequate has…doubled over the past two years.”

Again, that should be of direct concern to the Department. Does the Minister agree with and recognise Sir Michael Wilshaw’s observation? If so, what is his response and what does he intend to do about it?

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Minister, before I call you, although I am sure there could be a temptation to go into the wider education debate, I have to remind you that the parameters of the debate are the accountability of Ofsted and we have to keep to those.

15:29

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea, and I will certainly follow your wise advice, in spite of the temptations of the shadow Schools Minister to draw me off into all sorts of other areas.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on raising this issue, giving us an opportunity not only to address the issue of his local school, but to reflect on the accountability of Ofsted and the appeals processes that our schools inspectorate operates under. He has also, as he said, given us an opportunity to touch on issues arising out of Ofsted’s annual report published today, within the constraints of the debate.

I think that, by and large, Ofsted does a difficult job well, and most hon. Members would recognise that. It is a job that is necessary. Few of us would want to go back to 30 or 40 years ago, when the oversight and accountability of the school system was much weaker and, as a consequence, there was a risk that underperforming schools could continue, failing their local communities and young people for long periods. We certainly do not want to go back to that. Ofsted is a good organisation and the current chief inspector is one of the best we have had. Of course, the Government will reflect carefully on the annual report and the comments the chief inspector made today on its launch.

I should also say, as I believe the chief inspector said on the “Today” programme this morning, that Ofsted carries out some 30,000 inspections every year, not only of schools but in other settings. The chief inspector will be the first to acknowledge that when carrying out inspections in such a number of settings, there are bound to be imperfections in a small minority of cases. It is important that we ensure that, where there are issues, those are taken seriously and dealt with. Of course, we need to make sure that the overall quality of the inspection process is as high as it can possibly be.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and others who have participated in this debate have pointed out that the judgments made by Ofsted are important and have big consequences for people’s livelihoods, schools’ reputations and the decisions parents take. In fairness to parents and schools, it is therefore important that we get those judgments right. If we err on the side of generosity in any judgment, that has serious consequences. We could end up with schools not doing well enough and failing their local communities for long periods and, as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) mentioned, what is important in the schools system is even more crucial in safeguarding. We should be fair to all those involved in that important work, but we should be rigorous in our inspection to ensure that vulnerable young people are not at risk.

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because I did not know he was going to raise issues on children’s services and safeguarding. I am not the lead Minister on that issue in the Department; the Minister with responsibility for children, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), will have been particularly involved in the oversight of some of the services in Manchester and elsewhere, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman following the debate to follow up on some of the points he raised.

Before coming back to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I will respond briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who raised concerns about information that her constituent gave Ofsted anonymously to inform the inspection of a school. I am sure that the chief inspector would take the same view as me and her—that information given anonymously should be treated in that way; the source of that information should not be revealed to the institution being inspected. I am concerned to hear that there may have been an instance where privacy was not respected. I will look into that. I will see the chief inspector shortly, and I will raise the issue with him and ask whether he can look into it, if my hon. Friend can give me the details—in confidence, of course—of her constituent and the circumstances.

I will pick up on a number of the points that the shadow Schools Minister raised, but specifically on accountability and the situation in Norfolk, I can update him and the House by saying that the fresh independent review ordered by Sir Michael after questions were raised about the earlier inspection is under way. We expect that review to be completed by the end of the year.

I will touch on the annual report, and then I will comment on Ofsted’s inspection and appeals process. I will then touch on Ferndown school, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned. Today’s annual Ofsted report on schools provides a timely reminder of the importance of Ofsted’s inspection work. Earlier today, the chief inspector announced that good and outstanding schools now account for 81% of all schools inspected, up from 68% in 2010. We should all acknowledge that that is a significant increase. In spite of some of the concerns about secondary schools, that is the highest proportion of good and outstanding schools at any time since Ofsted was set up. Primary schools, as the chief inspector mentioned this morning, have done particularly well, with 82% now good or outstanding, which means that 190,000 more pupils are in good and outstanding primary schools than last year. That is 700,000 more than in 2012, and we should celebrate that.

The report also shows that schools are responding positively to inspection. Two thirds of schools that were previously judged as requiring improvement secured good or outstanding on re-inspection this year. There is also positive news on the performance of pupils from lower-income backgrounds. The disadvantage gap, particularly in primary schools, is closing rapidly. All that means that more than 1 million more pupils are in good or outstanding schools than in 2010. While much of the credit for that must go to hard-working individuals in schools, we believe that inspection is also contributing to the improvement in the system.

The shadow Schools Minister mentioned the less encouraging recent statistics for secondary schools. Significantly more work needs to be done to ensure that improvement is maintained in the future, rather than schools remaining at existing levels. The percentage of secondary schools graded good or outstanding is up from 68% in 2010 to 71%. The number of pupils of secondary age being educated in schools in the secondary sector classed as requiring improvement or inadequate dropped from 1,073,000 to 793,000 last year, which is encouraging.

The inspection and regulatory functions of Ofsted are vested in Her Majesty’s chief inspector, who is primarily accountable directly to Parliament. He appears before the Education Committee at least twice a year, giving evidence on the work of Ofsted and on his annual report. He is also subject to other parliamentary scrutiny. As recently as last month he appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, so there are many parliamentary opportunities for the work of Ofsted to be examined. The Education Committee can also conduct inquiries specifically into Ofsted and its work. In April 2011, the Committee conducted an inquiry into the role and performance of Ofsted. The report from that inquiry concluded:

“Ofsted’s independent status is broadly valued by inspectors, by professionals, and by the public, and we strongly support the retention of that status.”

As the Department for Education is the lead policy and ministerial Department covering Ofsted’s work, the Secretary of State for Education meets the chief inspector regularly, as do I, to discuss the work of Ofsted.

Every year Ofsted conducts approximately 6,500 school inspections and 30,000 inspections of all settings. It has a massive job of work to do. As part of its procedures, Ofsted sends out a feedback questionnaire after every inspection. The latest figures for the second quarter of 2014-15 show that 93% of respondents said that they were satisfied with the way an inspection was carried out. That is against an overall response rate of 71%, which indicates that in the majority of settings, there is contentment on the effectiveness and fairness of the Ofsted process. As good as those figures are, there is no room for complacency.

I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that Sir Michael takes particular interest in the quality of inspectors’ work. He recognises—I believe he has said this publicly—that more needs to be done to ensure that all inspections are delivered to a consistently high standard the first time around. That is why he appointed Sir Robin Bosher, one of Ofsted’s directors, to take direct responsibility for inspection quality and the training of inspectors. As a result, Ofsted has put in place more stringent quality checks and monitoring of inspections and reports. It has also invested more in the training of inspectors, in place of having detailed written guidance documents. I know that Sir Michael is working hard to ensure quality and consistency, and I am confident that he will tackle any underperformance in the inspection work force. He is prepared to take tough action where necessary to remove inspectors, or to require additional training where inspectors fail to meet his high expectations.

Looking ahead—my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned this—Sir Michael has announced that he will bring the management of inspections, including all inspector training, in-house from September 2015. As part of the programme, Ofsted will change how it sources and selects additional inspectors, and how it trains, contracts with and performance-manages them. Much of that is currently arranged through contracts with three inspection service providers: Tribal, Serco and CfBT. Under the planned changes, however, all complaints will be handled directly by Ofsted.

Another important step in trying to improve the quality of inspections is making more use of serving practitioners—something to which Sir Michael Wilshaw is committed. The latest figures from Ofsted show that 56% of school inspections include at least one serving practitioner, which could be a head teacher or a senior leader from a high-performing school. That is up from just 15% in 2011, so there has been a massive increase in the involvement of serving practitioners. Many of them are also national leaders of education and play a wider part in the overall leadership of the school system.

I will briefly turn to how the Ofsted complaints procedure works. I appreciate that this might seem unnecessarily detailed, but as it is at the centre of my hon. Friend’s concerns, it is important for me to set out just what the process looks like and to consider whether it needs any change.

Ofsted has a clear, published complaints procedure. During an inspection, those with concerns are strongly encouraged to raise issues with the lead inspector as soon as they arise. If a complainant feels unable to raise concerns directly with the lead inspector during the inspection, they can contact the Ofsted helpline directly. If concerns have not been resolved, a formal complaint can be raised with Ofsted within 10 working days of the incident of concern. If the concern is about an inspection, the complaint should be made no more than 10 working days following the publication of the report. When Ofsted receives the complaint, it will investigate and send a written response to answer the agreed main points of concern within 30 working days. It does not normally withhold publication of an inspection report or withdraw a published inspection report while it investigates complaints unless there are exceptional circumstances.

There is a second, appeal stage to the complaints process. If a complainant remains dissatisfied, they may appeal to the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch mentioned. The Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution has been appointed by the Secretary of State to undertake that important role. If complainants are not satisfied with the outcome of the adjudication service review, they can contact the parliamentary ombudsman. That is quite a prolonged process, and I appreciate my hon. Friend’s comments about the ombudsman’s potential role and the time that such things can take, but it is relevant that in 2013 only 12 cases concerning schools were referred to the independent complaints adjudication service, which is a small proportion given that Ofsted inspects approximately 6,500 schools a year. That suggests to me that the number of schools that are seriously concerned about the quality of their inspections is relatively small.

[Mr Chope]

Might not another explanation be that schools realise that ICASO cannot really do anything? All that it can do is look at the process rather than the substance.

[Mr Laws]

It might be that my hon. Friend would seek to put that construction on it, but that is unduly pessimistic, not only because the appeals process has previous stages, but because a body that seeks to escalate a complaint to the independent complaints adjudication service can seek to raise concerns about the substance—although they may appear to be addressed to the process—if it feels that aspects of the inspection process have not been respected. I will return to that with regard to the school mentioned by my hon. Friend in a moment.

The independent complaints adjudication service also reported that it saw an improvement in the quality of Ofsted’s complaint handling from previous years. All but four of the general recommendations made to Ofsted were accepted fully, with the others being accepted partially.

I know that my hon. Friend has exchanged correspondence with the chief inspector and Ofsted’s south-west regional director, Bradley Simmons, about the inspection of Ferndown upper school in January 2014. My hon. Friend is concerned that the school was graded inadequate, with serious weaknesses. I note that the inspection reported several areas of concern, including that students were not making enough progress, especially in English, that work set was not suitable for the least or most able students, that progress was too slow for students eligible for the pupil premium, for boys and for students with special educational needs or disabilities, that fixed-term exclusions and persistent absence figures were too high and impacting on the progress being made by those pupils, that sixth-form students were not making enough progress and that leaders, including governors, were not tackling weaknesses quickly enough.

As Schools Minister, I cannot comment personally on all those judgments, as my hon. Friend will understand. However, I can reflect on the data and what they indicate for the school. At the time of the inspection, the proportion of students gaining five good GCSE passes, including English and mathematics at grade C or above, had been significantly below the national average for three years. It was 47% against 58% in 2011, 49% against 59% in 2012 and 50% against 60.6% in 2013. As I understand it, the school has a lower than average number of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds in receipt of, for example, the pupil premium. GCSE English language passes at grade A* to C were 69% against the national average of 82%. Attainment was significantly below the national average in nine curriculum areas, and above in just two. Just 59% of students made expected progress in English against 69% nationally. I will not comment on the precise judgments in the Ofsted report, but we should reflect on the fact that data do suggest that the school has performance issues and challenges.

On accountability, I know that the school followed Ofsted’s published complaints procedure. The head teacher complained about the outcome of the inspection. His complaint was investigated by the inspection service provider, Tribal, but was not upheld. He requested that his complaint be elevated, and a further investigation was undertaken by Her Majesty’s inspectors to ascertain whether the original had been fair and thorough. The outcome of the original investigation was validated. The head teacher then took his complaint to the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted. The adjudicator reported that Ofsted had

“addressed the complainant’s concerns in significant detail and in a fair and reasonable manner”

and went on to say:

“I do not find that I can provide any advice or make any recommendations to further improve Ofsted’s practices for dealing with complaints in this instance.”

Picking up on some of the concerns that the school raised about being marked down for attendance, I understand that the investigation into the complaint found that inspectors had considered the school’s own attendance data alongside those available nationally. That is correct procedure. Inspectors should use RAISEonline as a benchmark and should ask questions as necessary. The response to the school’s complaint mentioned there being no national comparison data on attendance rates for sixth forms only.

[Mr Chope]

On that point about no data being available, that is not correct. Does my right hon. Friend accept that?

[Mr Laws]

The response to the school’s complaint mentioned there being no national comparison data on attendance rates for sixth forms only, but attendance data are available and show that, although improving slightly recently, persistent absence has risen for girls and for some students with special educational needs. It has fallen for students eligible for free school meals, but remains seven points above the national average as in 2013.

Attendance is not a separate judgment and does not alone determine the behaviour and safety judgment. A school cannot be marked down for its attendance statistics alone, and this particular school was not. Behaviour and safety were judged not to be inadequate, but to require improvement. My hon. Friend is concerned that performance data should be correctly assessed in a local context, but while local comparisons are important, Ofsted makes comparisons on attainment and progress against national data, taking account of pupils’ prior attainment. That is clearly set out in the inspection handbook, so it should not come as a surprise to any school. If one looks at the attainment data, it is clear that the school has some questions to answer about its performance against comparable national figures.

I understand that Ofsted has undertaken two monitoring inspections of the school, in May and September, since the original inspection. The first visit found that the school was planning appropriate action for improvement, supported by the local authority. The second visit judged senior leaders to be making reasonable progress towards the removal of serious weaknesses. However, it also found that school leaders lacked rigour and urgency in their approach to improving the school. While recognising improvements, Her Majesty’s inspectorate found that

“the school lacks a consistently rigorous and relentless focus on improving the achievement of those students who could, and should, do better, regardless of their background, ability or starting point”.

We should expect all schools to serve the interests of all pupils.

It is important to remember that, for the vast majority of schools, the current inspection system works well. I would, however, encourage any school that feels that its inspection has fallen short of normal expectations to raise its concerns with Ofsted at the earliest possible opportunity, as many have done. However, the chief inspector’s decision must be final if inspection is to remain credible. Without that, every school that disagreed with the judgment would seek to challenge the outcome of its inspection, delaying critical action to start to bring about improvement for the children at the school who, after all, will not get a second chance.

I hope that I have demonstrated that there are many stages in the process of scrutinising an Ofsted decision. In fact, the only way that we could really meet my hon. Friend’s requirement for an additional degree of scrutiny would be to have another school inspection service. There is no evidence at present that that would be value for money given the overall level of complaints. We will, however, keep a close eye on the issue and seek to improve the quality of inspections in future.

Mental Health (Cambridgeshire)

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I am delighted to have secured this debate on a key issue for my constituents: health care and in particular mental health.

Our national health service is something to be proud of, the brainchild of a great Liberal, Beveridge, and brought into being by the pioneering Labour Government after the second world war. It is an amazing institution, providing care for all of us, free at the point of use. I pay tribute to the excellent and tireless work of NHS staff—and incidentally, I hope the Government will ensure that they are paid appropriately, because independent pay recommendations should be honoured.

Our NHS is, however, not perfect and is under strain. During debates when it was established, the predictions were that it would run more cheaply every year as people became increasingly healthy. In fact, the opposite has happened. People live longer because we are learning to treat more and more conditions, but that costs us more and more. Demand grows rapidly, the range of things we can do increases and NHS inflation outstrips standard inflation, leading to huge cost pressures. Much of the solution lies in preventive measures, because it is of course cheaper to keep people healthy than to treat them when they are not, but we never spend enough money on that as it is so often needed for treatment.

Some areas are shamefully neglected. Mental health in particular has always been left behind. A lot of that is a product of historical, outdated social attitudes—questions of shame, how people ought to be and what was “normal”. Indeed, many believed that mental health problems were a deficiency of character. That is of course rubbish, and I do not think anyone in the House would share such a view today. Nevertheless, a stigma that simply should not be there is still attached to mental health conditions. People are not prepared to talk about mental health, to admit problems or to seek help.

The stigma not only causes anguish for many people and their families, but materialises in discriminatory policies. For example, when the previous Government introduced waiting times in our NHS—arguing, perfectly reasonably, that that would improve provision for cancer patients and mean they were not left waiting for treatment—the Government did not include mental health. It was almost taken for granted that mental health delays were less important than physical health ones. Funding bodies reacted, pulling more money away from mental health in order to hit the new targets in physical health, which was an understandable reaction.

I am glad that that policy era is over. We have now legislated for parity of esteem between physical and mental health. Thanks to the excellent work of the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), we are introducing the first ever waiting-time standards for mental health next year, described by charities as a watershed moment, although far too late in coming. Other improvements include the recent provision of £150 million to tackle eating disorders, but we have to go much further, because people are suffering and simply cannot wait.

On Saturday, I was at the wonderful Mill Road winter fair. We had a Lib Dem stall, where we were asking people to come and talk to us about mental health, to get some information and to sign a petition supporting our call for an extra £500 million for mental health, which I reiterate today. Huge numbers wanted to sign—many people care about the issue—and we raised lots of money for Centre 33, which helps to provide free and confidential counselling and support for young people.

We also heard some astonishing tales. Let me paraphrase just one of the stories of one of the people who came by, a woman who had felt suicidal for a year and had no fixed address. She went to see a GP, who asked her to come back regularly to check that she was okay. She went for a bit, only to stop going, but that triggered no alarm bells, even though a suicidal patient who was being monitored had stopped showing up. Eventually, she went to another GP and was told that she would be referred to a community mental health team, but nothing happened. Some time later, a third GP also suggested referral, but found nothing in her notes to suggest that she ever had been referred before. Three months after seeing the first GP, she was finally given an appointment to see a psychiatrist, but it was in five months’ time. The appointment happened and she was put on an 18-month waiting list for therapy. She is still on that list. In the meantime, she has lost her job and is in an extremely difficult situation. No wonder she and many others say that we need change.

Such a situation is not new. Eight years ago, my predecessor David Howarth spoke out against £3 million of cuts to mental health services in Cambridgeshire that led to the suicide of Julie Deloughery. There are many such stories across the country and across the decades. I heard some more when I worked with service users at Lifeworks, a mental health drop-in centre in Cambridge. The centre was threatened with closure, which I am delighted has now been stopped. I am proud that I was able to help with that by talking to service users and the mental health trust, and by raising the issue in Parliament, but I am far prouder of the work done by service users themselves and their friends. In particular, I pay tribute to Ann Robinson for her efforts. Too often, things are done to people with mental health issues, rather than done with them.

The now reversed decision on Lifeworks was partly the result of funding problems, so let me focus on the funding situation in Cambridgeshire, which has one of the most troubled health economies in the country. We are very underfunded. In 2013-14, our clinical commissioning group received the second lowest funding per head in the entire country. It has improved slightly since, but we are still far below where we should be. Somewhere has to be second lowest, but that is not a fair share. The Government have a fair share formula, but since it has been revised, rightly, to take account of deprivation, we have been left £35 million below the fair funding calculation. We get £961 per head in the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough CCG, whereas the figure for next-door West Norfolk is £1,255 per head. We are getting a slightly larger increase than others, at 2.9% rather than 2.14%, but at that rate it will take about a decade to catch up, with no compensation for the years of underfunding. I accept that NHS England makes decisions on how we get to the fair rate, but I hope the Minister will agree that the pace of change is simply too slow.

We have other problems. Our population is growing quickly: Cambridgeshire’s population growth is the fastest in the country and Peterborough is the fastest growing city. That means an even greater strain on funds, because the population increase is not properly taken account of. Our funding per head is going up slower than the national average, in spite of being low to start with. Will the Minister ensure that growth is no longer penalised? We also have a legacy of poor decisions, such as the two massive private finance initiative projects under the previous Government at Hinchingbrooke and Peterborough hospitals, the biggest and perhaps worst PFI projects in the country. They are still sucking money out of the system. When preparing for the debate, I was shocked to find that the PFI repayments for Peterborough represent a staggering 18% of the hospital’s budget.

We have less money than elsewhere, and we have more of that taken away from us before we even start, but we also have other legacy issues. Cambridgeshire is repeatedly used as a test bed for experimentation, such as the £1 billion privatisation of Hinchingbrooke hospital, led by and legislated for by the previous Government. They put the hospital out to tender and had not a single NHS bid among the final five bidders—Addenbrooke’s hospital pulled out because the cost was too large—so a list of three private bidders was left to the Government to choose from, which is not exactly a great choice to have to make. That is why I find it frustrating when the shadow Health Secretary claims to have clean hands over what happened with Hinchingbrooke. He claimed that one of the three bidders was an NHS provider, as he did in the House today, and I have been trying to find out which of the three—Circle, Ramsay or Serco—he considers to be part of the NHS. He said on Twitter today that it was the one associated with an NHS mental health body, but the day Serco counts as an NHS bidder is one I hope we will never see. Problems remain at Hinchingbrooke.

I am pleased, by the way, about the recent tendering for Cambridgeshire older people services, which I will talk about later. However, under the current Government’s legislation—which, incidentally, I opposed, because doing things in that way was not right for this Government or the previous one—the bid went to the NHS, with the mental health trust and Addenbrooke’s hospital providing the better services.

Cambridgeshire starts off with a particular historical situation and no money, so it is no wonder that we struggle to fund mental health properly. Things get worse. The CCG ran a small deficit last year, which is hardly surprising, but that makes it ineligible for quality premium payments, which could have brought in another £1 million. How can it make sense to starve CCGs of funding as a punishment for not having enough money to do the job properly? No one will be surprised to find that there is a correlation between budget outcomes and how well funded CCGs are: areas with funding above their fair-share calculations run surpluses, while those funded below their fair share run deficits and get punished for it. The deficit of £4.9 million from last year has to be repaid this year, putting even greater strain on the CCG, given an underfunding level of almost 10 times that figure.

In fairness to the CCG, it provides proportionately about the same allocation to mental health as everywhere else. We start off with far too little, however, so mental health gets far too little—one of the worst levels of funding in the whole country. That is in spite of long-term underinvestment and the huge pressures of growing demand—a 12% increase in the number of people with serious and enduring mental illness, but no extra money to cope with it. Given that the previous Government introduced a payment by results tariff system for physical health, but left mental health using the block grant system, extra demand—extra work—does not lead to extra funding. Yet again, changes were made to help physical health care rather than mental health care. As we rightly reduce stigma and tackle the huge unmet need for mental health support, more and more people will realise they need help and will seek it, but will discover that it is not there for them.

We have seen other problems. There was a suggestion from NHS England that there should be differential deflators—larger savings on mental health treatments than on physical health treatments. I know that infuriated my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, and I understand that the situation will not be repeated, which is welcome. I was disappointed to see that my own CCG complied with the suggestion, although in fairness it gave an extra £1.5 million for mental health services and as of next April will give a further £2.2 million to help meet targets for improving access to the psychological therapies programme.

The Nobel laureate Ernest Rutherford said, “We haven’t got any money, so we’ll have to think”, and providers in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough have had to be creative to cope with the awful funding position. We have seen many innovations. The mental health trust has set up a single point of access known as ARC—the advice and referral centre—reduced out-of-area placements and focused more on community teams. Its recovery college is doing good work in advancing the recovery model of mental health care.

We are doing some amazing things to use resources more efficiently in joint working. The £800 million contract for Cambridgeshire older people’s services—as I said, that stayed in the NHS—will combine acute trusts, mental health and community care, to help people seamlessly so they are not passed between one organisation and another. In particular, it should mean a sharp decline in the number of delayed transfers of care, where an older person is stuck in an acute hospital bed—at great expense and not to their benefit—because there is no alternative available in the system. No longer will Addenbrooke’s hospital have to negotiate desperately for community care beds; there will be one system. The contract design, with outcomes-based contracting, means that, rather than rewarding activity, there is an incentive to reduce the need for treatment. Keeping someone healthy longer is better for them and cheaper for us than treating them when they are ill.

We have to do much more on prevention, an issue I know the Minister cares greatly about. In his Five Year Forward View, Simon Stevens called for a radical emphasis on public health and prevention; promoting public mental health must surely be a key part of that, with resilience and well-being as the core. Mind recently called for local authorities to prepare public mental health strategies. Cambridgeshire county council’s health committee, chaired by the excellent Councillor Killian Bourke, has already commissioned such a strategy and plans to spend £120,000 on it. It will attempt not only to promote mental health in the very widest sense but to target groups that are particularly susceptible to experiencing problems, investing in effective, evidence-based interventions.

We also need to focus on recovery, on which the mental health trust’s recovery college is leading the way. Recovery is an approach to mental health that recognises that full recovery is not always possible—some conditions are lifelong—and seeks to enable patients to recover their lives from their conditions so they can live more fulfilled lives. That is in contrast to the attachment model, in which people are stuck as service users for ever. However, a recovery-led approach has to be properly resourced and must not simply be used as an excuse to close down services; otherwise, discharged patients will just be shut out of services and will return to being bounced around the system, looking for crisis care.

We need good crisis care as well, so that people can receive help. I again pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk for his work on the crisis care concordat, bringing organisations together to deal with such crises. Currently, a huge load is placed on the police and acute hospitals—they end up dealing with people who should not be there but have nowhere else to go.

We must also make sure that there is a wider understanding of mental health throughout the health system. Primary care is key. I am astonished that GPs do not have compulsory training in mental health care. They will surely deal with mental health issues regularly, given that one in four of us will have a serious mental health condition at some point. Why are GPs not expert in mental health care? They could do far more to help people recover, remain independent and live better lives.

The voluntary sector is also key. I pay particular tribute to organisations such as Mind in Cambridgeshire, led by its very able chief executive Sarah Hughes; she has driven forward the crisis care concordat which was signed for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough just a couple of weeks ago. I also pay tribute to organisations such as Rethink Mental Illness, the Richmond Fellowship, Lifecraft, Centre 33, pinpoint, the SUN network, Arts and Minds and many more, whose work is hugely valued.

Finally, I will focus on an issue particularly close to my heart: child and adolescent mental health. It is a very important issue, because those who experience their first mental health problems at that stage can often be helped to recover completely. Often, the problems are a product of their environment, so early intervention can be radically preventive; however, waiting lists are far too long. In Cambridgeshire the health committee is trying to work with Centre 33 to provide more counselling support for young people. We have to go further on that and sort this issue out. Pinpoint and Healthwatch have recently contacted me about the urgent need to do more for child and adolescent mental health services. Many of my constituents have been in touch on that matter, as well.

There is far more that I could talk about. For example, I could discuss the troubled implementation of the Epic e-hospital system at Addenbrooke’s and the lessons we have to learn from that, the ongoing problems in the East of England ambulance service, or the desperate need to reopen community care beds in Brookfields hospital so that people can be moved from Addenbrooke’s into appropriate care. I could also talk about many positive things, such as the move of Papworth hospital to the Cambridge biomedical campus, which is proceeding apace, planning permission having recently been granted after my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury approved the funding.

I will conclude instead with a plea. Mental health services in Cambridgeshire, and indeed across the country, are simply not good enough. I welcome the Government’s commitment to change that, and the idea of parity of esteem in particular, but it is not enough. We also need more money in mental health care across the board—hence my plea to the Minister for an extra £500 million targeted on mental health care.

In Cambridgeshire, we face a financial crisis across all forms of health care. Our low funding levels, historical commitments and growing population create a triple whammy. However, there is a way forward. Just yesterday, I took the chief executive of the mental health trust and the chair of the clinical commissioning group to see my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk to make the case, and I think he was sympathetic to our position.

I will say here, to this Minister, what I said then to that one. There is an opportunity now, given the extra money that I and others campaigned for in the autumn statement. That extra £2 billion will have to be allocated somehow, so what formula should be used? I urge her in the strongest terms not to use the current ratios. That would mean giving extra money to areas already getting more than their calculated fair share, and less to those of us who are behind that fair share. Instead—I hope she will press NHS England on this—the money should be used to jump-start the shift to the new fair formula.

I understand why the transition is being made slowly—those areas with more funding than the fair share probably do not feel overfunded, even though they are able to run a surplus. But the new money allows us to correct the deficiencies for low-funded areas without creating losers. I am aware that £200 million has been earmarked for challenged health economies, and we are one of the 11 that have been so labelled. Although I welcome that, the Government should allocate all the money to move people up to the fair share if they are below it. I know that if our clinical commissioning group got the missing money—the £35 million that the fair shares formula says we should have, plus our share of the extra £2 billion—a high proportion of it could and would go on mental health care, transforming, helping and saving many lives. I hope the Minister will do what she can to make sure that that happens.

16:17

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) on securing this debate and commend him on his ongoing interest in local health matters. I know from meeting the chair of his CCG only yesterday that my hon. Friend is a consistent champion of local services.

I am sorry that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), cannot be here to respond to the debate, but he has already shown a keen interest in its subject, and I know that he will take action forward. I also echo the tributes that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge quite rightly made to NHS staff at the beginning of his remarks.

We all agree that good-quality patient care has to be expected regardless of where in the country we live. As my hon. Friend quite rightly said, for too long, mental health services were the forgotten area of the health service. That is changing under this Government, and I will touch on that later. There is still, however, much to do; I am sure that we would all acknowledge that.

Although I will not dwell on the subject too much in this debate, my hon. Friend was right to comment on prevention and on building resilience. As the public health Minister, those issues are close to my heart. He was also right to talk in broader terms about building resilience in individuals. I know considerable thought is being given to making it possible for people—young people, in particular—to withstand more of what life throws at them.

I move on to questions of national funding. For 2014-15, NHS England allocated £64 billion to CCGs for hospital, community and mental health services—an increase on the previous year of 2.54%, or £1.59 billion. In making allocations, NHS England relies on advice from one of our many health acronyms, ACRA—the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. ACRA gives advice on the share of available resources provided to each clinical commissioning group to support equal access for equal need. Much of our debate will revolve around those funding formulas and how they are evolving. The calculation is based on the age of populations, their relative morbidity and unavoidable variations in cost. The objective is to ensure a consistent supply of health services across the country. The greater the health need, the more money is received, because more health services are needed. The CCG model covers only non-specialised hospitals and community care, plus primary care prescribing.

I understand that the baseline varies systematically between locations. To some extent, that reflects different historical commissioning priorities in the predecessor organisations—the primary care trusts—or different mixes between the local and area commissioning responsibilities.

NHS England reviewed the funding formula for 2014-15 and the following years, and it now uses the person-based resource allocation approach, which was developed by the Nuffield Trust. Unlike the previous target models, it allows information about individuals—including their age, gender and recent hospital diagnostic history—to be combined with information about the area in which they live; that information, as my hon. Friend knows, is frequently linked to deprivation. The PBRA formula estimates the relative need of each individual. At a CCG level, the estimates are the most accurate ever used for allocations, so there has obviously been a change in how resources are allocated.

In debates such as this we often discuss the pace of the change from the actual allocation towards the target allocation. The option that NHS England agreed for CCGs reflected the challenge of directing additional funding to the CCGs that are the most under target, while not destabilising areas whose allocations were above target—I have seen that happen in London. If people have had an allocation for a long time, we must ensure that they plan for the change; such things must be done sensibly. That is a continuation of the policy of maximising growth for those furthest below target. We appreciate that CCGs in the east of England are further below their target allocations than those in many other parts of the country—my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that—and that Cambridgeshire is one of the furthest behind target by some £45 million or 4.85%.

NHS England is already spending £500 million in 2014-15 and 2015-16 to bring under-target CCGs, such as Cambridgeshire, towards their target allocations. That approach was discussed and decided at a public board meeting in December 2013—nearly a year ago. My hon. Friend is pushing us to speak about what will happen in the future. Following my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s announcement in the autumn statement of a further £2 billion for front-line services, NHS England is reviewing the 2015-16 allocations. I hope that NHS England shares the hopes of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, and that it will consider how some of that extra £2 billion can be used to help the CCGs that are furthest behind—including Cambridgeshire—to get closer to their fair share. My hon. Friend has already discussed that issue with my ministerial colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, who takes it extremely seriously and is committed to raising the matter with NHS England before it makes a decision at its board meeting on 17 December.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, I recognise the commitment and dedication of the staff who provide mental health service, including those who work in specialist trusts and settings, and those who work in primary care and provide services daily. I was pleased that my hon. Friend spoke about the large army of people who are absolutely critical in mental health. They are often not formally part of the NHS composition of services, but their support is invaluable to it. They are the carers and volunteers, who sometimes work in charities or voluntary organisations—my hon. Friend referred to Centre 33 and a number of other organisations in Cambridgeshire. Sometimes they are simply individuals who help or care for a parent, a friend or a neighbour because they think it is the right thing to do. Without those people, the job of the health services would be immeasurably more difficult. Like my hon. Friend, I pay tribute to them.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

On that point, will my hon. Friend the Minister praise West Essex Mind, whose annual general meeting is this Friday? It does so much to help mental health services in Harlow and across Essex, and it is an example of a charity that is deeply rooted in our community.

[Jane Ellison]

Of course I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to that organisation. It is obvious from the comments of many hon. Members in this House that local branches of Mind and other groups do terrific work. My hon. Friend clearly has a good relationship with his local branch, and I thank him for placing his regard for it on the record.

The Government have increased funding for mental health by £120 million in 2014-15. Total mental health spending in England will rise from £8.5 billion in 2013-14 to £8.62 billion in 2014-15. The Department of Health and NHS England continue to work together on that important issue. I recognise the challenge faced by the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough health economy. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge about the private finance initiative decisions that the previous Government made about Peterborough, and about the legacy of problems that they left.

As my hon. Friend knows, action is being taken. NHS England, the NHS Trust Development Authority and Monitor are working on a programme to support 11 of the most challenged health economies, of which my hon. Friend’s is one, and to address those with long-term integrated plans. In Cambridgeshire, a programme jointly funded by all local NHS partners and underpinned by a concordat on joint working has been put in place. Its purpose is to find a collectively agreed solution to closing the financial gap facing the economy as a whole, while improving quality of care for my hon. Friend’s constituents and everybody else who is served by the local health economy. That work is due to identify proposals by the end of June 2015.

Mental health is an important part of that work, and emerging ideas focus around closer integration of physical and mental health, and an expanded role for mental health input in a range of hospital settings and community pathways, such as those for long-term conditions. As the Minister with responsibility for public health, I know only too well that people often have extreme co-morbidities, so we must look at them in the round and at all the things that interact with and affect their personal health care.

I know that there are concerns that mental health services could be disproportionately affected, which would not be acceptable. Although payment for mental health services is agreed locally, we expect local commissioners and providers to have regard for the national tariff arrangements. However, they can be flexible when there is good reason to be so.

The tariff arrangements for 2015-16 give a clear signal to the mental health sector to move away from simple block contracts, which currently apply in Cambridgeshire and are not transparent, to local payment models that support recovery and outcomes, as my hon. Friend highlighted, and that reflect the needs of local communities.

My hon. Friend is right that Cambridgeshire and Peterborough CCG invested an additional £1.5 million to address capacity pressures. His CCG is clearly committed to that, and he will continue to champion it. It has also committed to investing a further £2.2 million from next April to deliver the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme.

My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to my ministerial colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, who has championed mental health policy in this Parliament very effectively. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge drew attention to the Government’s commitment to parity of esteem, which has been made explicit in legislation. Some 2.4 million people have entered treatment under the IAPT programme, and more than 1.4 million have completed that treatment. We invested £54 million in the period from 2011 to 2015-16 in the children and young people’s IAPT programme. My hon. Friend is right that child and adolescent mental health services are a critical part of our local care pathways.

For the first time ever, we have a mental health crisis care concordat to improve the system, signed by more than 20 national organisations. As my hon. Friend said, Cambridgeshire has already put it in place. We invested £25 million to ensure that vulnerable offenders are identified when they first enter the criminal justice system. The aim is to achieve 100% coverage by 2017.

There is a lot going on. We all acknowledge that there is a long way to go on mental health, but we have passed several important milestones on the journey. The NHS—both nationally and in Cambridgeshire—is working hard on the wider funding issues, and I hope I have assured my hon. Friend that progress is being made. He has already had a commitment from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk, but when I return to the Department I will reiterate that we want to make representations about the points he made to NHS England ahead of the critical funding meeting. I encourage my hon. Friend to keep closely in touch with his local NHS, although I can see that he does that. I thank him for securing this debate. I hope I have given him a measure of comfort and reassured him that considerable progress is under way on this important agenda.

Energy Policy and Living Standards

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)]

Government energy policy, put in place by Ministers of all three established parties, is pricing people out of being able to heat their own homes. The cosy consensus over energy policy here in Westminster is squeezing living standards across the country. According to the index of domestic fuel and light prices, helpfully reproduced by the House of Commons Library, prices have changed fairly dramatically over the past 40 years. From the early 1980s through to the early noughties, there was a slow, gradual fall in prices; it was a 20-year period of customers getting what they tend to get in a free market, capitalist economy—more for less.

Suddenly and dramatically, that picture changed in the early noughties. Since then we have seen a rapid rise in prices—sharper, indeed, than that experienced during either of the two oil shocks of the 1970s. Dual-fuel household energy bills in 2014 for the average home are forecast to be almost £1,400. That represents a real-terms price increase of over 50% in a decade—a decade during which average household incomes stagnated and during which, by some measures, the UK’s per capita income has fallen. Fuel bills have gone up sharply, but income has hardly changed. Living standards have been squeezed as a consequence. Pensioners and those on low incomes tend to pay a disproportionately high proportion of their incomes on energy. The definition of fuel poverty may have changed, but one stark fact cannot be overlooked: a large number of households—4.82 million households—now spend over 10% of their income trying to keep warm.

Why have energy prices gone up so rapidly? Why did the historic decline in energy prices suddenly turn around in the early noughties, and why have costs gone up in this way? Is it because there is not enough of the stuff? Are we perhaps running out of gas? Not at all: wholesale energy costs have actually been falling as a proportion of the total. According to Ofgem, for every £1 we pay on domestic fuel bills, only about 44p goes to meet the wholesale price. People might think, “Is this all the fault of those beastly energy companies? Are they the ones to blame?” About a fifth to a quarter of the bills that we pay covers the cost of the energy companies distributing and supplying what they sell us. People might think, “If only energy companies were forced to lower their prices, perhaps we could have cheaper energy for everyone.”

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Douglas Carswell]

With a due sense of reluctance, yes.

[Albert Owen]

I am very grateful. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has secured this debate. I guess that his party is now an established party—now that they are here, they are part of the establishment. The serious point is that distribution prices vary considerably across the 14 regions and contribute to between 19% and 25% of the bill. Does he agree that it is possible to have a leveller so that across the United Kingdom—or certainly in Great Britain—those prices could be the same? Does he also agree that it should be possible for people off-grid to get a better bargain? He mentioned dual fuel, and many people in deprived and rural areas are not on the grid, so they do not get the benefit of dual fuel discount.

[Douglas Carswell]

The hon. Gentleman argues in favour, I think, of Government price-fixing and making it illegal for suppliers to charge different prices in different parts of the country. I think there are a number of flaws in that approach. For a start, it could quite possibly mean that some areas would have to go without supply at all. Generally speaking, if we try to fix prices, we interfere with the allocation of resources and we have to be prepared for black-outs. That is not something that I would want, but he is absolutely right to say that a fifth to a quarter of the bills that we pay cover the cost of the companies distributing and supplying energy. The hon. Gentleman then makes the leap that many have made, which is that if only we could force energy companies to lower their prices, we could have cheaper energy for all. That, at least, seems to be the level of logic from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband). However, a prices and incomes policy for energy in 2015 will no more work than a prices and incomes policy has worked for anything in the past. Prices and incomes policies do not work.

Energy prices are not going up because of a shortage of energy or because of beastly energy companies; public policy is driving up the cost of household energy bills. The renewable obligation requires energy companies to increase the proportion of energy they generate from supposedly renewable sources. That basically means that we have to pay more in order to subsidise the construction of wind turbines. The Government’s own estimate suggests that fuel bills have gone up by 7% to refund those renewable obligations. However, the Renewable Energy Foundation, for example, has pointed out that the methodology of the Department means that the figure of 7% is, by many ways of analysing it, an extraordinary understatement. If we measure the increase in terms of price per kilowatt-hour, the increase in prices is likely to be far greater.

According to data that the Department recently put out following a freedom of information request, in the central fossil fuel price scenario for 2020, low-carbon policies will result in a 50% increase in energy costs for small business. In the low fossil fuel price scenario for 2020, low-carbon policies will cause a 77% increase for medium-sized companies, which would rise to 114% by 2030. Whitehall officials have gambled on the price and cost of fossil fuel and they have got it spectacularly wrong. I wonder whether the Minister, with an ambitious eye on the world beyond May next year, is willing to defend those policies.

The Minister’s colleague, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, has pledged to treble the amount of electricity derived from renewables. Will the Minister defend that, too? Energy prices are increasing because we are switching off perfectly good gas and coal power stations while pouring billions of pounds into windmills. It does not make sense.

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

I am intrigued by what the hon. Gentleman has had to say, but his analysis has missed out the fact that the price of oil has been dropping. That can have an impact on the cost of living and on energy costs, particularly for poorer families in this country. How does he think we could get the oil producers to pass on that decrease to the consumer?

[Douglas Carswell]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and makes a very valid point. For a number of reasons—not least because of technology and innovation in the United States and the shale gas revolution—the cost of fossil fuel is being driven down. Unfortunately, we have a Government whose officials banked on the cost of fossil fuels being relatively high, so we are now locked into a position where people will have to pay higher costs for years, despite the potential for a great reduction. It is extraordinary that a Government who once pretended to believe in the free market are presiding over that. It is quite remarkable. We should be benefiting from the lower oil costs, but we are unable to because we have a Department that is committed to price-fixing.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that not only have the Government pushed up the price of electricity because of this infatuation with wind turbines, but that that in itself has led to distribution costs going up because the grid has to be reinforced, and that the carbon tax that is now imposed on the fuel used by the cheapest types of power stations is adding to people’s bills as well? The whole policy is directed towards high energy prices, which have reduced people’s standard of living and have furthermore chased industry out of the United Kingdom.

[Douglas Carswell]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on. It is irrational and uneconomic on so many levels. The irony is that the Government talk about windmills and wind turbines, using the language of sustainability, but the truth is that without the subsidy, it simply would not be sustainable. Unlike solar, it simply will not make economic sense to generate electricity through 13th and 14th-century windmill technology.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Does he accept that the Government’s policy is very illogical in this area? For example, we are spending taxpayers’ money in order to enhance the setting of a world heritage site at Stonehenge, while at the same time using taxpayers’ money for subsidies for offshore wind turbines that are going to wreck the world heritage site on the Jurassic coast?

[Douglas Carswell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a brilliant point. He is extremely sound on this issue, as on so many other things. There are things on which it is good to spend public money, and securing the future of something like Stonehenge is wonderful, but one of the downsides of subsidising windmills is that they damage the countryside. It is not good conservation practice to industrialise the countryside with these subsidised wind turbines. It is not good for the environment or our heritage sites. It is not good, either, for people in Jaywick and west Clacton in my constituency, who are deliberately being priced out of being able to heat their home. Why? Because an out-of-touch elite in Westminster and Whitehall believes that that will somehow save the planet from excess carbon dioxide emissions. It is the Alice in Wonderland world of SW1 that has come to believe that. Ministers are competing to be the mad hatter, but it is a ridiculous state of affairs.

The Climate Change Act 2008 was a mistake. I should have listened far more carefully to the late, great Eric Forth MP and voted against it. My failure to do so is my biggest regret as a Member of Parliament. My new party looks to help me to right that wrong, or rather I look to help it to right that wrong.

Government schemes promising to insulate homes have been a flop. In Jaywick and west Clacton, in my corner of Essex, thousands of householders were led to believe that they could get free home insulation. For all that, it has happened only for a handful. The green deal has failed, and alongside it the Minister who presided over the scheme. Should we now follow the right hon. Member for Doncaster North, who has declared that he wants energy prices to be fixed and a prices policy for energy? He may have committed his party to a price freeze, but that will not mean lower energy prices for everyone. If we hold down the price of something by Government fiat, we end up constraining the supply of it. That policy will lead directly to black-outs.

The real reason for higher energy prices is the public policies that were put in place by the right hon. Member for Doncaster North when he was the Energy Secretary, and which all three parties now support. All three parties have had a say on energy policy and all three parties have got us to this sorry state of affairs. We need a return to the idea of an honest energy market. The Minister might pay lip service to the idea of a free market, but where it counts—when it comes to what he actually does in office—he is cheerfully defending a system of energy production that is anything but free, so let me remind him of what an honest market in energy production might look like.

If we had an honest energy market in this country, suppliers would compete to supply householders with energy at a price that they were willing to pay. There would be no requirements on them to produce a particular mix or quota of energy. Innovation and competition would mean giving customers more for less. Capital and technology would come together to satisfy customers. Instead, we have a system in which lobbyists and quotas meet in Government Departments in pursuit of renewable targets. It is a corporatist racket, not an energy policy that is remotely competitive or free. Coal, gas, fracking, nuclear—who knows what mix we might get if we had innovation, capital and a free, honest market in energy?

If the Minister finds it hard to imagine what a free market in energy might look like, may I suggest that he look across the Atlantic? Gas prices for domestic consumers have fallen by 26% in five years in the United States. As our prices have risen, over there they have fallen. It is not that the laws of physics are any different on that side of the Atlantic. The laws of physics are the same. It is public policy on this side of the Atlantic that is so fundamentally flawed and needs to change.

Voters who struggle to pay their heating bills this year should rightly blame those on all three parties’ Front Benches, who put this dreadful scheme in place. We need to make a change. We need to scrap the subsidies. We need to love the new technology, but subsidies must be abolished.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

rose—

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

We will now hear a short intervention by Robert Halfon.

[Robert Halfon]

On a point of order, Dr McCrea. I have permission from the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) to make a short speech in this debate. Can I just confirm that that is the case?

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Yes, you have permission to make a speech, but it needs to be short, because we have to give the Minister time to respond.

16:43

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Thank you, Dr McCrea; I will speak for three minutes or so. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) for giving me permission to make a speech, and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. I will focus on different areas, but I do think that the Government have done good things—in particular, providing a rebate to every domestic electricity customer and reducing bills by £130 for 2 million of the poorest households through the warm home discount. And of course the hon. Gentleman will know about the huge fuel duty freeze that the Government have pledged to maintain across the Parliament, so that the price of fuel is 20p lower in tax terms.

As I said, I will concentrate on a number of areas. The first is the difference in the cost of energy depending on which payment method a customer uses. I have worked with the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) on this issue. Earlier this year, I conducted a cross-party campaign, with the support of more than 100 MPs, against the practice by energy companies of charging customers extortionate amounts for not paying by direct debit. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister ordered an investigation into that, but all that Ofgem has said to me is that although there were some anomalies, such as the £390 extra that Spark Energy customers were paying, those cases were exceptional. However, Department of Energy and Climate Change figures show that the average person who does not pay by direct debit pays £114 more each year. That is just not good enough.

One elderly lady in my constituency of Harlow, who always paid on time via the post office, received a letter saying that she would have to start paying an extra £63 a year if she did not start paying by direct debit. That is unacceptable. Charges such as that are excessive and harm the most vulnerable in our society, particularly the 2 million people who do not have proper banking facilities, which makes payment by direct debit almost impossible. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will clarify what the Government are trying to do on that.

Secondly, there is a problem, which has been raised, regarding prepayment meters. The cost of using those is often significantly higher than of using any other method. Traditionally, that was justifiable: companies had to pay people to go and empty the meters of coins. But there are now prepayment cards. Those who use prepayment meters are charged extra even though they are the least able to afford it. That needs to be looked at urgently.

Thirdly, there are other ways in which energy bills are increased, often through no fault of the consumer. The example has been mentioned of the 4 million households who are off the gas grid and will never be able to get the best deals as they cannot get a dual-fuel discount. It would be helpful if standard criteria could be introduced across suppliers to allow families with children clearer guidance as to whether they will qualify for the warm home discount.

Finally, I believe that the only way in which the situation can be improved is not by imposing an energy price freeze, which will only hike prices up in the long term, but by scrapping the existing regulator and creating an energy version of Which?, a consumer regulator that stands up for the customers, not the energy companies, and that has real teeth. As pointed out in The Sun newspaper today and as mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, The Sun is running a campaign for fuel companies to cut their prices following a significant fall in the international price of oil. I have previously handed a petition to the Office of Fair Trading with FairFuelUK calling for an inquiry into the rocket and feather effect, but there has never been a full inquiry.

In conclusion, stopping the premium on non-payment by direct debit, action on additional and hidden costs and turning Ofgem into a genuine consumer body would make a huge difference to residents of Harlow, and to energy bills and the cost of living for millions of people across the country.

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

rose—

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

One hon. Gentleman is standing, but convention demands that a Member has the permission not only of the Member who has secured the debate, which is Mr Carswell, but of the Minister, and he needs time to respond, so is the Minister willing to give a couple of minutes to the hon. Gentleman?

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Matthew Hancock)]

Of course.

16:48

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

Thank you, Dr McCrea; I am grateful to the Minister. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) on securing this debate on energy policy and living standards. This is a key issue for our party, and I think that this is the first debate that we have secured in the Commons.

Energy costs are being driven up through a levy control framework that shows the cost rising from £2.3 billion in 2012 to £9.8 billion in 2020. Much of that money is going on offshore wind. Rather than trying to develop leading, cutting-edge technologies, or some of the areas that have been improving in cost-efficiency such as solar, we are seeing the roll-out of absolutely masses—almost half the world’s production—of offshore energy, which costs about three times the market energy price. That is an absolutely extraordinary imposition on our constituents.

At the same time, we are bringing in a capacity market that even Mr Huhne, who was the Energy Secretary, did not want to see. At least he was an economist and realised, as I would have thought the Minister would also recognise, that as soon as a capacity market is announced, people will not build capacity until they start qualifying for the subsidy. That subsidy now seems to be available to almost everyone, rather than just those who have capacity that can be switched on reliably and immediately. That is going to be yet another imposition that drives up costs for our consumers.

Perhaps the most significant cost is what is happening to coal. The European Union is shutting down coal plants, including Kingsnorth in my constituency. Demolition of Kingsnorth has just commenced under the large combustion plant directive, and various pieces of successor legislation are even worse. The Government did not apply for a derogation that could have got us through a period in which there was a particular crunch in our energy demand. Why did not the Government at least try to obtain such a derogation? The Government, not the EU, are banning the construction of new coal-fired plant. E.ON, which owns Kingsnorth, would have liked to build a new supercritical plant, which would have provided much more efficient energy production, but the Government have banned it because of the emissions performance standard, I believe. Such projects are going ahead in Germany and other countries, but we are unilaterally driving up costs for our consumers, reducing the competitiveness of our industry and holding our country back.

16:50

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Matthew Hancock)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) on securing the debate and on choosing energy as the subject for his first Westminster Hall debate in his new iteration in this Parliament. My central response to his argument is that it is important to look at the facts and have a rational debate about the matter. Central to his big-picture hypothesis was the argument that energy costs have been rising since the early 2000s, before which they had gradually declined. He went on to say that wholesale costs were falling as a proportion of the total cost. However, the wholesale price has risen sharply during that period, and the wholesale price—the amount that is beyond the control of any Government—is a central driver of energy costs. Without acknowledging that core fact, it is difficult to have a rational debate on the subject, which I think we would all value.

[Mark Reckless]

The Minister says that the price is beyond the control of any Government, but Saudi Arabia has had quite a big impact on price by not increasing its oil production, and the US has done likewise by allowing and facilitating exploration for shale gas and oil, which we have held back so badly in this country.

[Matthew Hancock]

Nobody has direct control over wholesale costs, although I entirely take the point that Government policy that has an impact on the supply of energy, particularly hydrocarbon energy, can have an impact on price. I share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for shale, and the Government’s proposals will ensure that exploration for shale gas can happen as long as it is done carefully and within a regulatory framework that ensures that it is safe. I hope that he, his colleague the hon. Member for Clacton and all colleagues in his new party will support the local extraction of shale gas; his view is not shared by members of his party across the country. I welcome the support of the new establishment party for shale gas.

It is absolutely essential to ensure that we have security of supply at the lowest possible cost, while living within our international climate obligations. Perhaps there is a point of difference, because the risk of climate change is real and must be taken seriously, but the question is how we deliver on that in the lowest-cost way. On that, I think that the hon. Member for Clacton and I share some analysis. For instance, ensuring that taxes remain as low as possible is an important element of the Government’s programme. Even with the incredible deficit that we inherited, we have managed to keep petrol and diesel prices 20p lower than they would have otherwise have been. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for the work he has done on that, which is widely recognised. As oil prices fall, I support him in the call for those reductions to be passed on to the motorist at the pump now, not later. The work that he has done, including on the front page of today’s Sun, is an important contribution to this debate.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

How will the Minister persuade oil producers to pass on the reduction in oil prices to the consumer? Price rises hit a lot of poor families because of their impact on public transport and the cost of living in general. Have the Government had any discussions about that, and how do they intend to achieve it?

[Matthew Hancock]

The Government have had discussions about that. Ultimately, those changes can be best driven by competition. I share the disdain of the hon. Member for Clacton for prices and incomes policies in energy. Indeed, I think that he has missed some of the changes that we have made over the past couple of years, not least in the Energy Act 2013. For instance, he argued for more competition between different technologies so that those with the most potential can drive down costs and improve the situation for consumers. By switching from a regime in which, as he described, subsidy is given out to whatever renewable technology was brought forward to a regime in which a controlled pot of subsidy is auctioned to ensure that we get the best possible value for money, we have made a change towards a market-oriented system.

[Douglas Carswell]

In the United States over the past five years there has been a 26% reduction in wholesale gas prices and gas prices to consumers. Does the Minister have something to learn about public policy from America?

[Matthew Hancock]

I have no doubt that the massive expansion of the extraction of shale gas in America has had a downward impact on gas prices. Allied to that is the fact that America did not have many export terminals—it is now building them—which meant that it had a relatively closed market. We are working hard to get shale gas extraction going in the UK, where I think that it has huge potential. The Infrastructure Bill, which is currently before the House, proposes changes to make it easier to get shale gas out of the ground in a carefully regulated and safe way. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for that.

The capacity mechanism and the changes to make our energy system more driven by competition are designed to ensure that we get that security of supply as well as the cheapest possible cost. That is best done through a market mechanism, but the market must have a strong framework around it, because we must ensure continuity of supply in order to keep the lights on.

[Robert Halfon]

Will the Minister make a brief comment about the continued problem of the big energy companies charging a premium to vulnerable people who do not pay by direct debit?

[Matthew Hancock]

That is something that I am actively looking into, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to take it forward.

[Albert Owen]

One area in the energy market where there is no competition at all is distribution. The regions have monopolies, and the differential between them is some 6% of the bill. Does the Minister welcome Ofgem’s review of that subject, so that we can have proper, fairer pricing across the United Kingdom?

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course I welcome Ofgem’s review into the matter, and I think it is an important question. If we simply socialise prices across the whole of the UK, somebody has to pay those prices. The key question is how we can sort that out in a way that represents the best value for money. We have always had a relatively market-based approach, but the central point of Government policy is to move even more in that direction. The other important point is that without the action that the Government have taken, the average household dual-fuel bill would have been £100 higher this year.

Energy efficiency is the most effective way to drive down costs while cutting emissions and to bring down electricity bills for people, families and households. I am focused on that, and on ensuring that we get the best possible value. The Government have expanded energy efficiency enormously. Home insulation has been expanded and the green deal has reached hundreds of thousands of people. Those changes will ensure that we get the best possible value for money and that people pay lower bills, as far as is consistent with security of supply and our international obligations. That is the Government’s goal and we have made progress, but I have no doubt that there is more to do.

Question put and agreed to.

17:00

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Written Statements

Wednesday 10 December 2014

Finance Bill 2015

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government have consulted on a number of tax policies following their announcement at Budget 2014. Today, the Government are publishing responses to these consultations alongside draft legislation to be included in Finance Bill 2015. This fulfils our objective to confirm the majority of intended tax changes at least three months ahead of publication. Draft legislation will be open for technical consultation until 4 February 2015.

The Government are publishing draft legislation on policies announced at Budget 2014 and earlier, including:

A package of four changes in response to the Office of Tax Simplification’s recommendations for simplifying the system of employee benefits and expenses;

The introduction of capital gains tax on future gains made by non-residents disposing of UK residential property from April 2015;

A measure to allow the Government to make regulations which give non-charity intermediaries a greater role in operating gift aid;

A registration scheme for alcohol wholesalers to reduce the illicit trade in alcohol products.

The Government will also publish draft legislation on policies announced at the autumn statement 2014 including:

An increase in the level of the income tax personal allowance to £10,600 from April 2015;

A new tax relief for the production of children’s television programmes.

A new tax—the diverted profits tax—to counter the use of aggressive tax planning techniques used by multinational enterprises to divert profits from the UK will be applied from 1 April 2015 using a 25% rate;

Legislation that gives the UK power to implement the G20-OECD agreed model for country-by-country reporting;

The Government have also published draft legislation for the following Finance Bill 2015 measures, with effect from 10 December 2014:

Inheritance tax simplification of trust charges and new rules to target tax avoidance through the use of multiple trusts

The Government are introducing rules about adding property to trusts on the same day to target inheritance tax avoidance through the use of multiple trusts. This will apply to all charges arising on or after 6 April 2015 in respect of all relevant property trusts created on or after 10 December 2014. To prevent forestalling, it will also apply to relevant property trusts created before 10 December 2014 where property is added on or after this date to more than one trust on the same day. The Government are also making changes involving the relevant property rules relating to appointments for the benefit of the deceased’s surviving partner, which will apply to all deaths on or after 10 December 2014.

Simplifying “link company” requirements for consortium claims

With effect from 10 December, the Government have published draft legislation to simplify the tax system by removing all requirements relating to the location of the “link company” for consortium claims to group relief.

Detail of the clauses published today can be found in the “Overview of Legislation in Draft” document, which also includes tax information impact notes for each measure. All publications will be available on the gov.uk website.

EU Competitiveness Council

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Business and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock)]

My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and Minister for Intellectual Property (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) has today made the following statement.

The Competitiveness Council took place in Brussels on 4-5 December. I represented the UK during the internal market and industry discussion on day one, with Shan Morgan the Deputy Permanent Representative to the EU representing the UK for the research discussion on day two.

The Council opened with a discussion on the single market. The Commission noted that the President’s investment plan was not just about the €300 billion investment proposed but also the wider investment environment which included the single market. The Commission then emphasised that the single market in services, including the ambitious implementation of the services directive was a key priority and there would be a renewed strategy in 2015 focusing on the business services, construction and retail sectors; this reflects UK key priorities. Joint letters on services and the digital single market prepared by like minded member states and signed by the UK were presented to the Council. I spoke to support the Commission’s view that the single market was important in the context of the investment package and to argue for a sectoral approach to services. Several other member states intervened in support. Others welcomed the Commission’s approach to services and thought that there were many regulatory and non- regulatory obstacles in place and that priority should be to ensure existing legislation was applied correctly.

On the digital single market, most member states supported the need for action, with different member states pressing different priorities such as ecommerce and copyright. A number of member states were keen to see more action on energy within the single market. The Commission noted member states support for a sectoral approach to services and potentially a need for a country specific approach. The presidency concluded the discussion by noting the need to remove barriers to a single market including through a sectoral approach on services and through improvements to the investment environment.

I was pleased that the draft conclusions on smart regulation were adopted without amendment, including important language calling on the Commission to develop and put in place “reduction targets in particularly burdensome areas.” Others said that these were the most ambitious conclusions on the subject to date and particularly welcomed the focus on targets. I believe these conclusions are a significant step forward and reflect a success for UK advocacy on better regulation.

The draft Council conclusions on industrial competitiveness were adopted, with the Commission noting that they were consistent with their priorities on smart, clean industry, digitalised manufacturing, the bio based economy and securing the energy supply through a single market for energy. I intervened to emphasise the importance of the single market to manufacturing, welcoming similar comments that the Commissioner has made in previous speeches. In response to the discussion paper most member states supported giving the Competitiveness Council a stronger role in commenting on dossiers in other policy areas. I intervened to propose inviting the relevant Commissioner to the Competitiveness Council. The Council also recognised the importance of the first SME Envoy report.

The presidency opened the debate on package travel by welcoming the progress on the questions of scope, insolvency protection and the level of harmonisation, which were identified by the Competitiveness Council in May 2014 as the outstanding issues. Although a general approach was agreed by a qualified majority, opposing voices came close to creating a blocking minority. Member states complained about a variety of more minor issues, including the speed of the negotiation and the new concept of “assisted travel arrangements”. I spoke in favour of the text with the caveat that the UK remained concerned about the potential implications for repatriation of holidaymakers in the case of airline insolvency within the context of the new directive.

A general approach to the revised cableways installation was adopted without comment. The revised text was acceptable to the UK as it includes an exemption for historic installations, which avoids costly burdens for those who operate vintage funicular railways at resorts in the UK on a not-for-profit basis.

A general approach was adopted on the revised personal protective equipment regulation. I intervened to oppose the expansion of scope to include domestic dishwashing and oven gloves, which had not been justified by the impact assessment and was an example of overzealous regulatory approach by the Commission that needs to change. The Commission defended the inclusion of these products on the grounds that EU manufacturers already produced gloves to the higher standard; their representative body, the European Safety Federation, had raised no objections to protection. However the Commission noted UK concerns and looked forward to discussions with the European Parliament.

Day one concluded with a presentation of their work programme from the incoming Latvian presidency. They highlighted their three main priorities: increasing competitiveness, seizing the digital agenda and strengthening the EU’s global reach.

I also attended an informal Council lunch at which Vice President Katainen presented the European investment plan for Europe and his plans for the €315 billion growth fund. I emphasised and welcomed the third pillar of the Commission plan which is to improve the investment environment through work on the single market and regulatory barriers and asked about the implications for Horizon 2020 expenditure.

On research, innovation and space, this was Commissioner Carlos Moedas’ first Council meeting in his new role as Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation.

The Italian presidency opened the meeting with a discussion on science with and for society, linking the debate back to the recent Rome declaration on responsible research and innovation (which the UK supports). Common themes in discussion included the importance of open access to data and publications, education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), initiatives to improve gender equality in the field of research, and the need to reform funding streams for research to ensure they are focused on excellence.

The UK highlighted the importance of a sound science evidence base in policy making (referring to Sir Mark Walport’s recent report on risk and regulation) and reminded the Commission of the need to indicate how this will be handled in future within the Commission’s processes. Commissioner Moedas acknowledged the UK’s points on the importance of scientific evidence in his concluding remarks on the item.

The Council agreed Council conclusions on the Partnership for Research and Innovation in the Mediterranean Area (PRIMA) initiative. Fourteen countries (not including the UK) have indicated their willingness to participate. The main subject of ongoing debate is the formal mechanism by which the initiative will be funded.

The Council also agreed without substantial debate a set of Council conclusions on the European research area (ERA), noting the positive findings in the Commission’s progress report published in September and looking forward to the finalisation by mid-2015 of the ERA roadmap (a plan to secure greater benefit from ERA between now and 2020). Council conclusions were also adopted without debate noting the contents of the Commission’s communication on research and innovation as sources of renewed growth.

The research session of the meeting concluded with two brief information items, one on the blue growth research initiative and another on the plans of the upcoming Latvian presidency in the area of research and innovation. The Latvian Minister indicated that their presidency will focus on the mid-term review of EU2020 (including Innovation Union), the enhancement of the European research area through the ERA roadmap process, better governance of ERA, and advancing the Science 2.0 debate.

There were interventions at several points during the morning on the recently announced investment plan of European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. Commissioner Moedas said that research and innovation would play a central role in the package and emphasised the intention to leverage additional resources for these purposes. Several member states, including the UK, asked for greater clarity on where the funding would come from and the impact this would have on basic and applied research.

The afternoon session was devoted to space matters, beginning with a debate on the future of European space policy. This was likewise the first meeting for Growth Commissioner Elzbieta Biehkowska (who is responsible for space). The Commissioner emphasised her intention to develop regular dialogue with the European space industry, to focus on delivery of the flagship Copernicus and Galileo programmes, and to stimulate research and innovation to ensure EU non-dependence in key technologies. A wide range of member state views was expressed in the ensuing debate. The UK stressed the need for an EU space policy developed in partnership with ESA and member states; the need to avoid legislation unless an internal market problem had been demonstrated; for future trade negotiations to consider the space sector; and for the EU and the European Space Agency (ESA) to consider themselves as equal partners.

The Council also adopted without debate Council conclusions on space renaissance. The meeting concluded with short information items on the Copernicus programme and the outcomes of the ESA ministerial meeting, followed by a presentation by the astronaut Luca Parmitano.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 4 and 5 December in Brussels. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. The following items were discussed.

The justice day began with a discussion on the proposed general data protection regulation. The presidency sought a partial general approach on a number of articles intended to provide member states with flexibility to adapt the application of the rules to their public sectors, and on chapter IX, on rules for data processing for research, scientific and journalistic purposes. The Commission encouraged member states to accept the compromise between common standards and a measure of flexibility now available for particular national approaches. A majority of member states, including the UK, agreed the deal.

The discussion of the data protection regulation continued with an orientation debate on the presidency’s proposed structure for a “one stop shop” mechanism, which is intended to reduce burdens for business by enabling all of their operations in different member states to be overseen by the data protection regulator in their home state. While there was support for the principle and most member states accepted the compromise proposed by the presidency, the UK and a number of other member states expressed concerns that, with legally binding powers for the European data protection board (EDPB) to resolve disputes, the model proposed would fail to achieve the stated objectives of legal certainty, quick decisions and proximity for the data subject. The presidency concluded that a majority of member states accepted the basic elements of its proposal, including the proposed European data protection board, but noted that questions remained, and tasked the official-level working group to develop the detail in the light of this steer.

The presidency also provided a separate update on the proposed data protection directive covering the processing of personal data for criminal justice purposes. The file remains under discussion, and the working group has recently focused on the scope of the directive. The UK Government believe that the priority should be on agreeing the text of the general regulation.

The Council adopted a general approach on the proposed directive on the presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings. Commissioner Jourova supported the Council compromise, though regretted that the absolute right to silence and right not to self incriminate had not been fully upheld in the proposed text. The UK has not opted into the directive.

There was a partial general approach on the draft Eurojust regulation, covering all parts except the provisions covering its relationship with the European Public Prosecutor (EPPO) and data protection. However, the Commission stated that they still have a number of issues with the text, including the need for them to be able to participate in administrative decision-making because of their budgetary responsibility, and the proposed compensation mechanism. On the EPPO, Ministers concluded that there was a need to strengthen the prosecutor’s independence within the supervisory regime. They noted the presidency’s suggested drafting but mandated further discussion at expert level on this issue. The UK is not participating in the EPPO and has not opted in to the draft Eurojust regulation.

Political agreement, supported by the UK, was reached on the proposal to amend the EU insolvency regulation 1346/2000. The presidency noted the importance of this file for cross-border insolvency and the considerable work that had gone into finding an acceptable compromise with the European Parliament. The next step is for the text to be finalised by lawyers before adoption under the Latvian presidency.

The Council adopted a general approach on the proposed regulation on small claims, which the Government generally welcome. The Council has agreed a threshold of £3,137 for the maximum value of a claim under the regulation, but expects this to be one of the issues for negotiation during trilogue with the European Parliament, which will start in January.

Next, the Council endorsed, without discussion, orientation guidelines for the negotiation of the draft regulation on simplifying the cross-border acceptance of certain public documents—abolishing the process of “legalisation”. The guidelines will steer discussions at working group level, and narrow the scope of the draft regulation; allow certified translations to be accepted in other member states, and allow for simple translations of original national documents rather than translated stand-alone forms with their own evidentiary value.

In a “state of play” update on the proposed legal aid directive, the presidency noted that there were still divergences of views between member states, some of which advocated more flexibility on the provision of legal aid in the case of minor offences, while others wished to see the directive extended to ordinary legal aid, beyond the provisional legal aid proposed by the Commission. The presidency will provide the incoming Latvian presidency with a document setting out their understanding of the main outstanding points in the negotiations. The UK has not opted into this directive.

The presidency gave a state of play update on the draft directive on the fight against fraud by means of criminal law—the so-called “PIF” directive—noting that a few substantive issues remained. These included whether to include VAT in scope, the definition of fraud, and the definition of serious offences.

The presidency invited Ministers to take note of its latest text of the proposals on the applicable law and jurisdiction in relation to matrimonial and registered partnership property regimes, which it hoped would be an acceptable compromise. It suggested a period of reflection to last no longer than until the end of 2015 to allow member states to consider whether unanimity could be reached. The UK has not opted into these proposals.

Under AOB the presidency invited Council to take stock of the activities undertaken over the course of 2014 by the Special Committee on Organised Crime, Corruption and Money Laundering (CRIM), established by the European Parliament.

The Latvian Justice Minister set out his priorities for their forthcoming presidency. These included reaching a general approach on the data protection regulation at the March Council, continuing work on the “PIF” directive and the EPPO, reaching a general approach on the legal aid directive by March, continuing work on the small claims regulation, reaching agreement on the access to public documents file, and continuing work on the common European sales law.

The interior day began in mixed committee which included a discussion on “managing migratory flows”. This focused on the implementation of the October JHA Council conclusions on this topic. The Commission introduced its “scorecard” on progress, and the incoming Latvian presidency informed the Council of its commitment to continuing this work. There has been progress, including with the launch of the Khartoum process, which focused on people smuggling and human trafficking in the horn of Africa.

With regard to the Mediterranean, member states continue to provide support for Frontex’s Operation Triton, while the presidency confirmed that the Italian search and rescue operation “Mare Nostrum” would be phased out by the end of January.

The Council underlined the importance of implementing the common European asylum system (CEAS) and of all member states providing concrete solidarity to those facing particular pressures. There were calls from some member states for further resettlement activities, including for a “distribution key” guiding allocation among member states, while others made clear their views that resettlement should remain voluntary. The Council agreed that proposals for enhanced regional devolvement and protection programmes would continue to be taken forward.

The UK emphasised the need to focus on upstream activities in countries of origin and transit and to tackle smugglers and traffickers, and joined other Ministers in calling for all member states to fully respect their responsibilities under the CEAS, including the need to fingerprint and register claims.

The Commission presented its latest biannual report on the functioning of the Schengen area, highlighting increased illegal migration at the EU’s external borders and calling for member states to fulfil their commitment to share information on secondary illegal migration movements within the Schengen area. The Government have a strong interest in the effective functioning of the Schengen area and continue to work with European partners to tackle migratory pressures across the EU. The UK emphasised how the openness of the Schengen area and the principle of free movement continue to be exploited, for example by organised gangs and criminals, and how the EU needs to work harder to manage these risks and put the right safeguards in place.

The Council and the Commission noted achievements during 15 years of Schengen evaluation and agreed Council conclusions which authorise the continuation of Schengen evaluation work within the Council under the new Schengen evaluation mechanism.

During the main Council, member states returned to the issue of counter terrorism and in particular foreign fighters, following discussions on this issue at the October Council. Member states, along with the Commission and Europol, discussed how best to tackle the threat posed by those returning from Syria and Iraq, as well as efforts to tackle radicalisation.

Over lunch, the Commission (Avramopoulos) stressed its commitment to achieving an EU passenger name records (PNR) directive, despite the European Parliament’s referral of the EU Canada PNR agreement to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The UK expressed disappointment at the likelihood of significant delay and stressed that in the face of a severe threat it was now essential for member states to press ahead with bilateral arrangements for PNR. There was general agreement among member states that an EU instrument was needed to set common standards and protect privacy and that the directive should still be pursued. The UK agreed, but stated that we would not support a PNR directive which was overly constrained and that in the interim further progress on intergovernmental agreements should be pursued.

Under AOB, the Commission congratulated the presidency for the organisation of recent meetings on the Rabat and Khartoum processes in Rome and said work would continue on greater co-ordination across the board on migration issues. Slovenia informed Council of the outcome of the Salzburg forum ministerial conference in Slovenia on 11-12 November. The conference had discussed the fight against foreign fighters, support for the integrated approach for the western Balkan regions, strengthening regional co-operation and the new regulation for training of law enforcement authorities.

The presidency set out the background to the students and researchers directive and updated Council on the recent progress made, in particular on the scope. It hoped that member states could agree to a compromise package by the end of the year, so as to begin negotiations with the European Parliament early next year. The presidency also said that negotiations continued on the amendments to the Dublin III regulation and aimed to reach agreement on a Council position. The Commission hoped that Council would reach a balanced position and that trilogues could start as soon as possible.

The incoming Latvian presidency explained its priorities for interior business. It would concentrate on implementation of the strategic guidelines for the justice and home affairs area, as agreed at the June European Council, with a particular focus on: countering foreign fighters, renewing the EU internal security strategy and continuing the work on a comprehensive and structured approach to managing migratory flows. It would continue legislative work on the students and researchers directives, amendments to the Dublin regulation, the visa code recast, Europol, the European Police College (CEPOL) and the smart borders package and continue progress with PNR. A special priority for the Latvian presidency would be strengthening co-operation with eastern partners. Latvia would host an Eastern Partnership meeting in the margins of the informal Council on 29-30 January.

On both days, under AOB, Council was informed of the outcome of the EU-US JHA ministerial meeting, on 12-13 November.

Article 10 of protocol 36 to the treaties

Under the arrangements in article 10 of protocol 36 to the treaties, which were negotiated by the last Government, the United Kingdom had the right to opt out of all EU police and judicial co-operation measures adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty. In July 2013, following votes in both Houses of Parliament endorsing the Government’s decision, the Prime Minister formally exercised the opt-out. This decision took effect on 1 December 2014 and on that date the United Kingdom opted out of more than 100 EU police and criminal justice powers.

The Government have always been clear that we wanted to remain part of a smaller number of measures which give our police and law enforcement agencies vital and practical help to tackle serious crime and keep the public safe. Following consultation with operational partners and the relevant parliamentary Committees, and detailed discussions with the European Commission, the Council and other member states, the Government reached final agreement to rejoin 35 crucial police and criminal justice measures with debates in both houses on 10 and 17 November this year.

On 20 November 2014, following votes in both Houses of Parliament endorsing the Government’s package, the Prime Minister notified the President of the Council of Ministers of the United Kingdom’s wish to rejoin the 35 measures set out in Command Paper 8897: “Decision pursuant to Article 10(5) of Protocol 36 to The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union”. A copy of the Prime Minister’s notification letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

A Council and a Commission decision were required to give effect to the United Kingdom’s application to rejoin the measures. These processes were concluded on 1 December and copies of both decisions were deposited in Parliament on 4 December. Explanatory memoranda for both decisions have now also been deposited in Parliament.

The Government voted, via the written procedure, to approve the adoption of the Schengen Council decision, in order to ensure that it entered into force on 1 December without an operational gap for our law enforcement agencies occurring. This decision required the overriding of the scrutiny reserve resolution, but did no more than approve the UK’s participation in the six Schengen measures that had already been endorsed by both Houses of Parliament. Given unanimity was required for the measure to pass, the Government had to vote to approve this decision to ensure that the package of measures could come into operation as soon as possible, to avoid a legal vacuum which could have arisen, to allow negotiations to conclude, and in order to conclude an advantageous package deal with other member states.

The Commission decision, which contained no more than a short provision approving the UK’s application to rejoin the 29 non-Schengen measures, did not require the formal endorsement of the United Kingdom or other member states prior to its adoption.

Two further decisions relating to this matter were adopted by the Council at the Transport Telecommunications and Energy (TTE) Council on 27 November. The UK did not have a vote on the transitional decision, but voted in favour of the financial consequences decision in order to secure the advantageous deal we had reached with other member states and ensure that the package of measures could come into operation as soon as possible. The European Scrutiny Committee did not clear the draft Council decision on financial consequences from scrutiny ahead of this Council. As a result, this decision required the overriding of the scrutiny reserve resolution to allow negotiations to conclude, and in order to conclude the deal with other member states.

The Government’s undertaking not to override scrutiny save in exceptional circumstances is embodied in scrutiny reserve resolutions of the House of Commons (last updated in 1998) and the House of Lords (in 2010). These resolutions are the cornerstone of the scrutiny procedures and provide assurance to Parliament that Ministers will not agree to measures in the Council of Ministers unless scrutiny has been completed. Ministers are committed to the scrutiny process and do not override them lightly. However, the circumstances were such in this case that it was necessary in order to deliver on a significant and successful negotiation where the measures implemented an outcome endorsed by both Houses of Parliament.

The Government are confident that the deal reached is a good one for all parties and that the smaller package of measures that we have rejoined will give our police and law enforcement agencies vital and practical tools to maintain co-operation with our European partners.

Advanced Biofuels

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

My noble Friend, the Minister of State for Transport, (Baroness Kramer), has made the following written statement:

I have today launched the Government’s £25 million advanced biofuels demonstration competition to support the development of a domestic advanced biofuel industry, we have also published the independent feasibility study on the Department’s website at: www.gov.uk/dft into the project and the opportunities available for UK industry.

This is a major step forward for the UK. According to the feasibility study, gains from the domestic supply of converting low value waste to high value transport fuel could be worth up to £130 million gross value added (GVA) to the UK by 2030, and potentially up to £500 million per year including exports. Therefore, I believe that using our world class research capabilities, this competition will provide real opportunities for UK businesses to become a global leader in this market.

Originally announced by the then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) last August, the £25 million of capital funding, supported by significant private sector investment, is designed to achieve the construction of up to three demonstration-scale advanced biofuel plants in the UK. Awards will be made in 2015 and the funding will be available until 2018.

Relative to first-generation biofuels (those made from traditional crops, starch, sugars or vegetable oil), advanced fuels could deliver greater carbon savings without the same concerns around food security and land use change. Advanced fuel technologies have the potential to reduce our reliance on imported energy, by turning unwanted waste products into valuable transport fuel.

Alongside the competition, the Department for Transport has also established a transport energy taskforce to consider options for supporting advanced biofuels through policy mechanisms. We are also supporting a sub target at EU level.

Expressions of interest (Eol) are now being sought from potential bidders until 13 February 2015, shortlisted projects will then be invited to submit full proposals.

Rail Franchising: InterCity East Coast

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

On 27 November 2014 I announced my intention to award the InterCity East Coast rail franchise to Inter City Railways Ltd, a joint venture of Stagecoach Transport Holdings Ltd and Virgin Holdings Ltd, following the completion of a standstill period. I am happy to confirm to the House that the standstill period has now ended and that we completed the contract after the markets closed last night—9 December 2014. This means that Inter City Railways Ltd can now begin the mobilisation process that will mean the new franchise will start on 1 March 2015.

The new InterCity East Coast franchise will last for eight years and will deliver massive benefits for passengers, taxpayers and staff. Inter City Railways Ltd will oversee and facilitate the introduction of the new state of the art Intercity Express programme trains and will increase total capacity on the franchise by around 50%. They plan to deliver new services, including providing direct connections to London to five destinations that have not had services on the franchise before—Huddersfield, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Dewsbury and Thornaby—and faster journey times to many destinations along the route. Passengers will benefit from an investment of £140 million in improving facilities at stations and on trains and the taxpayer will benefit from around £3.3 billion of premium to be paid to Government over the life of the contract.

Inter City Railways Ltd have great long-term plans for the Intercity East Coast and are the right company to take them forward with passengers at the heart of the franchise. I am delighted with this award and look forward to working in partnership with the new operator for the benefit of passengers, taxpayers and the industry.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Written Statements

[The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)]

I will be attending the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO), which will be held on 11 December 2014 in Brussels.

The Council will seek political agreement on a directive concerning working time in inland waterway transport. It will also seek agreement on a general approach to a directive on the employment rights of seafarers.

The Council will seek a general approach to the proposed regulation on the European network of employment services (EURES).

There will be an exchange of views on the subject of “Investing in Youth Employment”, including discussions on the implementation of the youth guarantee and the European alliance for apprenticeships.

The European Commission will present the annual growth survey 2015, the joint employment report and the alert mechanism report, and seek the views of member states.

The Italian presidency will report on the progress of the directive to encourage improvements in the workplace health and safety of women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. The Council will also seek a general approach to the proposed directive on the gender balance of non-executive directors on company boards.

There will be a progress report and orientation debate on the first reading of a proposed directive on equal treatment of persons irrespective of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The Council will also adopt conclusions on the review of progress of the EU institutions and member states on the Beijing platform for action—“Beijing plus 20”.

Under any other business, the Italian presidency will present a report of the Rome conference on “Unlocking the potential of the Social Economy for EU Growth”, held in Rome on 17-18 November 2014. The Latvian delegation will present the work programme of their upcoming presidency.

Grand Committee

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Grand Committee

Wednesday, 10 December 2014.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Grand Committee

Announcement

15:45

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Andrews) (Lab)]

My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.

Bioeconomy: S&T Committee Report

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Grand Committee

Motion to Take Note

15:45

Moved by

[Lord Krebs]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on Waste or resource? Stimulating a bioeconomy (3rd Report, Session 2013–14, HL Paper 141).

[Lord Krebs (CB)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the members of the Science and Technology Select Committee for their excellent contributions to this inquiry. At the same time, I thank our specialist adviser, Mr Ian Shott CBE, who is an experienced expert in the bio-based industries. I also thank the committee support team for their superb contributions, and I thank the Minister for the Government’s response to our report, to which I will come later.

This report deals with just one aspect of waste—namely, carbon-containing waste. In this, we include biological materials such as food waste, wood offcuts and farming waste, including manure and plant remains, and the carbon-containing gases, such as carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, which come out of our factory chimneys.

Our central question was simply: should this carbon-containing waste be treated as an environmental problem or as a business opportunity? Before delving into the report, perhaps I may set it in a wider context. The United Kingdom, in common with other advanced economies, produces a colossal amount of the stuff that we call waste. According to official figures, the tonnage of waste produced in this country is equivalent to the weight of 200 million cars—that is, six times the total number of cars on the UK’s roads. This waste includes the biological material that I have referred to, including food, and it includes building materials, industrial bioproducts and discarded consumer goods, as well as the industrial gases that I mentioned.

The disposal of this waste is to a large degree governed by a number of EU directives—in particular, the waste framework directive and the landfill directive. EU policy is based on the well known principle of the waste hierarchy. The first priority is to reduce it—that is, to produce less waste. The second is to reuse material or recycle it, and there are other types of recovery, including energy generation. The last, at the bottom of the hierarchy, is to dispose of it—for instance, into landfill. All four Administrations of the UK have policies to deal with waste according to the EU directives.

The UK has traditionally lagged behind many other European neighbours in dealing with waste. For instance, we still put nearly half of our municipal waste into landfill, while some other countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, put none of theirs into holes in the ground. While this could be seen as bad news for the environment and for business, it may also present us with an opportunity, as I shall explain shortly.

Our Select Committee report is not the only recent analysis to point to the business opportunities that could arise from waste. The 2020 commission’s report, Sweating our Assets, produced by a group of parliamentarians within the last year, makes the important point, which we echo, that waste is a business opportunity. It estimates that £1 billion-worth of materials is thrown into landfill each year instead of being used for productive purposes. The report goes even further, suggesting that, rather than measuring our economic performance in terms of labour efficiency—per capita GDP—we should measure ourselves in terms of how efficiently we use resources. As I understand it, the report was produced at the request of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I should like to ask the Minister whether she is aware of any impact of this important and thoughtful report on thinking in the Treasury.

Food waste has been very much in the news in the last few days, particularly in relation to food poverty and the provision of food by food banks. It has been estimated that more than one-third of our food in this country is wasted, mainly in retail, catering and the home. The ideal, according to the waste hierarchy, would be to eliminate this waste but, given where we are, the highest priority is to reuse it, which is what the Oxford Food Bank—I declare an interest because my wife is a trustee—is trying to do. But, however good we are at eliminating and reusing, we will inevitably produce food waste and other carbon-containing waste. Therefore, the question both now and in the long term is: how can we make the best use of it?

Current policies incentivise relatively low-value uses of carbon-containing waste such as feed stocks for generating energy in the form of heat, liquid fuel or electricity—for example, through anaerobic digestion facilities. While this may be better than putting waste into landfill, it may not be the best possible solution. In fact, some other countries, such as Germany, have gone much further down the anaerobic digestion route, and are having to grow crops to feed their AD facilities as not enough waste is available. Rather than rushing in this country to build many more anaerobic digestion facilities, we have an opportunity to think about smarter uses for carbon-containing waste.

In our inquiry, we heard how developments in microbiology, synthetic biology and enzymology will in the future enable carbon-containing waste, including waste industrial gases, to be turned into high-value products. These include speciality chemicals such as limonene—a fragrance—pharmaceuticals, polymers such as polylactic acid, and commodity chemicals such as esters. Many of these chemical compounds are built of atoms of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, the major components of carbon-containing waste. By harnessing the power of biological chemistry it is possible to reassemble waste into valuable products instead of simply burning or burying it. This is not just a gleam in the scientists’ eye. The technology for some of these transformations already exists, and for others it is within reach in the next few years. We heard of one industrial-scale example already in practice, a partnership between Virgin Atlantic and LanzaTech to use bacteria to convert carbon monoxide waste gas from steel mills into jet fuel. LanzaTech estimates that 19% of the world’s jet fuel demands could be met by this technology, which has a carbon footprint of probably around half that of conventional jet fuel.

The bioeconomy may also have a role in helping us to meet our legally binding target for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. At the moment, one of the key strands of the nation’s strategy is the development of carbon capture and storage—putting waste carbon dioxide underground. If we are smart, in the future we may see carbon capture and storage replaced by carbon capture and use, as a way of generating a new economy and tackling the challenge of climate change.

Extracting high-value chemicals from waste is not necessarily an alternative to the lower value use of using it to generate energy. Once the high-value products have been extracted, the residue can often be used in anaerobic digesters or syngas generators for energy production. There is no doubt about the potential to develop significant money and economic benefit from carbon-containing waste. BIS gave us an estimate for the market of £100 billion for the bioeconomy as a whole, of which products from carbon-containing waste will be a substantial proportion. INEOS estimated that waste could supply the equivalent of 40% of our petrol needs in this country.

Turning waste into useful products may also make good environmental sense, but this needs careful life-cycle analysis for each case. We recommended that a more consistent approach to life-cycle analysis should be adopted, in order to assess the environmental costs and benefits.

Let me turn to some of our other conclusions and recommendations and some questions for the noble Baroness the Minister to answer in her reply, I hope. I should say at once that we were very pleased that the Government accepted some of our key recommendations without reservation. In their response, the Government agreed with our recommendation that the lead department for developing a long-term strategy for a waste-based, high-value bioeconomy should be BIS rather than Defra, reflecting the transformation from treating waste as an environmental issue to treating it as a business opportunity. The Government’s response said that the Minister of State for Business and Energy was the lead Minister, with a cross-departmental steering group. We were pleased with this response. However, more recently—that is to say yesterday—the Government updated this by telling us that the ministerial champion role is now shared between that Minister and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in Defra for Water, Forestry, Rural Affairs and Resource Management. I understand from the recent update that a working group across departments is supporting the two Ministers in developing a long-term plan. Naturally, if a responsibility is split between departments, there is a danger of it falling between the cracks, so I seek a reassurance from the noble Baroness that that will not be the case. Perhaps she would also update us on the progress of the working group.

We also recommended that the research councils and the Technology Strategy Board should work together to ensure that funding is available to enable the UK’s outstanding academic community of scientists, chemists and process engineers to develop the knowledge base that would underpin the new industries. In their response, the Government referred to a number of new initiatives, including the new Industrial Biotechnology Catalyst with £45 million-worth of funding, which is most welcome. We were also concerned about the “valley of death”; that is, how ideas which are developed in the laboratory may not be able to cross the development phase into full-scale industrial application. We recommended that BIS should review whether the High Value Manufacturing Catapult, which was set up to help to bridge the valley of death, has sufficient capacity to support technology transfer in this area, and again I hope that the Minister will give us an update on this from the Government’s perspective.

We drew attention to the fact that the current subsidies for generating energy from biowaste may be distorting the market, and the Government share our view that subsidies should not inhibit the development of high-value products from waste and that the policy framework should be stable to encourage investment by the private sector. I hope that the Minister will offer a comment on this.

Finally, I come to two areas in which we were a little disappointed with the Government’s response. The first, perhaps remarkably, is that it is difficult if not impossible to get an accurate picture of precisely how much waste there is. I shall quote from one industrial witness, who told us that the,

“publicly available data is poor and patchy, coarse-grained and gathered for different purposes and hard to compare from source to source. It throws into stark relief how poorly informed we are as a sector to make robust strategic decisions about the future delivery of waste infrastructure”.

That is not a good comment to come from the industrial sector, which we hope will step in to take forward this important new area. We recommended that BIS should take steps to ensure that information on both domestic and non-domestic waste is collated in such a way that it is able to be used as a resource. The Government did partially accept that, but it was not totally clear that our recommendation had been accepted. I would very much welcome clarification from the Minister on this point. Are the Government really committed to creating a single database that will be of use to the industries?

Secondly, we were told in our inquiry that the different pattern of waste collection by local authorities in England was a real barrier to fully effective utilisation of biological waste. Strikingly, we heard that while 95% of Welsh local authorities had separated food waste collections, and that by next year 100% of non-rural Scottish local authorities will have separated food waste collections, for England the figure is a mere 27%. This may explain why fully one-third of food waste goes into landfill in England, which is a shocking statistic given that this is a potentially valuable resource. Unfortunately, the Government’s response was to say that waste collection is a matter for local councils. It does seem to me that if the Government are serious about utilising biowaste as the feed stock for a new high-tech bioeconomy, they will need to do more to ensure that waste is collected in a way that helps rather than hinders the emerging industry. I hope that the Minister will be able to make some positive remarks on this matter. I know that she has a local authority background herself and thus will be well tuned to these matters.

In closing, I should confess to the fact that I come from Sheffield, where I learned the local saying, “Where there’s muck, there’s brass”. Waste has traditionally been seen as a problem, but it now needs to be seen as a valuable resource—a way of making brass. However good we become at reducing waste, there will always be some and this will, if we get it right, be the basis of a new high-tech economic sector creating jobs and wealth, and at the same time helping to protect our environment. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords to this debate and the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.

15:59

[The Earl of Selborne (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, most warmly for not just introducing this debate so comprehensively but for chairing the inquiry and the Science and Technology Committee from 2010 until earlier this year. In that time, the committee has produced no fewer than 12 reports. This is the penultimate report. All who served with him on the committee are enormously grateful to him for his calm, wise and very well informed leadership. May his successor be half as successful. I also thank our clerk, Chris Clarke, and our specialist adviser, Ian Shott. We were very well served.

I repeat the fundamental question that we posed: is there a case for developing an industry in the United Kingdom which derives high-value products from carbon-containing wastes? If there is an economic and technological opportunity in this case, should the Government have a role or could this new industry be expected to develop through market forces? If the Government have a role, how will they enable the market to work more effectively? After all, the reason for government involvement would presumably be because of market failure.

As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, the technology opportunities are clear. This is a new technology. There are only a few examples around the world of it being operated on a large commercial scale, although there are plenty of pilot schemes. As the noble Lord said, it is not just a gleam in scientists’ eyes: it is a fact. The greatest opportunities lie in industrial and commercial waste simply because you are dealing with larger quantities of a homogenous nature. The processing of fuels, flavourings, pharmaceuticals and plastics from these waste streams is seen not just as an opportunity but, indeed, is already in production.

Domestic and municipal waste is more varied and fragmented and there is less of it. Even though the data in this area are rather poor, we know that domestic waste comprises very much the minority of waste. Nevertheless, if properly organised, it could contribute to these high-value products, and that should be the aim. The reason this new opportunity should be grasped is obvious: it would offer new jobs, often in rural areas, would make an important contribution to the United Kingdom and there would be environmental benefits. Most of these processes, probably all, would lead to reduced greenhouse gas emissions, although that would always have to be tested process by process. Reusing waste products by definition reduces our demand for natural resources which have not already been exploited.

So the answer to the first question is that there is, indeed, an economic and technological opportunity and we should exploit it. The second question is: do the Government have a role? The Government are already setting the waste agenda by transposing into domestic law the waste framework directive and the landfill directive, and they fund the Waste and Resources Action Programme, which has responsibility for delivering the United Kingdom Government’s policies on waste and resource efficiency.

As we have heard, the waste framework directive sets out the requirement to manage waste in accordance with the waste hierarchy. This is one of the holy cows of the environment movement. However, like many holy cows, it needs to be challenged from time to time. As regards waste prevention, reuse, recycling, other types of recovery and, finally, disposal or landfill, there is no explicit incentive or requirement to promote higher value uses of waste. I think that such a measure needs to be put into the waste hierarchy.

The Government’s reaction to this waste hierarchy tends to be sector-focused and to support particular technologies. Particularly in Defra, which is obviously looking at rural and agricultural waste and the like, anaerobic digestion in some ways meets the SME requirements for energy production. However, there is very little opportunity to derive high-value products from anaerobic digestion. Indeed, as we have seen in Germany—the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to this—there is a risk that eventually, as you try to scale up in order to make sure that your anaerobic digestion plant is fully serviced, you start growing maize and other crops in place of food. That is clearly a conflict which is not necessarily desirable. The sectoral approach that we seem to have in this country at the moment, driven very clearly by the waste hierarchy, misses the overall opportunity to contribute to the national economy to the greatest advantage.

The Royal Society of Chemistry, as quoted in paragraph 64 of our report, referred to the review of waste policy which took place a year or two ago:

“Much of the Waste Policy review focuses on waste management practices, rather than treating waste as a resource … Existing policy dealing with waste recovery is largely focused on energy generation, rather than creation of higher-value products”.

That is precisely the conclusion that we also came to and puts it quite well. The Government need to lead the way in refocusing national waste priorities, and there is a need to develop a new waste strategy which recognises waste as a feedstock for high-value products.

Then there is the further question of whether industry could be expected to develop this strategy itself and why it should have to look to government for assistance. The Chartered Institution of Wastes Management is the trade association or body for the waste industry. Its written evidence referred to the paucity of data on commercial and industrial wastes. It wrote that,

“we are sailing steadily towards a market failure to recover resources or value from up to 15 million tonnes per year of wastes from businesses in the UK and Ireland. Failure to secure adequate … commercial and industrial … infrastructure will lock us into either continued landfill or reliance on export markets which may or may not be there in the future”.

It also said that the lack of reliable data is a key barrier to convincing financial backers that a proposed facility would be viable. How you attract investment into this area is of course the main question. Research Councils UK drew attention to the,

“many excellent academic groups and active small companies developing new technological approaches”,

but noted that,

“the UK appears to lack sufficient numbers of large companies … who have the financial backing to develop a whole ‘process’, integrating a range of technology platforms, taking feedstocks to end product(s)”.

If this investment is to be attracted, confidence needs to be provided to investors, which will require demonstration facilities. The catapult in the north-east is providing that for at least one sector, but this will have to be rolled out further—another role for government or at least for government funding.

British Airways, which has a particular interest in the production of biofuels from waste, stressed the importance of government support to reduce the risks of high-capital intensive projects. There are other barriers to the development of the industry, such as the long contracts that exist for domestic or municipal waste—including, incidentally, contracts to export waste for refuse-derived fuel on the continent. Then there is the fragmentation of the household waste collection system, which is a historical fact. Much as one would like to say that this needs to be resolved, it is an issue that simply has to be recognised. Again, if there is an overall long-term strategy, time will eventually make it possible to co-ordinate and produce the sort of quantities of material and to build the infrastructure to meet the needs of this burgeoning technology.

We have put a lot of effort nationally into co-firing biomass with coal in power stations. That immediately provides an opportunity. Just think of the prodigious quantities of wood that has been stacked up in the generating power stations. Incidentally, this wood very often is imported. However, Professor James Clark very reasonably suggested to us that once one has accumulated so much biomass, one should extract the valuable chemicals first before burning it. After all, the calorific value is not affected. There is an opportunity here but one would not expect, I fear, a company whose business was generating electricity to start thinking in these terms. However, again, it is an opportunity. How do we encourage this little bit of lateral thinking? Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, pointed out, in other technologies it is not either/or; one can often first extract the high-value chemicals and then use the remaining biomass or biological material for energy.

We were careful to restrict our inquiry to what is defined as waste—something that at the end of an industrial, agricultural or forestry process becomes waste. However, in practice, once the infrastructure is in place, I am quite confident—particularly in the case of wood—that there will be an enormous amount of other raw material, or feedstuffs, available. I should declare an interest as a farmer and therefore own some rather scruffy woodland in the south-east; that is the nature of woodland in the south-east of England. It is a highly wooded area but, frankly, the woods are deciduous and are not managed commercially. They tick over. They used to be managed, when one could afford coppicing and there were charcoal burners. However, the woods are not producing the sort of products that they used to when there were charcoal burners. Once one starts to create a market for the thinnings and by-products, one suddenly finds that a lot more waste is generated than one ever knew existed—certainly not in the current statistics. In my case, our woodlands would be enormously improved by a start-up business—perhaps someone who had graduated from the local rural college, bought a chainsaw, set himself up in business having suitably qualified, and who would feed timber into these new infrastructure plants. It would be to the benefit of everyone.

We have now two champions in Matthew Hancock and Dan Rogerson. I welcome the fact that we have Whitehall champions, provided that this proves to be an example of joined-up government. I suggest that the first thing they do is, at least for the purposes of the United Kingdom, rewrite the waste hierarchy, make sure that adding the most value to waste is a high priority in our waste strategy and, with a bit of luck, we will soon be able to say that landfill has been consigned to history. It would be an embarrassing failure to explain to future generations why we had made such poor use of our resources.

16:13

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, was a member of this committee and add to what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has said in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for his careful chairmanship—not only of this report but for the last four years of the committee. I have been a member for only three years but have much enjoyed it. I was also a member of the committee back in 2006-07, chaired, I believe, by the noble Earl, and we produced a report on waste reduction. I was therefore familiar with the concept of waste as a resource and of the degree to which waste streams could add to wealth creation. I pick up the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs: where there is muck, there is money.

The UK has a poor record in the continuing use of landfill. I take on board that, as others have mentioned, our ability to measure waste streams is limited but, nevertheless, something like 57% of our waste goes to landfill whereas most of our European counterparts hardly use landfill. Switzerland, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark are all now almost stopping the use of landfill. However, there is a notable difference between them and the UK in that they all make much more use of incineration. Something like 30% to 50% of their waste goes to incineration whereas in the UK it is rather less than 10%. I shall come back to this issue in a moment.

As a member of the earlier committee I was familiar with the fact that although much is made of the disposal of domestic waste—with the selective collection of recyclable, combustible and food waste—it constitutes only 13% of what we think is our total waste in this country. Industrial and commercial waste is of much more importance than domestic waste and therefore the recycling of such waste is extremely important. Here, again, there has been a revolution. When I see a building demolished these days I wonder whether it ends up in a pile of rubble which is then recycled, either into cement or the foundations of roads and so on.

In this report we concentrated on one narrow area of waste recycling and one method of processing. We were concerned with how carbon-containing waste—organic waste such as food and forest residues, biological waste such as slurry and sewage sludge and gases—could be turned into higher value-added products by biological or biotechnological processes. A straightforward example of citrus waste, to which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has already referred, was given by Professor James Clark of York University. He said:

“We already take out oils from citrus waste in some other countries for various applications, flavours and fragrances and so forth. We can also now get solvents. Limonene, a very well-known chemical you can get from citrus waste, is now being used for cleaning printer circuit boards”.

It became clear as we took evidence that more or less any carbon-based waste could be converted into higher value-added products. Professor Clark added:

“I am not too far away from Drax power station where the volume of biomass to be burned is staggering. I look at it and I think, ‘If you are going to burn it, then why can we not extract the chemicals first?’ You can extract a lot of valuable chemicals in a very large volume, given the volumes we are talking about, and calorific value is not affected. In fact, in many cases you can end up with a material that is easier to co-fire with coal”.

Likewise, food and plastic waste can be converted by bioprocess into valuable chemicals, a potential world trade market of some $100 billion.

<sub>I had not appreciated until we took evidence for this report the potential revolution that the bioprocess technologies present in recycling waste gases and general plastics waste. Virgin Airways provided an example. It said:

“In October 2011 we [Virgin Atlantic] announced our partnership with LanzaTech to pioneer their ground breaking new technology, to develop the first of the next generation of low carbon fuels. Their technology uses a microbe to convert waste carbon monoxide gases from steel mills (which would otherwise be flared off direct to the atmosphere as CO2) into ethanol. The alcohol is then converted to jet fuel through a second stage process. Initial Life Cycle Analyses suggest that the resulting biofuel will emit 60% less carbon than the fossil fuel it will replace, kerosene. Moreover, because it uses a waste-stream, it creates a biofuel that does not impact on land use or food production”.

On the other waste stream I mentioned of waste plastic matter, whether from domestic or commercial waste, we were told that:

“British Airways is working with a US-based technology company to construct a state-of-the-art facility that will convert around 500,000 tonnes of waste normally destined for landfill—into 50,000 tonnes of sustainable low-carbon jet fuel, 50,000 tonnes of biodiesel and 20,000 tonnes of bio-naphtha per annum. The plant itself will be powered by the waste feedstock. The work on the detailed plant design is about to commence and we expect construction in early 2015”.

Those are two examples of the potential for creating high-value added and very useful products from what is currently regarded as waste material. This also, particularly the recycling of waste gases, holds out very exciting potential for converting carbon dioxide itself into a useful material, which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned. A recent report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation described how carbon dioxide can be transformed into valuable materials, with huge potential if we are going to move forward with the carbon capture and storage facilities that we are talking about.

Given all this potential, one wonders what is holding things back. From the evidence we heard, I came to three conclusions. First, a considerable amount of work in this area is going ahead. The Centre for Process Innovation, one of the seven centres that make up the High Value Manufacturing Catapult set up by the Technology Strategy Board, told us that the two scale-up and proving plants which make up its National Industrial Biotechnology Facility were fully booked four to five months ahead, indicating the degree of innovation being developed in this area.

My second conclusion was that while the Centre for Process Innovation offered pilot plant facilities, the complaint from the innovators was the lack of any support for demonstration plants. I think there are opportunities within the EU framework programme to develop demonstration projects. However, there are also drawbacks to using the framework programme because these projects have to be promoted on a collaborative basis between EU partners, which is not always appropriate. In the two examples we have had—the Virgin example and the BA example—we have seen non-EU partners playing a considerable part.

This, in turn, raises the third point, which is the difficulty that small innovation firms in the waste management business have dealing with the plethora of government departments on the one hand and the fragmentation of local authorities on the other. One of our suggestions was that a BIS Minister should take the lead and act as a champion. I am delighted that the department has taken up this suggestion, even if it is a split responsibility, with the danger that the issue may fall between two stools.

I end by coming back to incineration, which I mentioned earlier. I noted the very considerable role that incineration played in limiting the use of landfill in many of our European partners. A feature of the last few years has been the growing export trade from the UK to these countries of what is called refuse-derived fuel, which is based on recycled plastics and other wastes, often from household and commercial sources. It obviously makes sense for environmental reasons, if no other, for this country’s waste to be processed in this country rather than be exported. It requires expensive transport to export it and so forth.

When we were writing the report, in spring this year, the Government had set up a consultation about the export of refuse-derived fuel. The consultation closed in May, and in their response the Government promised us that they would make a decision on the way forward. Does the Minister have any more up-to-date information about what has happened to the consultation on refuse and plastic waste in this context? One aspect of this is that quite a lot of the waste that local authorities collect is polluted in one form or another and tends to go immediately for incineration. Many of these continental incinerators are lacking in fuel, and their need for it is part of the reason why the trade has become so developed. I will be very interested if the department has any further information on what is happening in this area and why some of this potentially valuable waste is actually going to a very low-value form of processing.</sub>

16:26

[Lord Oxburgh (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and his committee for what seems to me an admirable and extremely useful report. I also congratulate the Government on what seems to be a timely, positive and supportive reply. It is quite a rare event, I think—that one can have such a good report which has been so well received by a Government. The timely action which they are taking is extremely welcome.

I was going to draw attention to the situation which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, drew attention to in figure 1 in the report, which demonstrates how poorly we do by comparison with many of our western European neighbours, with which we like to be compared under many circumstances. One actually wonders whether we would have got as far as we have with recycling had it not been for a certain amount of pressure from Brussels. I also emphasise the point, made by several speakers, that it is clear that we have a really massive information deficiency here. The new combined governmental effort should have, as one of its high priorities, the collection of useful data from people who are producing, disposing of and managing waste.

Purely by chance, I happened to be in a meeting this morning which had a presentation from the waste industry. The speaker there commented on the difficulty that he had in trying to collect information, but the information that he had been able to collect suggested that the number of anaerobic digestion facilities which were either in existence at the moment or planned was far in excess of any plausible supply of feedstocks for those digesters. He made a similar comment about landfill capability: given the prospective reduction in landfill, it looked to him as if there were going to be excess landfill facilities available. I have no way of verifying these figures independently, but if he is right, individuals are wasting money investing in facilities which are not going to be used.

The main thesis of this report, which seems to be undeniable, is that we have a massive resource here which we are not really taking advantage of, although it is perhaps not as easy to take advantage of it as some of the academic studies would suggest, and there may well be practical difficulties in all sorts of ways and all sorts of places. Just to give a feeling of the size of this resource, going back a few years when I was at Shell, one of my colleagues in North America calculated that if you were able to extract the full calorific value from the organic waste in the United States, it would be enough to fuel all surface transport in the United States. Obviously, extracting the full calorific value is not a sensible or a practical thing to do but it gives a sense of the massive amount of energy that is potentially available from this resource. As the report points out, using this resource as an energy source is in many cases not the best thing to do, but it gives a feeling of the scale of the opportunity.

The other point to make is that the technology in this area is changing rapidly. It is quite a hard time to invest when technology is changing rapidly. There is a considerable temptation to put off your investment because in six months or a year’s time a better technology will be available, and we have to bear that in mind as an inhibitor. However, the technology is relevant to the sorting of collected waste and, in essence, it is rather similar to the problems that exist in the mineral-dressing industry. You crush a rock in order to extract a particular mineral from it and then you put it through a series of processes to concentrate the component in which you are interested. Exactly the same problems exist in the case of waste. You can use many of the same techniques and, in fact, you probably want to separate the waste into four or five different components.

Therefore, there are separation technologies and then there are added-value technologies, which produce some of the high-value end products to which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and others have referred. However, there is a snag here, which is emphasised if I read a sentence from page 8 of the report:

“A waste is something that costs you money to have taken away, a by-product is more or less cash neutral to your business, and a co-product is something that contributes profit to profitability”.

If you build up a business on the basis of someone’s waste—something that they do not care about—and then they improve the efficiency of the process, which of course is what we are telling them to do by telling them to reduce waste, you may well have invested in a capability which you cannot use properly. Alternatively, let us say that the industry with which you are working and on which you depend simply finds a much better process and does not produce that waste any more. Therefore, you have to be extremely careful and you probably have to enter into a long-term agreement to take what might originally have been seen as waste but then becomes either a by-product or a co-product. The industry concerned agrees to continue to supply you with it and maybe locks itself into a slightly less efficient way of doing things. That is what I mean by saying that sometimes the practicalities get in the way of progress. I am not saying that we should not do this; we should—it is a very high priority—but there are difficulties.

What is the role for government? Obviously we are in a time of financial stringency and suggesting that the Government put money into things is probably not a very good route to follow at the moment. However, I think that there is an extremely important role for government here in terms of sympathetic regulation and help with regulation. The problem is that we are talking about new technologies which were not in mind when the present set of regulations, whatever area you are looking at, were devised. I shall give a very good example.

A few years back, I visited a plant which was burning straw—maybe not the best thing to do with straw—to generate power. That carried enormous additional cost because the regulations under which the operators were constrained were actually those that applied to coal-burning plants. The operators were obliged to fit sensors to their flue to pick up all sorts of rather disagreeable elements that are present in coal but not in straw, such as mercury and so on. Nevertheless, the regulation was there that they had to do this. That turned a perfectly sensible operation into something much more expensive and tedious than it need have been.

This sensitivity to problems of this kind, and assistance with ways around them, is an area where the Government really could be proactive. In this new, combined interdepartmental service, there could be a way in for new technologies to say, “Look, we are being hamstrung by the regulatory system as it is at the moment. Can you help us?”. It might be a European regulation or an English regulation. It would not be that expensive and could be positively useful. Another thing that this organisation should do is provide support to local authorities, which cannot be expected to keep up with the research developments and new technologies in this area. In many cases, they probably do not have the time or competence to evaluate them properly. Again, there should be support for local authorities in understanding how to manage their waste and evaluate new technologies. At this point, I pay tribute to the work that WRAP has done, which is extremely important.

In conclusion, I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that technology exists to make CO₂ react with material from open garbage and turn it into useful materials. There is a company called Carbon8, which takes urban garbage that has been minimally processed and reacts it with a stream of CO₂ to turn it into carbonate pellets that can then be used in building materials. That operating company is making a profit but is constrained a little by a regulatory regime from expanding. However, the technology exists.

16:38

[Lord Dixon-Smith (Con)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and his time as chairman of the Science and Technology Committee. I had the privilege of being with him for some of that period. I had the privilege of serving on that committee back in the 1990s, which seems an awfully long time ago. To me, the great joy of being there is the amount that I am exposed to and learn. I suspect that most other Members find that to be the case; however good and clever we are, the specialist examinations that we undertake, of which this is one, are always superb. I thoroughly enjoyed this report. I also enjoyed the Government’s response and I hope that my noble friend, in her reply, will assure us that we are going to get the Government’s road map on time in the new year. At this time in politics, when one is approaching an election, administrative flaws seem occasionally to develop in the system, which hold up the essential business of managing the affairs of the country because the politics of the country, for some reason, takes an improper priority.

I am also somewhat prompted to intervene because I have a nephew who is involved with a company in this business. As I understand it, the company has eliminated completely the word “waste” from all its paperwork. I have to say that I have not tested him on the title of our report with that word eliminated, but it is in fact an important psychological point. Most waste is not waste, except for a point I am going to make where in fact that is what it is.

I should talk for a moment about the way this business has evolved. I was involved in Essex for a long time. At one stage we had one of the most notorious hazardous waste dumps in the country. It was a huge problem for everyone, including the firms which had to export their hazardous waste all the way across the country to dispose of it because we were one of the very few places that could take it. It was a wonderfully managed scientific site, but—this is the key point—the owners came increasingly to the realisation that they were dealing with materials that someone else wanted. The site is virtually non-existent today, except of course that there is a still a big mound which is full of hazardous materials. However, it is only a matter of time before they will be mined. I merely want to make the point.

We also used to receive in Essex a great deal of London’s waste, and indeed we probably still do. The less of it we receive the better, as far as Essex is concerned. However, it was an important source of land reclamation material when we had to deal with the scars of what I choose to call industrial extraction from the land. That was a pretty brutal process and left the land deeply scarred, and the material was useful for that. However, we were running out of holes; it was as simple as that.

The development of the organic wastes business—I have to use the word—into the transfer of a resource is a process which began a long time ago in other fields, and it is very good to see it coming here. However, the waste I want to talk about, and which we have not dealt with, is waste heat, particularly the waste heat from power stations. I hope that I will be forgiven for raising the issue but this is an opportunity to do so. I should say that I do not expect my noble friend the Minister to reply, but merely to take note of my comments. We have not discussed this aspect very much. Perhaps I should begin by saying that it is not an easy matter. In south-east London, somewhere down Deptford way, is an organisation that was established around 20 years known as South East London Combined Heat and Power, which I think is now called simply South East London Power. The idea was to establish an incinerator in the middle of a built-up area. It was constructed to a very high standard so that it would produce no pollution, and there have never been any complaints about it in that respect. It was to generate electricity and to provide heat for the surrounding community. The problem with waste heat is what to do with it. It should be possible to heat huge areas. But there has been no agreement about who should do the plumbing, which is why the company is known today just as South East London Power. Noble Lords might think that that is such a basic little thing, but of course it has to be paid for. It was a complete failure.

I am now going to misinterpret a law of physics that I learnt in school, which is something like: heat lost equals heat gained. I suspect that when we talk about power stations it is a fact that energy lost is energy gained. If we are looking ahead to solving the problems of the energy economy into the middle of this century—we have the Climate Change Act, which sets out the necessary targets for carbon emission—we cannot afford to lose all the heat produced.

Some of us unquestionably enjoy the wonderful tomatoes which come from a bank of greenhouses close to one power station, but we cannot take all the heat from our power stations like that. I live in Chelsea. We had there what used to be one of the most efficient power stations in the country—Battersea—which heated nearly all of Battersea and a large chunk of Chelsea. It has completely gone and is now a building site; fair enough, it is better that than it does nothing. Perhaps we should have put two nuclear reactors in there and heated half of London, I do not know, but, when you look at their safety record there is no reason why that should not have happened.

The difficulty is that we are producing this huge resource in remote landscapes where we cannot use it. Many industries are very effective in their use of recovered heat, but the power generation industry cannot do it because there is no demand for such heat where they are located.

The reasons I am raising this issue today are deep and difficult. Rationally, if we were to solve this problem—and I think, in 2015, we need to solve it—we would put our power stations much closer to residential areas, where the heat could be piped in and used for district heating. Denmark and other European countries are much better at this than we are and there is a significant lesson to be learnt. I apologise for introducing what could almost be called a red herring, but I thought it sufficiently important to have on record that this is a problem that has got to be tackled at some point in the future.

16:47

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the Science and Technology Committee, on introducing this fascinating debate in an area to which, I must confess, I have not paid a great deal of attention previously—that is, treating waste as a resource rather than as a problem to be dealt with. It has certainly focused my mind. The committee has done a valuable job.

The fourth paragraph of the Government’s response states:

“The Government supports frequent waste collection and the recycling rewards schemes which reward and recognise those who reduce, reuse and recycle their waste”.

I do not understand why we have to support frequent waste collections because the problem is not the waste collection but what you do with it. At home, because my council collects plastic, food, paper and everything else, I do not need waste collection particularly frequently. I have calculated that, by the time I have sorted everything out, I can fill a black plastic sack about once every three weeks. So it is not the frequency. Surely it is what councils do with it.

This brings me to another part of the Government’s response, which states:

“In developing a long-term plan for a high value waste-based bioeconomy, we recommend that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills examines the strategies used by other countries to extract maximum value”.

That is a sensible suggestion but should we not be looking at what is best practice in the UK—at local authorities’ best practices? Should we be giving them some sort of award? It also seems to me that it is not just local authorities. I would have thought that the LEPs or local employment partnerships—which the Government, after all, created—ought to be drawn into this equation, to look at how they can encourage the development of local industries which extract the maximum value from waste.

We can see that this is a complex problem. Once upon a time, not that long ago it seems, we thought that anaerobic digesters were great and were the answer to the problem. Now we find that they are beginning to create a problem. I even heard a debate on the radio recently where a farmer asked whether he could get a better price by putting milk into an anaerobic digester rather than selling it, because the price he was getting for milk was so low. It verged on discussing the ethics of producing milk only to feed it into an anaerobic digester. There is a complexity about how we deal with this, but the basic approach that the committee has taken is that there is a really valuable resource here that the Government ought to encourage. There are signs that the Government are encouraging it but it seems to me, when we look at this problem, that reducing the amount of food waste in itself is important.

Again, I cannot help reflecting that we seem to have lost the use of a common-sense approach to this. I have watched people look at something and say, “That is the sell-by date so you throw that away”, even though most of these products actually last well beyond the sell-by date. We have a very crude device that labels food products and encourages the totally unnecessary creation of food waste. We seem to have brought up a generation of people for whom that is the only means of checking. You cannot open it up, smell it or look to see whether it has any obvious signs of organic decay any more; the only thing you can look at is the use-by or sell-by date. Surely we ought to be doing something about that.

One thing that was touched on in this debate that I found interesting—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who mentioned it—was that landfill sites themselves are capable of being mined and that a vast amount of chemicals could possibly be extracted. There are technologies around that could do that. We have touched on food waste and organic waste, but we know there are whole other areas of waste that are a huge problem. Electronic waste and the amount of used tyres in this country create huge problems, so there are other vast areas. To go back to the issue that the committee looked at, it seems to me that the Government surely ought to be encouraging the new European committee to publish a five-year strategy on food waste prevention, to address the issues raised throughout the House of Lords inquiry and, as I have said, to ensure that the best practice in individual member states and local authorities can be translated into action elsewhere.

Does the Minister agree with the Waste Minister that the Government should step back in areas where businesses are better placed to act and there is no clear market failure? I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who reminded us how difficult it is to pick the winner, if you like. He talked about the need for sympathetic or smart regulation to encourage that, which was a valid point. There is also the question of ensuring that we have solid, reliable data. It seems to me that, in developing our policies, we need a holistic approach to this. We would then be able to see, for instance, that biomass and anaerobic digesters are not going to solve the problems; in fact, they could create problems. We now know that we are importing a huge amount of timber to feed biomass power stations. I have read the analysis and I am told that, even if you import the timber from American forests and so on, it is still a viable proposition. However, I am sceptical; that does not seem the way forward in the long term.

I think that there were two references to the fact that it is possible to extract valuable chemicals from timber. I read in the report about high technology, the catapult and the Technology Strategy Board, but are those enough to encourage the development of these industries?

I think that I have covered the area of food waste by households and encouraging retailers not only to use better labelling but to take a better, more scientific approach. There are more sophisticated ways of ensuring that the public at large are much better educated so that we can help them to prevent food waste.

What are the Government doing to support WRAP, the waste and resources organisation, and to encourage low-carbon initiatives by food chain suppliers and other businesses? We can see that there is enormous potential here but the real challenge is going to be in how we convert that potential. I referred to LEPs but surely universities, colleges and schools all have a responsibility to focus on this area. What are they doing in their own environs? Surely we should encourage the next generation to think about how we deal with waste and to ask what opportunities there are, first, to prevent it and, secondly, to use it as a possible resource. Surely there ought to be a local strategy to ensure that all the educational establishments, first, look at their own environmental footprint and, secondly, encourage the study of this area, as well as practical participation by their students and schoolchildren.

Once again, I thank the committee for its valuable contribution to this area. It has pointed out that we should see waste as an asset that can be developed if we get it right. Looking at the Library notes, there are many interesting areas. I was attracted to the idea of creating fuel from ground coffee beans. However, the challenge for us, as a country, is going to be in ensuring that we develop a programme that will enable us to achieve what the Science and Technology Committee wants—that is, waste stimulating a real bioeconomy. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

16:58

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government. I am grateful to the noble Lords on the Science and Technology Select Committee for their very important report, Waste or Resource? Stimulating a Bioeconomy, under the very able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I extend my good wishes to my noble friend Lord Selborne in his future role. I am sure that he will do more than half as good a job. In fact, he and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, seem to be at one in their approach. I also thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been a bit of an education for me as well.

The report recognised the important role played by government departments in incentivising the use of high-value assets of carbon-containing wastes, discouraging landfill—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, utilising landfill—and developing and commercialising new technologies to enable economic opportunities.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made some very important points, including one about the ministerial champion role. The report recommended that the Government should appoint a champion for the waste economy and that the appointment should be given to a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills Minister. As the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, told us, there has been a development in this ministerial champion role. My right honourable friend in the other place, Matthew Hancock, BIS Minister of State for Business and Enterprise and also Minister for Energy at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, will now share this responsibility with Dan Rogerson, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Water, Forestry, Rural Affairs and Resource Management at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. This change allows for the respective policy ownership for the economic development and for waste to be combined on this important issue. This change is a welcome development which reinforces the partnership necessary for government to deliver a truly cross-Whitehall vision and action plan for developing a high-value bioeconomy with waste as an initial focus. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made an important point about ensuring that, with two people sharing a role, the agenda does not fall between the cracks. I assure him that the two departments are already working very closely on this agenda.

The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, commented on regulation and how it will be a changing picture as time goes on. The Government are encouraging industry and the Environment Agency to consider how new high-value processes can be allowed to move up the waste hierarchy. Government can facilitate this dialogue with the Environment Agency to change this over time.

Several noble Lords asked how the Government can manage and steer the agenda cross-departmentally over time. This work is being taken forward through a co-ordinated cross-government working group to facilitate the joined-up approach needed to succeed in the task. In fact, this is already under way. The working group is reporting progress to the Defra-chaired Resource Steering Group and to the Circular Economy Task Force. The working group is being advised and steered by the Industrial Biotechnology Leadership Forum. These existing boards will ensure co-ordinated development of this agenda across Whitehall, industry and stakeholders.

Other key stakeholders, including WRAP—the Waste and Resources Action Programme—are contributing as well. The primary responsibilities for the two cross-Whitehall bioeconomy champions are to ensure the production of a long-term plan or road map with at least a 15-year horizon, to support the development of a growing bioeconomy looking at waste as a feedstock. The road map is being developed now and I am pleased to inform my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith that it should be delivered by March 2015.

The noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, and my noble friend Lady Sharp talked about looking at international best practice. The road map planning will include a review of international best practice in bioeconomy strategies, including waste. The noble Lord, Lord Young, made the very sensible point about looking at best practice within this country. That certainly can be looked at. The picture differs across local authorities but there are examples of very good practice.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and other noble Lords made points about research funding. I can confirm that a range of funding is in place across the research council and Innovate UK, including the Catalyst Fund for major integrated research and development projects. The second phase of catalyst funding was recently announced, which extended it by £40 million; the noble Lord made that point. The High Value Manufacturing Catapult will play a vital role in bringing technologies in this space through to commercial reality. Some £60 million of additional core funding was secured for this resource at the Autumn Statement, and the Centre for Process Innovation—a key part of this catapult—received an additional £28 million to extend its facilities.

The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and other noble Lords made points about information on waste. The bioeconomy road map will look at this issue and take account of what is known about the location, volumes and trends in waste arisings. I appreciate that this is a complex area and it is difficult to get those figures at this time, but the road map will be looking at it.

A lot of comments were made about local authorities. As a local authority leader, I totally appreciate the fact that there is a varied picture in terms of what local authorities collect, their different contracting arrangements, the fact that those arrangements are completely out of kilter, and the fact that some local authorities collect food waste and others do not. I am pleased to say that the local authority of which I was leader collects it. However, the Government continue to support the sharing of best practice and joint procurement across local authorities to help councils reduce costs and drive up quality and value. I will make the point about, for example, Greater Manchester and the devolution of powers to the whole conurbation. I hope, in time, to see some harmonisation of waste collection. Perhaps that might be in that authority’s consideration as it drives down costs and drives up value for money. There is one waste authority—the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority—but different methods of collection across the local authorities in the area.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, said that municipal waste accounts for only 13% of total waste. I thought that it was actually 15% but it is even more depressing if the figure is 13%. The use of waste products will certainly help to improve the efficiency of use of waste materials. She also mentioned incineration, which in a local authority context I have found to be a political hot potato. I was asked about the consultation on refuse-derived fuels. I know that the responses are out and were published a week ago, and the Government will publish their response to those responses in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked why the Government supported the frequent collection of waste. I assume that waste includes recyclable waste as well as other waste; we all have our various bins collected on different weeks. I, like him, can manage to fit my non-recyclable waste in a black bin bag over two weeks. Certainly, the amount of non-recyclable waste in local authorities is getting less but I am making the assumption—I will correct that in a letter if I am wrong—that there is more recyclable waste. That is the point about frequent collection.

The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to a report entitled Sweating our Assets—Productivity and Efficiency Across the UK Economy, and how it has been received by the Government. It highlights the need to increase the productivity and resilience of UK businesses through better resource efficiency. With businesses taking the lead, the Government continue to work closely with and support the transition of sectors towards a more circular economy which makes the best use of our materials and resources.

I shall take up some other points made by noble Lords in the debate. My noble friend Lord Selborne raised the issue of subsidies. These will need to be reviewed over time for several reasons, including how they serve their purpose and how the business case for a subsidy may change over time. Something that springs to my mind is, for example, tidal and wave energy, for which the business case is quite poor at the moment, but the technology may improve to the point where it becomes very viable to subsidise it. I know that that is not a waste issue, but it is an example that came to mind. The Government seek to incentivise new developments, but not to distort the landscape. This point was made during the evidence session with representatives from DECC.

My noble friend Lady Sharp mentioned the need for co-ordination in order to unlock progress. The waste strategy will be devolved and managed under the umbrella activity of the Chemistry Growth Partnership, the sector council that is leading the strategy for chemical and chemistry-using industries. She also talked about the need for whole-system development at scale. I can say to her that industry in the north-east is working with local enterprise partnerships to develop plans for the wholesale use of industrial waste gases for biorefining.

My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith talked about heat from power stations. I can give him a partial response now. Waste heat is being harvested between businesses in clusters. An example is industrial biotech processes which can utilise heat. Local enterprise partnerships have a role to play in encouraging this, and they are doing so on Teesside.

The noble Lord, Lord Young, mentioned a pet interest of mine, which is food waste and how we have a generation of children who will not even smell things that are past their sell-by date. When my children were little, I had a particular interest in yoghurt, which lasts well after the sell-by date. I used to force them to eat the yoghurt and they never came to any harm. The noble Lord also mentioned the capabilities of landfill sites. Again, that will be mentioned in the road map.

I am pleased to hear that by and large noble Lords are pleased with the Government’s response, but I should make the point that much needs to be done. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the summary reports good progress against the actions. I conclude by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I hope that I have not left out any points, but if I have, I will write to noble Lords in due course.

17:13

[Lord Krebs]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed response to the various points that I and other noble Lords raised in the debate. We certainly look forward to the publication in the spring of next year of the road map, which will set out more fully the Government’s strategy for dealing with this important area. I, too, thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and made such interesting and important points.

Motion agreed.

Political Parties: Funding

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Grand Committee

Question for Short Debate

17:15

Asked by

[Lord Dykes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Dykes (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of the absence of an agreement on party funding by the political parties. This mainly, of course, affects the activities of the House of Commons rather than our own but it also reverberates throughout British politics.

I have to start on a sad and depressed note, which is unusual for me because I am normally a cheerful personality, I hope—at least that is what most members of my family still say to me. I feel sorry for MPs collectively because in recent years there has been a huge demoralisation in the House of Commons. This is a severe problem. British politics is in the doldrums, as we are all aware, and wondering how to get out of it. I am grateful, therefore, that the Minister is here today. I am sure he has many ideas on this issue but, in the time he has to discuss them today, he will concentrate mostly on the subject of the debate.

The reasons for this demoralisation are various. All party leaders actively overreacted, almost to the point of hysteria, on the MPs’ expenses scandal. There were some bad examples but the demoralisation of the House of Commons resulted from people being unfairly accused of doing things they did not do or which they did by mistake. Only a small number of MPs did anything seriously wrong—and they were, quite rightly, punished if that was appropriate—but others were driven out of politics without having done anything wrong. I can give plenty of names if anyone wants them.

Another reason over the long term was the blocking of MPs’ wage rises by various Prime Ministers. When I first came into politics, my boss, Edward Heath, was the only Prime Minister to immediately accept the independent recommendation of a substantial wage increase for MPs from, in those days, £3,000 to £4,500. Ever since then, every Prime Minister, of whatever hue, has blocked rises and the demoralisation caused by the freezing of MPs’ wages has partly produced that absence of morale.

On the question of party funding, there was much optimism when the subject was launched either side of the beginning of the coalition Government and afterwards. When Labour was replaced by a coalition for the first time in the post-war period, there was optimism that it might produce a better system in which people would be inclined to agree more. The party funding system was regarded as a serious problem which needed to be tackled. As we know, a committee was set up which produced some notable suggestions and I again commend its work. Could the politicians, the political leaders, their representatives and advisers agree on anything that emerged from the imbroglio unleashed by this quest for some kind of agreement on party funding? You had only to see the headlines in the papers, of whatever colour, in those days about how they were struggling to get there. One paper, at the end of October 2011, referred to the idea of using public money—£3 for every vote—as a state funding plan for political parties. Immediately most of the press objected violently to that idea. However, it happens in other countries—Germany is a notable example—on a large scale and helps to produce more sensible, modern, up-to-date politics dealing with complicated political economies, as Britain is.

Then, because austerity was gradually deepening, the parties got nervous about even suggesting that. They said that in a time of austerity it would be quite wrong of them to seek to use public money, although relatively small amounts had always been used for party research activities and so on—the Short money and the Cranborne money in the House of Lords. MPs urged swift action to limit donations to political parties. What a problem that now is. We have recently seen more and more donors coming to this place. I have to be careful in what I say because of course the Liberal Democrat Party has recently benefited from a £1 million bequest from Professor Watson of Cambridge University. At least it is not a donation from a living person. It is gratefully received by our party, which has a very modest budget of about only £4 million or £5 million in comparison with the larger figures for the other leading parties.

The three main political parties pledged in their election campaigns to take big money out of politics. They were embarrassed by the stories of huge donations, mainly for the Conservatives but also for the others, including ourselves. A fraudster who had offered us £2.5 million went to prison. There were mistakes, scandals and dramatic headlines. The Conservatives ended up offering their business supporters a sort of tariff of what they could get by contributing certain amounts of money. If they paid £2,000, they could have,

“a lively programme of drinks receptions, dinner and discussion groups”.

For £5,000, they could,

“meet and debate with MPs at a series of political lunches and receptions”.

For £10,000 they could have,

“dinners and political debate with eminent speakers from … business and politics”,

and for £25,000—I pause here for effect—they could,

“join senior figures from the … Party at dinners, lunches, drinks receptions, election result events and important campaign lunches”.

It is not only the Conservatives who do that; we all do it, although perhaps in a more modest way.

Again, it is a symptom of the problem that we really have to deal with, with consensus, on a cross-party basis. There is no harm in occasionally having a bit of consensus in British politics on major issues such as this. I feel that the public are turned off by the instantaneous opposition to a suggestion from another political party in order to compete with it as though an election is hovering. Of course, there is a general election approaching now and we have to acknowledge that. None the less, the differences between the parties remain at the margin and are sometimes infinitesimal. A politician from one party says, “We’re saying 18.4679% and that’s the right policy. Someone from another party says the figure is 17.237%, but that’s ridiculous”. The public get turned off by these marginal differences, as well as by politicians changing their mind. They keep shifting in their positions and the public become more and more bewildered, shut out and switched off by this very depressing phenomenon.

The talks resumed in the spring of 2012, having collapsed and the suggestions of the independent committee having been rejected by all the party leaders. I thought that the essence of setting up that independent Committee on Standards in Public Life was to reach agreement on the suggestions, including a cap on donations. The political parties ended up by shelving the funding reform talks, and by July 2013 there was a complete breakdown in any co-operation at all. Why was that? The original suggestion of a £5,000 limit was then dismissed as donations became larger and larger, and more and more members of parties became Members of the House of Lords—coincidentally, of course; there is no direct connection between the two, because that would be a criminal offence. The Lords now has just under 800 Members, many of them financial contributors. Good luck to them—they are entitled to do that under the present system.

We have to get away from this. My colleague, my noble friend Lord Oakeshott, who has now taken leave of absence, made himself thoroughly unpopular through some of his suggestions and behaviour not only in my party but also generally, and we have not heard from him since. However, he had a point when he suggested that voters could be asked whether they wanted to give £5 to a political party of their choice at the ballot box, and he also wanted to cap political donations at £5,000. That would stop wealthy donors having such power over political parties, and Mr Clegg could, for example, team up with Labour to co-operate on reforms of party funding if the Conservatives were less inclined to agree.

That led to what I believe to be Ed Miliband’s quite substantial reorganisation of unions’ individual funding systems. Members of trade unions now donate on a different basis and are not compulsorily obliged to give money to trade unions against their will. Ed Miliband’s reform in that area, which was quite a major step, did not get the credit in the British papers that it deserved. Again, that was part of this atmosphere, with the party leaders unable to co-operate and work with each other. I am sad to have to say this, but I thought we would get a better quality of politics coming from this thing.

This matter really needs to be dealt with very urgently indeed now. I hope that my noble friend will make some interesting suggestions today, and it will be very important to return to this subject. Presumably, alas, we cannot do it before the general election, for obvious reasons, but we must surely return to it after the election. The British public are really quite fed up with what has been happening and they want a sensible system. It may include some public money, on a limited basis. The total figures of £25 million, £75 million or £100 million are very modest for a five-year Parliament, even if public funding is to be involved, now the economy is recovering and people are feeling more self-confident in that sense.

The other thing is that donations must be capped and the attribution of union membership dues must be on a voluntary basis only. That should be officially registered, recognised and accepted by everybody, and then we will get to a position where we are on a more even keel and we will begin to restore the public’s confidence in our politics. I hope that there will be lots of other measures as well in the manifestos—and good policies of course—and then we will begin to make progress. But the whole of this five years has been wasted.

17:26

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, has raised this debate today, because it is a debate that is very close to my heart, going back over some 30 years. I am also glad that he raised the issue of IPSA, because I am utterly convinced that IPSA has effectively destroyed Parliament for many parliamentarians. It has so circumscribed the rules on expenses now in the Commons that many people—worthy people—who should be attracted to Parliament will no longer stand for Parliament. I know people who will not come to Parliament any more, because they believe that the way in which the new regime has been set up, effectively based on distrusting Members of Parliament, leaves them exposed to media attack for the smallest of sins, if you might call them that. They are not prepared to risk their family and professional reputations, or indeed their careers, on the basis of something where they can be removed on a whim. If I was starting off again in my first election as a candidate, all those years ago in 1974, I would have second thoughts about coming into Parliament in the light of developments that have taken place following the introduction of IPSA.

In my view, one of IPSA’s biggest sins was to presume that it could propose a substantial increase in Members’ salaries and justify it on the basis that it was cutting back on the expenses regime. What it did not realise, and what a schoolboy with an elementary knowledge of politics could have told it, was that the moment you talk about a 10% increase for MPs prior to a general election, MPs get bombarded with letters asking whether they are going to take the increase. I know that MPs are currently writing back to their constituents and saying, “No, I am not going to take the increase”. What a ludicrous position we are in whereby MPs, because of the power of the press and concerns about the ballot box, are now turning down increases that should legitimately be accepted. I completely blame IPSA for that, along with those who proposed the idea of this monstrous organisation four or five years ago.

I now want to speak specifically to this debate. I believe that the issue of political funding is a festering sore undermining the credibility of Parliament, parliamentarians, the political process and the political parties. I do not think we should underestimate the level of cynicism in the mind of an electorate following articles alleging impropriety in the relationship between politicians and money.

People are becoming heartily sick of these stories and wonder what is going on in Westminster. In fact, very little is going on in Westminster that should worry them. The facts are that they read these stories and believe that something is fundamentally wrong. I do not believe that people necessarily follow policy when they vote in general elections. I actually think that people make an instinctive judgment, very often not on the basis of their knowledge of a particular party’s political posturing but on their feelings of trust and distrust. They make up their minds on the basis of an aggregate series of stories they hear over a period of time that undermine their trust in political institutions. This is one of the areas influencing public judgments.

When I first stood for Parliament in the early 1970s, we used to regularly get turnouts of 70-odd per cent. In my by-election in Workington in 1976, the turnout was nearly 73%. We regularly had turnouts of nearly 80% in the general elections up to and throughout the 1980s and 1990s. Now, when one looks at general election results nationally, one sees a collapse in the vote in almost every constituency in the country. We have to ask ourselves why. It is because of this disconnect and distrust that has built up between the public outside and this institution. It is often the case that bad headlines have swamped all the good that we do in this institution. Bad donor stories damage the whole political process.

We read stories about trade unions, and they somehow are condemned for the donations they make. Again there is a misunderstanding. Trade unions and their contributions reflect the collective giving by millions for their collective interest in collective provision. One cannot liken that to the donations of individuals, whether they be companies or people making single donations. Those single donations by companies and individuals are more often than not about personal advancement and advantage. That was the Oakeshott analysis. He and we knew that there are Members of the House of Lords who are here because they paid money to their political parties. It is a fact, and we know it. I know a particular case, not in my party. I know the sum that was paid, the chap is no longer with us, he almost never spoke and he was here because he paid. The police may carry out their inquiries and may find nothing, but the facts are that this system is wrong and has to change. The power of big money and big donations has to be brought to an end.

It was with all that background in mind that I put up, during the passage of the then Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, a proposal to change this system. I want to take down the contribution I made on that occasion off the shelf where it still sits unnoticed and bring it once again before this Committee to consider, because I believe that it would help resolve the difficulty. What I proposed at the time was a system that would have incentivised systems of donations by individuals by allowing taxpayers to reclaim the basic rate of tax on their donations to political parties. It would have limited the relief to the standard rate and operate in the same way as gift aid to charities or covenanting to one’s local church. It was not my idea; it was done in America. Obama had hundreds of thousands of small donors who were tax-relieved. I cannot see why we could not have done something similar in this country. Then we would have mass financial contributions and membership of political parties. This issue has had much support over the years from all political parties and all the organisations that are associated with political debate. The Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, recommended essentially the proposal I made when we were dealing with the legislation. He suggested that 15 years ago. The Electoral Commission’s report of 2004 on the funding of political parties recommended a similar change in the law, with a £200 cap per individual on their tax relief.

In 2006, the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House of Commons made a similar recommendation in line with my proposal at the time. The Conservative Party’s Tyrie report of 2006, entitled Clean Politics, also made reference to an amendment of the nature of what I was moving. In 2004, the Liberal Democrats called for a scheme of tax relief of a similar nature, and in 2009 moved an amendment very similar to the one that I was moving during proceedings on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. When the Labour Government established the Hayden Phillips inquiry in 2007, they recommended a tax relief match-funding scheme that bore a close resemblance to the scheme that I was proposing. Why was it blocked when we tried to introduce it into the legislation? It was blocked because we were told that negotiations were going on between the political parties. That simply was not true. Mr Clegg told us quite clearly from the Dispatch Box in the House of Commons that negotiations had finished, so that was not an obstacle. The negotiations had ended and therefore we were free, if we wished, to proceed on the basis of changing the law in favour of what I was proposing.

It was also put to me, sadly by people in my own party, that a single party—in this case it was targeting the Conservative Party—might gain by increasing the low tax relief contribution cap that I had set. It may have done, but it would never have set it so high that it was not credible in terms of what the public would accept. Anyhow, the Conservative Party never has trouble raising money; it is always raising money. It is the other parties that have great trouble raising funds from individuals. Therefore, that someone might at some stage in the future be inclined to raise the cap slightly higher than the one I propose is irrelevant to me. I was interested in ensuring that, in raising funds, the smaller parties were in a position to develop this contributory financial base. Finally I was told that the cost was too much. I proposed a cap in the third year of £96 per annum per contributing taxpayer. We could not cost it but we gave an estimate of approximately £3 million per year. It would have begun the process of tax-relieved small sums widening the base of contributions, narrowing the base of big donors and ultimately giving us the much wider contributing base that we all believe is necessary if we are to develop a more healthy politics.

If, indeed, there are negotiations of the conditions of a minority Government next year, I hope that, whatever happens, at least those who are in a minority will demand this change. They will be in a position to do so. If no party has an overall majority next year there may well not be a coalition but there will certainly be a minority Government, and those who can influence that minority Government should use their power to begin to secure that elementary change, which will not cost a lot of money, in the culture of financial contributions in British politics.

17:38

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for introducing this debate. I agree with him that he is a happy and friendly noble Lord. I always enjoy our conversations together, whether they are in the Bishops’ Bar, outside the Table Office when we are waiting to put our Questions down, or anywhere else. I see the points that he makes about politicians and the low feelings in the House of Commons. Unlike the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, I have never served in the other place but Members there and Members of this House are honourable and only a few exceptions cause problems.

The funding of political parties is an extremely important issue, and having healthy parties is crucial to our democracy. Whether locally or nationally, most people elected to public office stand on a party ticket. Those elected to form the Government of the UK, the Opposition or devolved institutions or to form the administration of a local council are drawn from people who, in virtually all cases, are elected from party tickets.

However, before we get to the point of seeking elected office, parties must have structures and procedures in place. They must have built up organisations and developed the skills to undertake campaigns. All this costs money, and everyone in this debate wants the funding of our political parties to be transparent, open and free from suspicion of people buying influence or seeking favours.

Over a number of years there have, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said, been a number of attempts to reform party funding. The present interests or concerns can be traced back to the 1990s and the last years of the Conservative Government led by John Major. The biggest reform followed the report undertaken by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which led to the 2000 Act commonly known as PPERA. It introduced spending limits for national election campaigns, the regulation of donations, the publication of what money had been received in each quarter by the parties and the publication of annual accounts, among other things, including the establishment of the Electoral Commission.

Since then, there have been other problems. After the 2005 election, we saw allegations of cash for peerages, which went on for well over a year. We then had the review by Sir Hayden Phillips, to which other noble Lords have referred, but the interparty talks were suspended in 2007. Then we had the election of the coalition Government, whose agreement said:

“We will also pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics”.

We have had the inquiry by the Committee on Standards in Public Life into party finance, published in November 2011. It is a good report with lots of sensible recommendations on how party funding could be reformed. However, the biggest problem is that the public—the taxpayer—would not accept additional public funds going to parties when we are in such difficult economic times and when efforts to improve the public finances and the economy are set to continue well into the next Parliament, no matter which party or parties are in government after May next year. That is the real issue and one that the parties cannot ignore.

The interparty talks again failed to reach agreement, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said, and the Government moved ahead with their lobbying Bill. There have been other developments. In terms of my own party, my noble friend Lord Collins led a review which fundamentally changed the relationship we have with the trade unions, with individual union members having to opt in, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said. That in itself may bring about other changes regarding the funding of political parties. These are difficult issues to resolve but I am firmly of the opinion that they must be resolved by agreement between the parties and that that agreement must not produce winners or losers. It needs to be a fair funding settlement whereby, in effect, every party has to give up something or make changes but where every party also gains as well. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours made some powerful points about how important it is to look at what impact that might have, particularly on the smaller parties. A deal can be made only on that basis and that is the real challenge for everyone who wants to seek a resolution to this problem.

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee came to similar conclusions in its report published on 29 January 2012. It said that a solution perceived as partisan would undermine any positive impact on public opinion which would otherwise be achieved by resolving this issue.

I want to move on and look at some of the suggestions that have been made in recent years. Some have considerable merit and others not so much. As I said before, additional state support for parties in our present economic climate is not something that, in my opinion, the public are going to accept, but the proposals put forward by Andrew Tyrie MP, John Denham MP and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—particularly in connection with making savings on things such as the freepost costs and possibly using that money in a different way—are certainly worth exploring further. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has any idea of the sums of money that would be involved, which might be used in a different way. Would it be possible for this money to be used to begin to limit the size on donations received by a political party? I do not have any figures but could a start be made? It would be good to get the noble Lord’s views on this.

Often when people look at party funding reform, it is suggested that there should be some reduction in the national local spending limits to curtail expenditure and stop the development of an arms race. In a previous life I was the director of finance for the Labour Party. A political party is not shielded from the everyday cost pressures that any other organisation faces. I refer to things like mortgage payments, rents, pay claims, IT costs, insurance and other office costs. Many of these limits for campaigning in national elections have not risen for many years. I really do not want to see an arms race, but parties must be able to mount effective campaigns with reasonable expenditure limits.

I have always liked the idea of fixing limits, but then building in a process whereby an annual uprating for inflation is made as a matter of course. That would let you protect the original decision you made and allow for reasonable annual increases which would not become a row after a number of years because no one had actually dealt with the issue. Then you have to deal with rises to cover four or five years in one go.

I did this with the Labour Party membership fee. No one ever wanted to put the fees up and they were withering on the vine. After five or six years we would end up having a big row because the fees had to be put up. There was always trouble at conference about this, so I proposed, and it was agreed by the National Executive Committee, that in future our fees would be put up on 1 January every year using the October figure for RPI, rounded up to the nearest 50p. We had a standard rate membership fee and a reduced rate at half that which was for unemployed and retired people, and then we had a rate for elected people such as Members of the House of Lords. That was to be double the standard rate. It took the heat out of everything. There are no more rows about membership fees at party conferences or anywhere else. The system is simple, fair and reasonable, and everyone accepts it.

I have always been a bit reluctant to entertain schemes that involve tax reliefs, but I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, could say a little about what thinking there is in government about them. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours made some valuable points about this area.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has kindly written to me this week about the question of the governance of the Electoral Commission. I know that we are not going to look at this issue until after the election, if at all, but I do think that if any of these changes take place, we must also look at how the regulator is held to account and is subject to proper challenge. I do not believe that speeches in the House of Commons present that proper challenge in areas such as the governance of the Electoral Commission. These are major issues that need to be taken on, so we need to make sure that they are done properly. I was for many years an electoral commissioner and my experience tells me that we need to look very carefully at the whole question of the commission’s governance.

In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for tabling this short debate. It is important that we have healthy political parties that can function properly and that the political system is free from the suspicion of acting improperly in relation to party funding matters. While we often sit and watch the TV or see in the newspapers an opponent’s party getting caught up in all sorts of funding nonsense, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has said, in the end we all lose because people begin to think that all the parties are at it. They think that the system is corrupt and we all suffer as a result. It is really important that we get this right. There should be no winners or losers, but a fair, functioning system that actually respects everyone.

17:47

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, looking around the Committee room, I think we can say with great confidence that none of those here bought their peerages. I do not think that it was open for us to afford any such thing. Indeed, part of the negative attitude towards the House of Lords is the image that somehow we all bought our peerages. That is not the case, although most of us have probably paid too great a proportion of our salaries to our political parties. We have walked too many pavements over too many years. We have fought too many elections, and that is how we eventually ended up here in this place. It is part of the problem of politics, however, that the popular image is one where money plays too great a role.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I have been in the House for almost five years. When I filled in the forms I was in the bizarre position of having to explain that I was actually being paid a salary by the Labour Party. It paid me money.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I wish my party had paid me. The first time I worked for my party, in the 1966 general election, when I took four weeks off from writing my PhD to be the party’s assistant press officer, I worked flat out—probably 14 to 16 hours a day for four weeks. At the end of it, Lord Byers, who was then the party’s chair, presented me with a £50 note, which I had never seen before and which in those days was a substantial sum of money. I and a friend spent a very enjoyable holiday in France on the basis of that £50 note. That is the only occasion on which I have benefited from money flowing the other way.

There is a consensus on the need to limit the impact of money on politics. There is also a particularly negative campaign from the right-wing media that we are all in politics only for the money. All I say on that is that I would encourage the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who pursues many very effective campaigns in politics, also to campaign to ensure that those right-wing newspapers pay their full taxes in the country which they seek to defend because we all know that they do their utmost to avoid that.

The problem for all of us is that political campaigning costs money and the public, as consumers of politics, expect the parties to put leaflets through their doors, to phone them and to maintain websites, Twitter feeds and so on. When I was out in Hull two or three weeks ago, people told me on the doorstep, “How good to see you. Hardly anyone ever comes round and asks us about our political attitudes”. I was glad that we were doing it there, but in quite a lot of constituencies, no parties really manage to do that actively. We know that it does not come for free and that maintaining a basic constituency organisation requires a level of funding. Voters complain vigorously when parties do not maintain contact with them but show no willingness to help pay for those activities.

That pushes us towards the question of donors. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and other noble Lords asked whether all the political parties could manage on less money and depend more on volunteers—but we all face similar problems in how many volunteers we can attract. Perish the thought, but if UKIP had three or four really major donors, that might drive the three parties together to an eventual consensus on this issue.

We all know the context for this debate. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 introduced some important changes in the field of party funding. It established the Electoral Commission, about which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has rightly raised issues today and on previous occasions. It required political parties to register with the Electoral Commission, set down accounting requirements for parties, introduced controls on donations to parties and their members, and controlled campaign expenditure within certain periods, both for parties and third parties in national election campaigns. I stress “control periods” because I suspect that all three parties have spent a fair amount of money in the last four weeks. We are just about to start the control period for the election; that is part of the problem. The Act set down rules on the donations received and expenses incurred in election campaigns and required companies to obtain approval before making political donations. These provisions are useful and important. Political parties have to keep records of donations over £500, and donations over £7,500 have to be declared to the Electoral Commission, which publishes details every quarter of donations received by political parties. That information is published on its website and is accessible to all—so far, so good. Parties can only receive donations from permissible sources: individuals who are on the electoral register, UK-registered companies—I stress “registered” as that raises a number of questions of definition—trade unions, building societies and other bodies such as unincorporated associations and limited liability partnerships.

The Electoral Administration Act 2006 introduced further provisions on the disclosure of loans to political parties. Since these reforms, there have been continued public and media attacks on large donations and on trade union funding—to which I shall return—which have led to further reports. These include the 2004 review by the Electoral Commission, reports by Sir Hayden Phillips and the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee in 2006 and, most recently, in 2011, a report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which recommended, among other things, a £10,000 annual cap on donations, trade union members having to opt in to fees paid to political parties if donations are to be counted individually—I stress that was a proposal from the Committee on Standards in Public Life; it was not a partisan proposal by other political parties—and an increase in public funding.

The problem is in getting consensus among the political parties on this. We all have different interests and we all have different sources of donations. My party has proudly said on its website that when the Electoral Commission has published the number of donations to political parties, over the past three years we have received on several occasions more individual donations than the Labour Party. The problem is that we have not received half as many large corporate donations or donations from other collectivities known as trade unions, or indeed any other large donations—let alone those received by the Conservative Party. In that sense, it does us good as a democratic principle, but it does not provide us with the money we need to employ staff, work on our website and do all the other things that need to be done.

We had a further round of discussions in the light of the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life which the Deputy Prime Minister convened in 2012-13. Seven meetings were held and the Deputy Prime Minister made one thing clear in setting out the remit, which was that in the current circumstances of a squeeze on public spending, there was no possibility of increasing state funding for political parties. After those discussions, the group failed to agree, and it is quite clear that between now and the next election we are not going to make any progress. Over the past 25 years we have established a whole set of additional funding for political parties—Short money, Cranborne money and the like—which has been very useful and has helped us to carry out our parliamentary functions and to raise the quality of our political research. However, public support for the expansion of political public funding is clearly absent at the present moment. So those talks broke down and we are stuck. We need to fund political parties and we benefit enormously from not having to pay for radio and television advertising, but politics and political campaigning cost money.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised the question of the extent to which the harsh regulation that we all suffer, including under IPSA once you are elected, discourages political recruitment and political retention. I think that that is an enormous problem and we will all need to address it once the election is out of the way and we have seen many good MPs from all parties retire rather than continue. I think that the noble Lord and I would probably agree that some of the best of the new Conservative intake are retiring after one period in Parliament, regrettably, because they really do not want to put up with the situation in which they live. That is a loss to us all in terms of democratic politics as much as those retiring from other parties.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord. Is he suggesting that there will be discussions about reform of the regime? Has he heard something that we have not heard?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, for many of us, the world in its current form ends on 8 May 2015. If anyone here knows what the shape of the new Government will be, I would love them to tell me so that I can put down a large sum with the bookmakers and donate the winnings to my political party. I have no knowledge of that. What I am saying is that awkward people like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, should insist, as soon as they come back, that it is put back on the agenda because it is a very important question and we cannot get away from it. I therefore encourage him to continue to stir on all of this.

I am not entirely sure that I agree with the noble Lord that trade unions act as virtuous collectivities, which I think is what he was saying, with benign general secretaries representing the enlightened interests of their diverse memberships. That is not quite how I see all the general secretaries of trade unions, so there are some questions around that.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Will the noble Lord accept that our contributions come from individual members paying in so many pence per week? The contributions come from individual trade union members paying the political levy.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I will accept that. A proportion of the fees that individual members pay is deducted for a political fund which goes to one political party. How conscious or voluntary that is is, of course, part of the dispute.

I have a great deal of personal sympathy for the argument made by several noble Lords in support of gift aid tax relief. That is absolutely part of the way forward and it is one of the issues that quite a few of us, in whatever position we find ourselves after the election, should put straight back on to the agenda. We can then argue about the cap to be set, but again we are facing the problem that so far, the evidence of the number of voters who are sufficiently committed to any political party to want to pay money to it has fallen and we therefore need to increase it yet again. Some of us, and I am one of them, do our best to narrow the gap by entering the EuroMillions lottery each week and promising that we will give a substantial part of our winnings to our political party. Unfortunately only the SNP has benefited from that so far, not the Liberal Democrats or any other party.

I had expected the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to ask me why the Government have not commenced the part of the last Act which deals with the tax status of donors. The answer I was ready to give to him, and which I cannot resist giving to him, is that the tax status of donors is actually not very easy to establish during a current tax year. For example, whether someone is domiciled in Britain or not is not entirely clear until after the end of the tax year. It is also a matter of confidentiality between the taxpayer and HMRC. If we are to have an information data gateway between HMRC and political parties that political parties can access, which might well be part of what we need to do, it will take us a year or two to establish—my notes say a minimum of two years. That, again, is an issue which we may wish to return to after the election. The question of whether or not a company is registered within Britain and carrying out serious activities in Britain is also a very difficult issue.

[Lord Dykes]

Would my noble friend also consider the possibility of imitating the American regulations so that owners of newspapers in Britain have to be based in the United Kingdom and pay UK personal taxes?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the coalition Government have no policy on that, so I had better not comment. I think that that covers all the issues which have been raised. I encourage the noble Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Dykes, to continue to press this. It is an issue to which we will all have to return after the next election.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The Minister referred to my amendment on this question of foreign donations, over which, if I remember rightly, we defeated the Labour Government. He has given the Committee an explanation, although I did not raise the issue. Could we have a written explanation as to exactly why we have had difficulty in implementing that particular area of the law?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I will see what can be done in that respect and, if possible, I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I also mentioned the whole issue of freepost. I know he does not have figures here, but maybe we could look again at how much we spend on freepost in the UK, and use that money in a slightly different way.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Again, I will take that back and see whether we can write to the noble Lord.

Committee adjourned at 6.05 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 10 December 2014.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

EU: Justice Opt-ins

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Lord Spicer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their plans for resisting further extensions of United Kingdom opt-ins to a European corpus juris.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, there is no proposal for a European corpus juris. Any proposals to extend EU jurisdiction in criminal law would be subject to the UK’s existing justice and home affairs opt-in, which allows us to choose whether we take part. Those decisions are taken in full consultation with Parliament.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, with the 35 opt-ins to the European criminal law now in place, and with the powers that the European court has to make law, are we not now in very real danger of losing the presumption of innocence, the jury system, case law and habeas corpus?

[Lord Bates]

We have been very clear that, as the treaty of Lisbon states, the presumption as regards criminal law should be that we operate by mutual recognition rather than harmonisation. We have taken very clear steps to say that, because we have the ability to opt in under the Lisbon treaty, we exercise that choice. That is the reason why the Prime Minister decided to opt out of 135 measures before opting back in to 35; otherwise, European Court of Justice jurisdiction would have extended to all of those. Therefore I recognise the noble Lord’s point, but the Prime Minister is arguing our case well.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister not agree that, now that the Government have successfully rejoined the 35 key measures, it would make more sense to concentrate on some of the measures that we have in principle opted into but which have not yet completed their negotiating track? Can he therefore say what progress the Government are making in dislodging the blockage by the European Parliament on the passenger name record directive, which would be of great assistance in dealing with terrorism?

[Lord Bates]

I do not have a direct answer on that, but I think that in principle what the noble Lord says is absolutely right. We have made our position clear and argued our case, and have avoided an operational gap by the decision we took on 1 December. Now we ought to get on and make sure that the measures we have opted into work well. However, I will write to him on that point.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, is not the depressing and worrying thing about the noble Lord’s Question that it is so ideological? It implies that when we look at legislation we ought first of all to be concerned about whether it is classified as European or as British legislation, rather than whether it is necessary, fair, reasonable and in the national interest. I think the whole House is united in appreciating the value of the European single market, but we would never have had a single market had we not passed the Single European Act, which I believe the noble Lord may have voted for in his time. Would it not be very reassuring if he could retrieve somehow the open-mindedness and pragmatism of his youth?

[Lord Bates]

I disagree with the presumption that the Question was ideological. This is a matter of practical steps, case by case. That is why we think there is a case, in terms of securing our borders, for the European arrest warrant. We would be part of that. We would also be part of measures to tackle modern-day slavery and of cross-border legislation against cyberattack, but we will not be part of other things. I think that is very practical and pragmatic.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston)]

My Lords, forgive me, but we have not yet heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches, so we shall hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, first. We have plenty of time for other noble Lords to participate in this Question.

[Baroness Ludford]

Can the Minister confirm that the famous corpus juris was in fact purely an academic research report, not a European Commission proposal? Its only product has been the idea of a European public prosecutor, in which the UK is not participating. Can he further confirm that all other EU action against crime is firmly founded on mutual recognition, as promoted by the UK, and that there is no European jurisdiction or European criminal code?

[Lord Bates]

That is absolutely right. The noble Baroness has great expertise in the workings of Europe, and the report to which we are referring is just an academic report, not a Commission proposal.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The Government are rejoining 35 EU justice and home affairs measures. My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon asked questions of the Government—raised, I believe, on four previous occasions—about how many of the justice and home affairs measures that the Government have opted out of have any value, or even apply to the UK, how many were being used in an operation prior to the opt-out decision and how many were harmful to the interests of the UK. Again my noble friend’s questions were not answered, which rather supports the point made by the Chairman of the EU Committee in the same debate, about the need for the Home Office to take parliamentary scrutiny and accountability seriously. Will the Minister now answer those questions, or is there a grim determination to ensure that, for these particular questions on opt-outs, the Government Dispatch Box will remain an answer-free zone?

[Lord Bates]

It would help if the noble Lord had actually listened to the previous debates. On Monday we had the very same question: his noble friend Lady Smith asked me that question. I replied by referring her to Command Papers 8897 and 8671, which set out in exhaustive detail—enough even to satisfy the level of scrutiny on the opposition Benches—what our position is on every single one of those matters.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, we read in the papers this weekend that our right honourable friend the Prime Minister had assured the Turks that he was in favour of their accession to the European Union. Does the Minister know whether he told the Turks that they would have to accept in whole, completely and absolutely, corpus juris?

[Lord Bates]

They would have to accept the acquis communautaire—that is for sure—before doing that. That is the position they are in.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, will the Minister accept the grateful thanks of the United Kingdom Independence Party for the powers that the Government have already ceded to the corrupt and profligate octopus in Brussels? Are not those powers among the reasons for UKIP’s support from so many real people in this country?

[Lord Bates]

In terms of the ideology referred to in the previous question, that is exactly where the ideology comes from. That sort of approach taken towards Brussels would make our people less safe, because we would not be able to secure our borders as we do and we would not be able to co-operate on crime and law enforcement measures. All those things would put the people of this country at risk. That is ideology; this is pragmatism.

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:14

Asked by

[Lord Hylton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for strengthening the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to strengthening the capacities of the OSCE, particularly in relation to its crucial role in the Ukraine crisis. In 2014, the UK has been among the largest contributors to the OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine, providing more than £3 million-worth of funding and equipment and seconding more than 20 UK nationals. Additionally, more than 170 UK election observers joined the two OSCE observation missions in Ukraine this year.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

I thank the noble Lord for concentrating his reply on Ukraine. Would he agree that violations of the ceasefire and the presence of Russian military equipment and personnel, as well as the devastation of civilian areas and the onset of winter and diseases, all make the case for strengthening the OSCE’s mandate and personnel in the field?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, at the Basel ministerial meeting of the OSCE last week, Russia was supported only by Belarus in resisting precisely the proposals that the noble Lord has just made.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that one of the great problems at the moment with the monitoring mission in Ukraine is that it also comprises Russian observers. He will also know that the border by which Russia enters Ukraine is about 100 kilometres long, but only 1 kilometre of that is actually monitored by the OSCE. Would he be able to tell us whether he believes that it is possible to resolve a conflict when one side to a dispute is engaged in assessing whether the other side is playing by the rules or not? That does not seem entirely fair.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, Russia is a member of the OSCE, which is one of the advantages of the OSCE. We wish that Russia were a more constructive member of the OSCE and we are very conscious of the heavy constraints under which the Special Monitoring Mission is now being forced to operate.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the OSCE’s main purposes is to provide an inclusive regional instrument for early warning conflict prevention and crisis management. With this in mind, what more could the OSCE have done to prevent the conflict in Ukraine from developing?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

It would be easier if we had all anticipated quite how the conflict might develop. Ukraine has many problems and its last Government were in some ways structurally corrupt. There is a great deal that Ukraine needs to change to recover its economy and provide a much better quality of governance. I have to say that the number of new Ministers in the new Government who have experience outside Ukraine and who are not part of this corrupt network is very encouraging.

[Lord Christopher (Lab)]

My Lords, have the Government given some thought to the IMF announcement yesterday that Ukraine is going to need some billions unless it is going to collapse into bankruptcy? Russia will have won by default if that happens. Have we given some thought to that?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we are acutely aware that Ukraine needs extensive and continuing financial support and the IMF is engaged in that—and we are talking about billions of pounds over the next two years. The IMF is leading on this and the European Union is a major player. We are conscious of the energy problems of Ukraine. People in Donetsk and Luhansk may possibly even freeze to death this winter if we are not careful. We are also providing assistance in energy sector reform.

[Lord Soley (Lab)]

My Lords, can we be clear that this is not just about Ukraine? There are other countries where Russia is doing something very similar: I, for one, would be worried about Moldova, given the electoral split in last week’s election. Are we raising at the OSCE the whole activity of Russia in neighbouring states by promoting dissent and, most importantly, providing support for it from outside, often with disguised troops?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we have continuing, active and widespread dialogues with as many of those in positions of authority in Russia as we can. Those dialogues include Moldova and other frozen conflicts: in Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, may I press my noble friend a little bit on his last reply to me? Given that Russia is a party to the conflict—in other words, it is conflicted in being part of the monitoring mission—have there been any discussions with the leader of the OSCE mission to ask whether the Russians might stand down from this particular mission while remaining members of the OSCE?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I very much doubt that. Russia is one of the major partners in the OSCE. We wish to retain Russia as a member of the OSCE and therefore we have to work within the very difficult constraints of 57-state membership.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, 25 years ago the Berlin Wall and the iron curtain were torn down by the bare hands of eastern Europeans, because they respected the moral authority and values that we express in the West. After yesterday’s report about the violations of the CIA in pursuit of other wars, where does the Minister think that that moral authority stands today?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, that is a very broad question, on which we might possibly have a full debate. Clearly, the report on CIA violations does damage the reputation of the West, but I stress that on Ukraine, the EU is leading. In answer to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has not raised on this occasion, it is not the case that the EU or NATO has tempted Ukraine to join. I was at a conference in Kiev in December 1991, when Ukraine had been independent for less than a month. The Foreign Minister declared as his opening statement that Ukraine had two strategic objectives for the next three years; the first was to join NATO and the second was to join the EU. I was asked to reply and explained that it was a little more difficult than he thought.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords, since the noble Lord has mentioned me at such length, is it not true that President Putin offered a free trade agreement from Lisbon to Vladivostok in 2010 and that the EU responded with the offers that we all know about? Is it not true that Russia always made clear that it could not tolerate the Crimea going under the sphere of influence of Brussels and, eventually, NATO?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the noble Lord obviously watches “RussiaToday” rather more than he watches the BBC. We are quite willing to discuss broader issues with the Russians. There are severe problems about negotiating a free trade agreement with a country in which the rule of law is so extremely weak.

Malala Yousafzai

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:22

Asked by

[Baroness Berridge]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to recognise the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Malala Yousafzai for her contribution to girls’ education nationally and internationally.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Northover) (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of the UK Government I would like to congratulate Malala Yousafzai and Kailash Satyarthi on sharing the Nobel Peace Prize today. Both have achieved a great deal. Malala is a truly remarkable young woman who has done much for girls’ and boys’ education globally and specifically within Pakistan. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have publicly recognised her achievements, including the award presented today.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer. However, when Malala addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations she stated:

“One child, one teacher, one book and one pen can change the world”.

We have so often failed to recognise the dedication and risks that teachers take in some circumstances, as Malala’s teachers did. As DfID funds so much girls’ education in Pakistan, could Her Majesty’s Government consider creating some kind of scholarship for professional development, or award, in honour of this Nobel Peace Prize, to honour those teachers?

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend is right to highlight the contributions that good teachers make. We all know that, and DfID is indeed committing significant resources to education in Pakistan. Probably the most important thing is to sustain that commitment, both in terms of trying to get girls into school and also good teachers into those classrooms for all of those children.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, as I tried—and failed—to get this as a Topical Question when the award was first announced. Her timing is superb, as we know, because Malala received her award this morning. Perhaps the best way that we can recognise Malala’s astounding achievement, as a very courageous young woman with a wise head on her shoulders, is to invite her to address both Houses of Parliament. There is an honourable precedent for this: we have had previous Nobel Prize winners. Although the Nobel Peace Prize has had a somewhat chequered history, on this occasion they have got it absolutely right. She is a superb role model for young women and girls in this country, in a situation where many women, unfortunately, are being enticed to sacrifice their lives in rather foolish missions to become jihadist brides. She is a wonderful example. We could invite the UK Youth Parliament as well. I welcome the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Northover]

I heard Malala at the Girl Summit in July, and she was superb. She had a fantastic grasp of the importance of education for women and girls. I point out that she is in her GCSE year. We need to ensure that she is not deflected too much, for her own future, from her own exams and studying.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, as has been mentioned around the Chamber, Malala has inspired many young people and young women around the world. She also expressed her concerns last year to President Obama. She said that,

“drone attacks are fuelling terrorism. Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education it will make a big impact”.

Do Her Majesty’s Government support what Malala has said? What are we doing to honour what she has said: to ensure that education is at the forefront, rather than conflict?

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend will know that we put a great deal of stress on working in fragile and conflict-affected states. We fully recognise that development should be a driver towards peace and stability, which is one of the major reasons why we invest what we do in education.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I was privileged to show Malala and her family around the Palace of Westminster and to talk with her about Pakistan. She is the most amazing young woman. Could the Minister confirm—maybe she cannot say in detail what is happening; if she cannot say it on the Floor of the House, maybe she would write—that we are ensuring that Malala is protected? She has been shot once; she is in an area of this country where we know that there are jihadists. I would like to know that our nation is looking after this amazing woman.

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord will know that I cannot go into detail. We are indeed protecting her.

[Baroness Afshar (CB)]

My Lords, what is being done to teach the teachers? The problem in Pakistan is that the teaching available beyond schooling is imperfect, to say the least, as far as women are concerned. Would it be possible to offer scholarships for some of those bright women to train as teachers in this country?

[Baroness Northover]

Again, the noble Baroness is well aware of the significance of this. We are putting a great deal of effort into teaching the teachers. For example, in Pakistan we are training 90,000 teachers a year in Punjab and 16,000 in KP. She will see the scale of that, but it is extremely important that the training we offer is high quality.

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that tackling the barriers that women and girls face, not least to education, has to involve an urgent need to tackle the negative effects on their life chances of cultural attitudes, social norms, domestic duties, early marriage and pregnancy? Surely those elements dictate that access to education is made impossible.

[Baroness Northover]

Indeed. I agree with the noble Baroness.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, what steps does my noble friend think the United Nations can take to convince the people of Pakistan that the deprivation of women and girls’ education is costing their state and public enormous economic potential? Will that be something that she could draw to the attention of the Government of Pakistan?

[Baroness Northover]

Many people in the Government of Pakistan are aware of that and there is an encouraging increase in the number of girls as well as boys in school.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, obviously education is key to women’s rights. The issue that we heard about last week was the London conference on Afghanistan. Can the Minister update the House on the outcomes of that conference, particularly for girls’ education and women’s rights?

[Baroness Northover]

There was a major emphasis on girls’ education and women’s rights and I participated in many events to do with that. I was very impressed by what the wife of the President said about the need to shape their own future, otherwise others will do so.

Universal Credit

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Question

15:30

Asked by

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the recent analysis by the Office for Budget Responsibility on the rollout of universal credit.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

In the OBR’s independent forecast of public spending, it has assumed a modest adjustment to the rollout for universal credit, which it says has a comparatively small impact on forecast expenditure. We maintain our determination to deliver the plan already set out which has been assured by the Major Projects Authority and signed off by the Treasury. The plan is on track. Universal credit will bring economic benefits of £7 billion every year.

[Lord Clinton-Davis (Lab)]

Both eminent bodies, the OBR and the IFS, forecast that the policy of the Government is reducing the state to its lowest level since the early 1930s. That is utterly different from what the Minister is predicting. Is not that dire consequence possible? It is utter madness, is it not? Does the Minister dispute the conclusions of both bodies? What is his prognosis?

[Lord Freud]

Well, my Lords, I will talk about universal credit and what it aims to do for the people who need support from the state system. It directs our funding far more efficiently to people who need that support. It produces economic benefits of £7 billion every year and it does so at an investment cost of £1.8 billion. That investment cost is down from the £2.4 billion that we originally envisaged.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

What is my noble friend doing to ensure that the most vulnerable are supported through universal credit?

[Lord Freud]

One of the things that we need to do with universal credit is to make sure that everyone can take part in it. We are creating a system to do that through universal support, where we go into partnership with local authorities to help people, concentrating particularly on financial and digital inclusion. We then pull in all the other third sector companies, such as landlords, Citizens Advice and credit unions, to make sure that support is holistic.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I do not doubt the Government’s intentions or the Minister’s commitment, but this has to be delivered to work. To go back to the original Question, the OBR said at the time of the Autumn Statement that, despite having already been delayed repeatedly and reset last year, it was assuming an extra six-month delay on top of the Government’s current plans because of what it called “optimism bias” in the DWP. Just right now, as the Public Accounts Committee is hearing from the Treasury, it was confirmed by the chair that the Treasury has not signed off the DWP’s business case for universal credit. What can the Minister say to the House? Universal credit is running almost four years late. It is costing money to taxpayers and vulnerable clients. It risks, frankly, making a laughing stock of the department. What can the Minister tell us to reassure us and how can we believe him?

[Lord Freud]

I re-emphasise that the Treasury has signed off the strategic outline business case. This plan is being done in a way that makes sure that we do it safely and securely—not the big bang method. As I said, it is being done more cheaply than originally envisaged. It is vital that we do not do the kind of thing that happened with tax credit when it was opened on one day and was a total shambles for millions of people.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Will my noble friend resist the carping criticism coming from the opposition Benches and take credit for the fact that when they were in government for 10 years they did nothing about the fact that some people were worse off in work than out of work? My noble friend and his colleagues are to be congratulated on taking very difficult and complex decisions to solve this problem and seeing more people coming into work as a result.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I have developed an extraordinarily keen appreciation of why politicians do not like to do fundamental reform, but this reform is absolutely essential because the present system is a shambles. It does not encourage people into work or reward them systematically for doing that. The whole point of universal credit is that you join up the out-of-work and the in-work systems so that there is a smooth progression that everyone can understand.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

My Lords, £40 million has been written off with IT in this system with a further £40 million being used on the old IT system. The useful IT life has now been downgraded from 15 years to five years. Given that this information was extracted painfully from the department by the NAO, is it not the case that warning lights have been flashing for two years and that only an objective assessment of the scheme will do in order to determine whether this architecture is fit for purpose?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, the NAO has recognised the savings to government of going the way that we are going, with a live service showing us how it works and a properly designed digital service coming out behind. The NAO has recognised that the savings to government of that approach are £2 billion.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, the Public Accounts Committee has pointed out that the Government are too trusting of quasi-monopolistic private providers such as G4S, which is to have a major role in the development of universal credit. Have the Government forgiven it for overcharging the taxpayer £130 million for tagging people who did not exist or had died?

[Lord Freud]

G4S has no role in the run-out of universal credit.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister was given a very gentle question from his noble friend. Will he tell the House how much taxpayers’ money in this country is being paid to people to subsidise employers who do not pay a living wage, particularly those employers who fail to pay taxes properly here? I appreciate that this is a wide question. I would like a detailed written answer about how much each one of us is subsidising people who are tax shy.

[Lord Freud]

I will give an oral answer, not a written one. The whole system was invented by the previous Government under tax credits where £170 billion was spent.

Hereditary Peers By-Election

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:38

The Clerk of the Parliaments announced the result of the Cross-Bench by-election to elect two hereditary Peers in place of Viscount Allenby of Megiddo and Lord Cobbold in accordance with Standing Order 10.

Twenty-five Lords completed valid ballot papers. A paper setting out the complete results is available in the Printed Paper Office and online. That paper gives the number of votes cast for each candidate. In the first count, the successful candidate was Lord Russell of Liverpool. In the second count, the successful candidate was the Duke of Somerset.

Syria: Refugees

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:39

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

My Lords, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the answer given by my honourable friend James Brokenshire to an Urgent Question earlier this morning in another place. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, I am sure the whole House shares the Government’s deep concern about the situation in Syria, the suffering and hardship it is causing for millions of refugees and the enormous strain it is placing on the region. With 3.2 million people displaced into Syria’s neighbouring countries and millions more in need within Syria itself, this Government believe it is right to focus efforts on substantial aid to help large numbers of people who remain. This is a crisis of international proportions. Alleviating the suffering and seeking an end to the conflict are the best ways to ensure that the UK’s help has the greatest impact for the majority of Syrian refugees and their host countries. Ending the war, defeating extremism and ending the humanitarian crisis require both military pressure and a political settlement which replaces the Assad regime with a Government which can represent all Syrians.

The UK has committed £700 million in response to the humanitarian crisis. This significant contribution makes us the second largest bilateral donor after the USA. The UK’s support is helping hundreds of thousands of refugees across the region access vital food, water, medical care and essential supplies that are so desperately needed. UK aid has provided water for up to 1.5 million people per month and supported over 600,000 medical consultations. Last year, we funded 5.2 million monthly food rations.

Compared with aid, resettlement can only ever help a minority. We do, however, recognise that there are some particularly vulnerable people who cannot be supported effectively in the region. That is why, earlier this year, we launched the Syrian vulnerable persons relocation scheme to provide sanctuary for those displaced Syrians who are most at risk. The VPR scheme is the first resettlement programme run by the UK to target support for refugees specifically on the basis of their vulnerability. It is prioritising women and children at risk, people in need of medical care and survivors of torture and violence.

It is right that our resettlement efforts focus on the most vulnerable refugees, rather than operating a crude quota system. Arrivals under the scheme so far have included a number of children and adults with very severe medical needs who could not access the treatment they needed in the region. This Government have committed to helping several hundred people over three years, and that is exactly what we are doing. Between March and September, 90 people were granted humanitarian protection in the UK under the scheme. We continue to work closely with UNHCR to identify the most vulnerable cases displaced by the conflict in Syria and to relocate them to the UK. This is, of course, in addition to the many other Syrian asylum claims we consider under normal rules. Since the crisis began in 2011, we have granted asylum or other forms of leave to more than 3,400 Syrian nationals.

Resettlement can make a real difference to the lives of the refugees who can be supported effectively only outside the region. I am delighted to see those arriving under the scheme settling into their new homes and receiving the care they need, but we must not lose sight of the millions of Syrians who remain in the region. Our primary focus was, and still is, the provision of humanitarian assistance and aid to displaced people both within Syria and its neighbouring countries. Continuing our efforts to help them through aid must remain our highest priority”.

15:43

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the other place.

The British Government have rightly committed £700 million to help those affected by the conflict in Syria. It is the UK’s largest ever response to a humanitarian crisis and reflects the values of the British people. We, on these Benches, applaud the Government’s efforts in that regard.

At a conference in Geneva yesterday, the UN asked for countries across the globe to increase the places they could provide for a limited programme to help the most vulnerable refugees who struggle to survive or cope in the region. As I understand it, the Government have still to respond. This is now the worst refugee crisis since World War II. It is not about helping every refugee but about doing our bit alongside other countries. Will the Government accept that their parallel programme is not working sufficiently well and sign up to the UN programme instead? Will the Government immediately take vulnerable refugees affected by the conflict in Syria out of the net migration target? Finally, will the Government now agree to do more to help?

15:45

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I do not accept that the current vulnerable persons relocation scheme is not working. The first vulnerable victims arrived eight weeks after it was set up. So far, 90 people have been accepted into it. However, the programme is on track to deal with several hundred victims over three years, as promised. This is in addition to the other areas I mentioned that help the people most affected in that region, including the biggest aid package we have ever produced for any humanitarian crisis, and the political efforts to end the crisis in Syria. It is also in addition to the 3,400 people we have taken under the normal asylum rules.

The net migration figures are based on the UN definition of migration. The number of people we are going to accept under the vulnerable persons scheme and even the asylum rules is a tiny proportion of the figures. We account for those figures in the way that all countries do internationally.

15:46

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister told us that there are 3.2 million refugees in the region. The generosity of countries such as Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey contrasts with the lack of generosity of many other countries. Although Her Majesty’s Government have been generous with humanitarian aid, the number of vulnerable refugees—90—that the Minister mentioned to the House today is in stark contrast to that figure of 3.2 million. Only yesterday in Geneva, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned, the UN specifically asked that 130,000 should be accepted by developed countries. Will the noble Lord tell us what we are going to do to try to reach that target? We are now in the depths of winter, and groups such as the Yazidis and the other minorities that we have all followed over these past months are in freezing conditions. What are we doing to ensure that they are given additional humanitarian relief?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The noble Lord is right to highlight these issues. We take this very seriously and approach it in the way that we think is the best way of approaching it; that is, that humanitarian aid in the region is the best way of doing it. We accept that for very vulnerable people in special circumstances we can provide help in this country, but we think that providing £700 million to the region is the most effective way of providing our humanitarian aid, which will help people in that area. It provides basic things such as water and food, which can help the largest numbers of people, and it complements the UN’s programme because we take the people into this country that it suggests to us and we provide money in the area to deal with the people directly on the ground.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, is not this crisis continuing to destabilise the whole region? Is not the only long-term answer a proper political solution in Syria? Does that not mean that we have to talk sensibly and intelligently with the Assad regime, much as we might like to hold our noses while doing so? What has got to be smashed is the power of ISIS, and that cannot be done unless there has been an intelligent dialogue with the present Syrian regime.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I agree with my noble friend that ending the war and defeating extremism will be the way to end the humanitarian crisis in the long term. That requires military pressure and a political settlement. However, we feel that that requires replacing the Assad regime with a Government who can represent all Syrians, in order to prevent further conflict. We are looking carefully at the UN envoy’s plan for local ceasefires to freeze the conflict. We support his work and we think that plan, together with direct help from aid on the ground, is the best way of achieving this.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, of course the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is absolutely right that the only solution in the long term is a political solution, but it is a longer-term solution. I hope the Minister listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. It is winter; this is an emergency. There are enormous difficulties for those countries which have been so generous in the region, particularly Jordan and Lebanon. Their systems are at breaking point. They have three rotas of children in their schools every day; they cannot vaccinate children fast enough. This is a generous-hearted country. The £700 million is fantastic and I applaud the Government, but we need to offer more. We need to offer what the United Nations is asking us to do, which is to take more of these displaced people who are in real difficulty. If this country gave a lead on this, others would follow in Europe and there would be a far greater response to what the UN has asked us to do.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness that this is an extremely difficult situation and I take her point about winter coming. The fact is that we regard aid on the ground as the most important way of helping those neighbouring countries which have all the problems she suggests. £700 million is not a small amount. It is the largest single aid figure we have ever given. I completely agree that it has to take place in the context of a political settlement. Taking vulnerable people and asylum seekers is important but, in terms of actual direct effect, in the short term aid on the ground is the best way of helping the neighbouring countries.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords—order, order—we have not heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches so it is the turn of my noble friend Lady Falkner.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, we are coming to the fourth anniversary of this conflict. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, the Minister said that the Government do not believe in keeping the Assad regime in place—

[A noble Lord]

We need your voice, Dafydd. We need your voice.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, I obviously cannot go on with my question if the Cross-Benchers continue.

The Minister said that the Assad regime cannot be kept in place. Did he mean that President Assad cannot be kept in place and does he rule out in any future peace settlement any conversations that might allow some elements of the regime to take over in a transitional government? That is a change in position as far as I understand it.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I certainly did not make that clear. I am not prepared today to give details of Foreign Office policy, but I will consult with my colleagues and write to the noble Baroness about that issue.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Further to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, can the Minister tell the House who it is that Her Majesty’s Government recognise as the legitimate Government of Syria at the moment and whether that recognition is de facto or de jure, according to the principles of public international law?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I hope that you will not object if I say that I will write to the noble Lord on this. I was here to talk about Syrian refugees, not Foreign Office policy.

Employment: Young People

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:54

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on preparing young people for the world of work made earlier today in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education. The Statement is as follows.

“Ensuring that young people leave school or college prepared for life in modern Britain is a central tenet of this Government’s plan for education and a vital part of our long-term economic plan for Britain. It is the students of today who will be the workforce of tomorrow and on whom the future success of our economy—and everything that flows from that—will depend. That is why our plan is ensuring that every young person learns the knowledge, skills and values they need to be able to leave school or college ready to fulfil their potential and succeed in life.

This Government have done a huge amount to raise standards in our schools. We now have a million more pupils in good and outstanding schools—more than ever before—and 100,000 more six year-olds are now on track to become confident readers because of our focus on phonics. The number of pupils taking core academic GCSEs is up by over 60% since 2009-10, thanks to the EBacc. Critically, we now have the most highly qualified teaching profession ever, with more graduates from top universities choosing teaching than ever before.

However, I am clear that while helping every child to master the basics is vital, it is only the start. Schools and colleges have a broader role to play in preparing young people for adult life. That is why I recently allocated £5 million of funding to support new, innovative projects that build character, resilience and grit, because as much as I want the next generation to be able to solve a quadratic equation, I also want them to be able to make a compelling pitch for a job and to bounce back if things do not work out. It is also why, today, I am setting out an ambitious new approach to the way that we open young people’s eyes to the world of work.

It is widely acknowledged that careers provision in schools has long been inadequate. To date, we have encouraged schools and colleges to take the lead. We have placed a clear duty on them to provide students with access to impartial advice and guidance. But although we published an Inspiration Vision Statement in September 2013 and strengthened the statutory guidance to support schools and colleges in making this vision a reality, it is clear that many schools and colleges need additional support if we are to ensure that every young person, regardless of background or location, receives the life-changing advice and inspiration that they need to fulfil their potential and succeed in life. This is a view supported by a number of respected contributors in this area including Ofsted, the National Careers Council, the Sutton Trust, the Gatsby Charitable Foundation and the Education Select Committee of this House, as well as many employers, sector experts, and schools and colleges themselves.

There are, of course, some schools and colleges doing great things to ensure that their students access the necessary support, but too often provision is patchy. Already busy schools and teachers do not always have the time to give this the focus they should. Meanwhile, many organisations, including employers, offer excellent programmes for young people. The challenge before us is how to ensure that every young person in every part of the country is given access to them. I have consistently heard calls from both employers and schools and colleges to help them navigate this complex landscape and spread the good practice that is happening in some parts of the country to all. Today, I am answering those calls.

I am pleased to be able to tell the House that Christine Hodgson, chair of Capgemini UK and someone with a strong track record of developing young talent, will chair a new careers and enterprise company for schools. This will transform the provision of careers education and advice for young people and inspire them to take control of and shape their own futures. The company will support much greater engagement between employers on the one hand and schools and colleges on the other. It will ensure that young people get the inspiration and guidance that they need to leave school or college ready to succeed in working life. It will be employer led but work closely with the education and careers sectors, and it will act as an umbrella organisation to help employers, schools and colleges and other organisations navigate their way through the existing landscape. It will provide a vehicle to help other organisations co-ordinate their activities where appropriate.

The company will not itself be a direct delivery organisation or act in competition with the many existing providers in the market. Instead it will help schools, colleges, organisations and employers work together in partnership. The company will focus on the offer to young people, initially those aged 12 to 18. It will work closely with the National Careers Service, which will continue to support adults and young people and help the company bring employers, schools and colleges together.

It will be for the new company’s board to set its own strategy but we envisage that it will do a number of things. It will use relationships with employers—private, public and third sector—to break down barriers between schools and colleges on the one hand and employers on the other, and increase the level of employer input into careers, inspiration and enterprise in all schools and colleges. It will do this partly through a network of advisers who will broker strong and extensive links at local level. It will assist schools and colleges in choosing effective careers and enterprise organisations to partner with, including considering the use of quality marks. It will stimulate more and better activity in areas where the current provision is poorest. Last but not least, it will develop an enterprise passport to incentivise young people to participate in a wide range of extracurricular activities that boost their appeal to employers, as well as their enterprise skills.

The network of advisers and enterprise passport are ideas championed most effectively by my noble friend Lord Young, to whom I should like to pay generous tribute for his invaluable work in this area. His report, Enterprise for All, has informed our thinking about the way forward. I am also grateful for the support of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and his officials in ensuring that our work reflects the needs of employers and businesses and providing £1.4 million this year to ensure the company makes a strong start. Of course, it is important to say that this announcement builds on the work already under way in this area, such as the common online application portal being developed by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Business and Skills.

The Government will support the new company with start-up funding in 2015-16, the cost of which will be met from the £20 million announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in last week’s Autumn Statement. Five million pounds of this will constitute an investment fund to support innovation and stimulate good practice across the country. In the longer term the company will sustain itself.

I am confident that the plan I have announced today will build on the excellent work that is already going on in some parts of the country, but will ensure it is replicated in every part of the country. It will herald a step change in the quality of careers inspiration, advice and guidance provided to all young people—paying no regard to ability, interest or background. It will help to realise our ambition of ensuring that every child leaves school or college prepared for life in modern Britain. We know that the ultimate success of our long-term economic plan for this country rests on the shoulders of the next generation, and we are backing them every step of the way. I commend this Statement to the House”.

16:02

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Statement. I am inclined to say welcome, rather belatedly, to the real world. The noble Lord will know that throughout the changes to the curriculum that this Government have introduced, employers, including the CBI, have been saying that this has missed the point, and that the priority should be to get children to be work-ready for careers in the 21st century. Instead, the Government have presided over an education system that only works for half the country—with those young people who do not want a traditional university education left languishing without an alternative comparable vocational route. This is why, on these Benches, we have consistently made the point that we need a gold-standard vocational offer, on a par with academic qualifications, that will promote social mobility and deliver the skilled workforce needed for a stronger economy.

The fact is that Britain is falling behind other OECD countries in terms of technical skills. Meanwhile, employers are struggling to find the skills they need to succeed—particularly, as we have been hearing recently, in construction, manufacturing and engineering. This has not been helped by the low-quality, short-term apprenticeships that this Government have introduced.

Sadly, our main competitors in Europe offer up to four times as many apprenticeships as are offered in England, yet the demand here for these places massively outstrips supply. At the same time, we are missing out on utilising the public sector’s market power by specifying the requirement for high-quality apprenticeships for all significant government contracts.

Does the Minister now accept that if we are serious about improving young people’s work opportunities, we need a major overhaul of the apprenticeship system to provide new rigorous standards combined with respected qualifications? Does he agree that we need a new skills and training framework that is genuinely industry led, as we have proposed? Does he also agree with us that every child should have the opportunity to experience a quality work experience placement, co-ordinated by the school and not left to the individual pupil themselves to source? Does he agree that governing bodies should include local employers, and what is he doing to make that happen? Does he agree that destination measures, which chart pupils’ progress once they have left school, should play a much more important role in judging a school’s success?

I turn to the specific proposals relating to the careers service—a service which is widely acknowledged to have deteriorated under the watch of this Government. The Minister rightly lists some of the many bodies that have criticised the current provision, to save us having to do so. Indeed, over and over again in debates in this House we have been united across the Benches in raising concerns about the current careers service. I would therefore say to the Minister: what took you so long? While his department has been brushing off the criticisms, a whole generation of young people has been let down by an inadequate careers advice. Time and time again as I have visited schools around the country I have seen otherwise outstanding schools struggling to provide effective careers advice, with none of them providing regular face-to-face advice, which all the experts say is vital for quality guidance for young people.

Now we have this announcement today, which has all the hallmarks of a policy scrambled together to plug a gaping hole in the Government’s education plans. In the other place, my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Education asked a number of questions about the status of this new company that I do not think were answered, so I am giving the Minister another opportunity. For example, what was the bidding process for the contract to establish this company? How will the cost be apportioned? Will it be provided free to schools? What will be the relationship with employers and local enterprise partnerships? In addition, I would ask: what is the timetable for this new advice to be provided to schools, given the gaps that we already know exist?

No one would deny that there is some scope for innovation in the provision of careers advice, but this is only one part of the challenge that currently exists. Young people are crying out for one-to-one individual advice, which I am not sure this proposal addresses. There is also a need to improve on the online careers service and to ensure that the phone line is free for mobiles and is Skype friendly. There are some basic practical hurdles that remain to be addressed. Perhaps the Minister could clarify whether these will be the responsibility of, and overseen by, this new company.

We all aspire to a high-class education system but this Government have made it more difficult for teachers to deliver and succeed. They have created a culture of criticism and confusion. That is why there is a continuing shortfall in filling teacher training places and why we face a critical shortage of teachers in the STEM subjects, which are crucial for our economy’s future. This is why our agenda for preparing young people for the world of work puts the teachers centre stage and will invest in them, help them to manage their workload and give them renewed professional status. This is why we are confident that, unlike the Government, we will prepare every child for the challenges of 21st-century living and working. Meanwhile, I would be grateful if the Minister could address the questions that I have asked.

15:30

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s support. I point out, though, that the previous Government’s attempt to get children ready for work resulted in 4,000 vocational qualifications, almost all of which were massively overvalued through the scandal of GCSE equivalence, were not valued by employers, rendered pupils no favours at all and resulted in this country slumping down the international league tables during the first 10 years of this century. The OECD told us only at the end of last year that our school leavers—Labour’s children—were the most illiterate and innumerate in the developed world. We have done a great deal to improve the standard of apprenticeships by involving employers of great stature in their design and advertising them much more widely.

Of course we support work experience. My good friend David Johnston at the Social Mobility Foundation, who has cross-party support on his board, is doing great work in widening work experience to pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. The idea of getting more employers into governing bodies is something we have been expanding substantially in the department; we have formed the Inspiring Governors Alliance and we are working with big business. I have been most struck that with business we are pushing at an open door because of its willingness to provide us with governors, and we have a massive programme in place to expand this effort. We are bringing destinations into the accountability framework.

The noble Baroness harks back to a golden age of careers advice that I do not recognise. Of the previous system of careers advice through Connexions, the former Labour Minister Alan Milburn said that on his panel they could find hardly anybody who had a good word to say about it. On the concept of face-to-face careers advice being the gold standard, McKinsey’s conducted a study across Europe which found that face-to-face careers advice was in most cases virtually worthless compared to activity involving employers in or from the world of work.

On the status of the company, it will be a company limited by guarantee. Its precise strategy will be for its board to decide. We plan for it to be free to schools. It will involve LEPs and we plan to have it up and running by next summer. We believe that with this company, we will be able to build on our work with a number of excellent organisations that already exist up and down the country supplying careers advice to schools.

16:11

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome the Statement and express the hope that the new company will transform careers advice in schools, which at the moment is inadequate, ill informed and in many cases deplorable. Youngsters at 14 should have all the opportunities made available to them: whether to stay on at school or go to a university technical college, a studio school, a career college or even an apprenticeship. I am glad that businesses will be involved in this, because that will open up other opportunities to them. I hope that it will lead to a substantial increase in skills training in all schools.

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his words. I know that he has been terribly actively involved in driving the UTC programme, and we should all be incredibly grateful to him for that.

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope that the Government have not overlooked the role that the trade union movement can play in providing and insisting on education, particularly for older children. The TUC has its own department, Unionlearn, which is highly respected and was formed deliberately to try to encourage education among people who somehow or other, during the course of their earlier career, missed out on it. It has worked consistently to try to improve and make available apprenticeship schemes right across manufacturing industry. My union, Unite, has done a great deal of work on manufacturing industry to ensure that there are proper educational arrangements for younger people and to encourage them—in particular, women—into training for engineering and manufacturing, which is vital for this country. I hope that the role which the trade union movement can play in this area, which can be assessed via the TUC, is not overlooked, because it is very important in encouraging people who have missed out on education earlier in their career.

[Lord Nash]

I could not agree more with what the noble Baroness says. The involvement of the unions on this side of the piece is extremely important. I am delighted to be able to say that the careers company will have an advisory board, which will help it to design and implement itself, and Askel will sit on that board. I note the very good work that the NAHT has done in relation to Primary Futures. I was visiting a Primary Futures event at a school in Oxfordshire on Friday and noticed that one of the ex-presidents of the NAHT sits on the Primary Futures board. The noble Baroness’s points are very well made.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I, too, thank my noble friend for this important and worthwhile Statement. I also praise the Enterprise for All document. I particularly like the Fiver scheme for primary schools, which I hope will be extended. However, on the day that we hear the Association of Colleges saying that careers education is broken, my noble friend mentioned in his Statement that the Government’s plan for careers guidance has received support from organisations such as the Sutton Trust. Does he agree with the Sutton Trust’s recommendation that all pupils should receive a guaranteed level of impartial, professional advice in careers education, while schools should ultimately be held accountable for the quality of the careers guidance provided?

[Lord Nash]

I certainly agree that schools should be held accountable for providing careers advice. Ofsted has made it clear that it will look at this very closely in its leadership category and we have strengthened the framework in this regard. I have already said that I do not think there is any one way of providing careers advice and I do not think that we should rely too much on one-to-one advice. Rather, we should involve the world of work much more in careers in the way we have been discussing.

[Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know very well that the young people who find the transition from school to work most difficult are disabled young people, particularly those with learning difficulties. What is there in this package for this group and how will the new agency work with those organisations that are already attempting to provide very good projects?

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. I am aware of her experience in this area. As the guidance notes, the area where one-to-one careers advice may be particularly appropriate is for pupils with learning disabilities. We will ensure that the careers company makes sure that all pupils get the opportunities for careers advice that they deserve.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement addressing an issue which has been an area of such desperate failure in our education system for the past few years. Indeed, on the provision of advice by Connexions, I have not yet met a school which found that Connexions was useful or helpful to it in the work it was trying to do. Is it envisaged that this new company will enable employers to have an input into the syllabus for some of the major subjects of the curriculum? So often we hear from employers that what is taught is not helpful to them in employment. Will it go beyond their involvement in providing placements and advice, into some input into the syllabus for the main subjects?

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful for my noble friend’s comments. Of course, we have involved employers greatly in the redesign of the curriculum, particularly, for instance, in computing. The involvement of employers in the syllabus and the curriculum of UTCs is central to that programme. I can see that this company would be a very good conduit for employers to make detailed comments to us about the context of the curriculum.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, as the Minister was speaking I could not help reflecting on the late, lamented Donaldson report, which was so surprisingly rejected by the previous Government. I seem to remember that it suggested that a valuable service would be provided if some census could be made of skills needs and skills shortages by industry, which could then be passed on to the education world so that the two could be matched. Can the Minister say whether such a census might be made a responsibility of the new company?

[Lord Nash]

I shall certainly pass this on to the chair of the new company and to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I think that it is a very good point.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned England, but I sometimes think that the other countries—Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—also have a contribution to make to any careers guidance changes. How do we make the best use of the successful schemes that have been brought in, not only in the countries of the United Kingdom but in the European Union? Have they anything to teach us? What is their best practice? What are their most successful experiments? Are moves being made to be in touch with other countries, not only in the UK but in the European Union?

[Lord Nash (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his comments. The chair of the new careers company works for a multinational company. I am sure she will be very open to studying what is going on in other countries in relation to this.

Modern Slavery Bill

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Lords Chamber

Committee (4th Day)

16:20

Relevant documents: 10th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee and 3rd Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights

Amendment 86N had been retabled as Amendment 86P.

Amendment 86P

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

86P: After Clause 48, insert the following new Clause—
“Establishment and function of the National Referral Mechanism
(1) The Secretary of State must establish a National Referral Mechanism (“NRM”) to—
(a) identify trafficked, enslaved or exploited persons within the United Kingdom;(b) provide assistance and support to a person who may have been trafficked, enslaved or exploited from the time at which that person is first referred into the NRM until such time as a final and conclusive determination is made that they are not such a person; and (c) ensure that the rights of such persons are protected and promoted in a manner which discharges the Government’s obligations under the Trafficking Convention and the Trafficking Directive regarding the identification and protection of victims, including measures for assistance and support.(2) The Secretary of State must, in regulations, specify the procedures to be followed to implement the NRM and the procedures to be applied by the NRM including to give effect to the right to a renewable residence permit provided for under subsections (5) and (6).
(3) The regulations must provide for a right of appeal by an individual in respect of a decision in the NRM process that they are not a trafficked, enslaved or exploited person.
(4) An adult must give their free and informed consent to being referred into the NRM before a referral is made on their behalf.
(5) A person who is determined in the NRM process to be a trafficked, enslaved or exploited person shall be entitled to a one-year renewable residence permit permitting them to remain in the United Kingdom where one or other, or both, of the following situations apply—
(a) a competent authority in the NRM considers that their stay is necessary owing to their personal situation; or(b) a competent authority in the NRM considers that their stay is necessary for the purpose of the person’s co-operation with the authorities in connection with their investigations or criminal proceedings.(6) A residence permit for child victims shall be issued where it is in accordance with the best interests of the child and, where appropriate, renewed under the same conditions.
(7) The protection, assistance and support provided to trafficked, enslaved or exploited children (including those to whom the presumption of age applies) in accordance with the provisions in this Act shall be at least equivalent to the protection, assistance and support provided to adults, save that where other legislation provides for greater protection for children that legislation shall, to the extent of any inconsistency with this Act, prevail.”

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 86P is in substitution for Amendment 86N. The difference is in proposed new subsection (4). Amendment 86N refers to:

“A person (including a child)”.

Amendment 86P refers to “an adult”. This amendment was not meant to include a child. That is the difference between the two amendments.

The purpose of our amendment is to put the national referral mechanism on a statutory footing with its overriding role and objectives laid down in respect of persons trafficked, enslaved or exploited within the United Kingdom, including the right of appeal by an individual against a decision in the national referral mechanism process that they are not a trafficked, enslaved or exploited person. Despite the views to the contrary expressed by a majority of interested parties who participated in a recent Home Office internal review of the national referral mechanism, the Government have not been prepared to go down the road of placing the NRM on a statutory footing as it would, in their view, make it inflexible and unresponsive to changing demands.

No doubt that might be a problem if all the detail about the role and operation of the NRM were included in the Bill, but that is not what we are proposing. We are talking about the key principles and functions that the NRM should be seeking to address and deliver in respect of victim identification and support. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill recommended that the Bill should be amended to give statutory authority for the national referral mechanism in order to ensure greater consistency in its operations, decision-making and provision of victim support services. The committee went on to say that the statutory basis should also provide for a mechanism for potential victims to trigger an internal review and to appeal against decisions taken by competent authorities.

Among the arguments that, as I understand it, led the Joint Committee to make its recommendation were that the current arrangements led to arbitrariness of application and access for victims; that giving victims statutory rights would make claiming and enforcing those rights more straightforward; that a statutory footing gave greater transparency and accountability and would also raise awareness of the national referral mechanism among front-line agencies; and that having the NRM on a statutory basis would provide an opportunity to establish a clear review and appeals process compared to the present system of informal requests for decisions to be reconsidered. While judicial review offers a more formal route, it can be used only to challenge the way a conclusion has been reached rather than the merits of the conclusion, and judicial review is also likely to be expensive.

Since placing the NRM on a statutory footing should increase awareness and accountability within the system, it would also help to ensure that victim identification and assistance is prioritised across the board. The evidence suggests that the NRM is underused and is not as widely known about as one might expect. Many involved in dealing with victims of trafficking and modern-day slavery regard referral to the NRM as a non-mandatory process on which there is no training or scrutiny of decisions to not refer, even for children within the child protection system. Without a statutory underpinning of victims’ rights to identification and specialist support there is more than a possibility that practitioners will either continue to disregard the national referral mechanism entirely or see it solely as best practice as opposed to something to which victims have a right.

Referral into the national referral mechanism can be pretty significant for victims. Those who have a positive NRM decision may have a higher likelihood of a prosecution against them being dropped if they have been trafficked and forced to commit a crime, and, in turn, positive NRM decisions are used by police as corroborative evidence in prosecutions against traffickers. Specialist support and accommodation, and access to legal aid, are also often dependent on a positive decision within the NRM.

In the light of this and the significant known increase in the level and extent of trafficking and exploitation since the NRM was established, it is not clear why there is this apparent unwillingness on the Government’s part to place the NRM on a statutory footing and help to ensure that both the underlying principles of the system of victim identification and support, which are already set out in existing international legislation to which the UK is bound, are included in the Bill, and that there is greater accountability for those who fail to assist or refer potential victims of modern slavery for identification.

The preface to the recent review of the national referral mechanism stated:

“Since its introduction in 2009 the National Referral Mechanism has grown somewhat wildly over time”,

and that it is,

“now a complex system operating in a challenging and painful area of public life”,

and,

“a difficult system to grip”.

It stated:

“Many level criticism at the current system and we have found that it does need to change”.

The review drew attention to the fact that the number of potential victims who are referred to the NRM is low, given what we know about human trafficking. It also said that the current system is,

“fragmented and lacking an overall performance framework … and … cannot be described as efficient or effective”.

The review continued, saying that there was,

“insufficient accountability for the outcomes of the process or the appropriate management of the process itself”.

The review also heard the views of the voluntary organisations that work with victims of trafficking, which include calls for the,

“removal of responsibility for the National Referral Mechanism from the Home Office and the establishment of an independent body outside of UK Visas and Immigration and the Police … a desire to place the National Referral Mechanism on a statutory footing”,

and,

“a right of appeal to challenge those decisions which are believed to be wrongly made”.

It is difficult to see how the extensive concerns and recommendations set out at the beginning of the review could be addressed and delivered effectively without putting the NRM or a similar body on a statutory footing and moving away from what seems closer and more akin to an internal administrative process. It is also worth pointing out that while the review was asked to look at six key areas, including governance of the national referral mechanism, it was not specifically asked to examine the issue of placing the NRM on a statutory footing.

The reality is that at the present time some 80% of referrals—I am sure that I will be corrected if I am wrong—on behalf of EU citizens as victims of human trafficking, which are dealt with by the UK Human Trafficking Centre, which is part of the National Crime Agency, are accepted. It is also true, I believe, that some 80% of referrals on behalf of non-EU citizens as victims of human trafficking, which are dealt with by UK Visas and Immigration, which is part of the Home Office, are not accepted. At the very least, decisions on non-EU referrals as victims of human trafficking, which involve issues of UK residence, should be dealt with as a statutory decision by a statutory body.

Our amendment does not in any case go into great detail that might, in the Government’s eyes, leave the NRM inflexible and unresponsive to changing demands, since it primarily sets out the overriding role and objectives of the national referral mechanism, provides for the Secretary of State to seek to specify in regulations the procedures to be followed and applied, and provides for a right of appeal by an individual against a decision that they are not a trafficked, enslaved or exploited person.

Not being on a statutory footing does not seem to be providing an effective and efficient national referral mechanism, in the light of the situation today on the incidence and nature of human trafficking and exploitation in this country. I hope that the Government will be able to respond favourably to our amendment, which I beg to move.

16:29

[Lord Warner (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 93, in my name, which adopts an approach similar to that of my noble friend’s Amendment 86P. I agree with what he said. We both agree that we should put the national referral mechanism on a statutory basis, as the Joint Committee recommended. I need to go over some of the same ground as he did, but there are also some other issues that I want to put into play in trying to convince the Government that a statutory basis is the right basis for the NRM.

Before I make my case, I should briefly explain why I am taking an approach different from that of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in his Amendment 86M, which we discussed on Monday. I agree with him that Clause 48 is totally unsatisfactory, but I am not sure that it is right to put on the face of the Bill as much detail as there was in his amendment. That is why, in my amendment, I have gone for a set of regulation-making powers on given subjects.

My amendment is intended to give effect to the recommendation in the report by the Joint Committee on the draft Bill that the Bill should be amended,

“to give statutory authority for the NRM to ensure greater consistency in its operation, decision-making and provision of victim support services”.

Those are the critical reasons why this mechanism should be not an internal administrative system but one that has clearly been endorsed by Parliament. Our recommendation is clearly stated and set out in paragraph 82 of the Joint Committee’s report. My amendment would not hamstring the Home Office too much—I shall come back to that later.

Instead of laying out a lot of detail in the Bill, my amendment would enable the Home Secretary to make regulations in six key areas, and includes a provision for the inclusion of,

“such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to the new body”.

This approach to regulation-making gives the Home Office plenty of discretion for adapting the scheme as circumstances require. It does not fix for all time the role or the precise remit of the NRM. If we put a clause of this nature into the Bill, there will be plenty of flexibility in the regulation-making approach,

The six key areas in my amendment are the very ones identified by the Home Secretary as the subject of the Review of the National Referral Mechanism for Victims of Human Trafficking, as summarised in paragraph 2.1.3 of the report. I have not gone for widening the NRM’s role in any way; my amendment covers the topics that the Home Secretary said the review of the NRM had to cover. When Ministers set up that review, they knew that the Joint Committee would be recommending an NRM with a statutory basis. We came to that conclusion before we drafted the report and we informed the Home Office, so it did know that that was the road that we would traverse. There was plenty of opportunity for the Home Secretary to consider that issue in the context of the review. It is striking that, if we read the review fully, we find that it very much makes the case for putting the NRM on a statutory basis.

One point that I would draw attention to is in subsection (3) of my amendment, which gives effect to another Joint Committee recommendation, in paragraph 91 of its report, that,

“competent authority status be removed from UK Visas and Immigration”.

We saw a conflict of interest between determining immigration and asylum status and determining whether someone was a victim of trafficking. I will not detain the House with the evidence for that recommendation, but it is set out very clearly in paragraphs 84 to 90 of the Joint Committee report. The evidence and this amendment are absolutely consistent with the recommendations of the NRM review report at paragraphs 7.4.1 and 7.4.5. The amendment is drafted to be consistent with the findings of that review.

The Joint Committee heard a huge variety of evidence and arguments in favour of making the NRM a statutory-based mechanism, which were very much the same sets of arguments and evidence that was put before the review. We were told by Anti-Slavery International that the current arrangements,

“led to arbitrariness of application and access for victims”.

Others said that giving victims statutory rights would make claiming and enforcing those rights more straightforward and transparent. We were told that a statutory NRM was necessary for the UK to fulfil its international obligations as well as securing the most effective victim identification process.

Let me briefly illustrate the many concerns about a non-statutory NRM with the case of Ms O, who was a victim of trafficking, covered and cited in detail on page 61 of the Joint Committee report. Ms O was effectively kept in custody for nearly a year, despite the fact that people knew that she was a victim of trafficking. That is an appalling outcome for a person who was identified as a victim of trafficking, and that is what took place under a non-statutory-based NRM. All those issues are very clearly set out in the NRM review, which effectively makes the case, as I said earlier, for a statutory-based NRM.

I have spent much of the time in this Committee arguing for the Home Office Ministers and officials to get off the back of the anti-slavery commissioner and widen his remit. The NRM is a subject where the Home Secretary and her officials need to get more involved and design a statutory-based system that provides much more consistency and better identification and support for victims, has more credibility and speed of independent decision-making and is more fit to work alongside an Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner. I want the Home Office to get more involved, and I hope that in responding to the NRM review it will have a change of heart and commit to putting the NRM on a statutory basis.

I do not expect every “i” to be dotted and “t” to be crossed on this new system before Royal Assent but, before the Bill leaves this House, I hope that we can agree with the Minister the terms of a new clause that gives the Home Secretary regulation-making powers subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Finally, I have deliberately described in my new clause a “National Referral Mechanism replacement”. I do not regard the name, “national referral mechanism”, as particularly clear or helpful, and I would hope that we could find a better title, embracing words such as “slavery”, “victims” and “safeguarding”. How about the “Slavery Victims Safeguarding Authority”? Something along those lines would give a true indication of what this mechanism is actually all about. I support the amendment.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, my Amendment 96 is in this group. I start by saying that I entirely support the idea of the previous speakers that we should have a statutory national referral mechanism, although perhaps with more felicitous wording, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has just suggested.

My proposal is much more modest. The reason for it is this. At the moment we have a very poor double system. There is the UKHTC in Birmingham, which provides, as we have heard, an 80% yes rate to victims, as opposed to the UKVI, which says that only 20% get through. Clearly, that is unacceptable. We also have two reviews from Jeremy Oppenheim which, in my view, are absolutely excellent. As I understand it, the Government have agreed in principle to the fundamental and radical changes that the second, final review has asked for. However, it seems to me that there needs to be some time for consultation, for arranging to get these panels around the country and for arranging how, in fact, a new, better described NRM should work.

My proposal is that the Secretary of State should have the power to make regulations to establish this statutory committee, leaving it to the Home Office to work it out. However, in order to keep them up to the mark, the Secretary of State must report to Parliament within 12 months of the Bill becoming law, in order to say that they will actually do it. At the end of the day, we undoubtedly need a statutory system. But I believe that we need some leeway to work out how it should be. That is why my amendments, in my view, are very modest.

If I may respectfully say so, it would be very unwise of the Government not to listen to this. We have the two reviews of the NRM and we have what the Joint Committee has said, which has been set out so well by the noble Lord, Lord Warner—of course, I was a member of the committee. I totally support the proposals of our Select Committee and of the two reviews. All I am saying is that the Government should have a bit of time to think it over, but not so much time that the matter goes into what is sometimes called the long grass, because this really has to come. The current situation cannot go on for much longer because it is so patently wrong. That has been set out very clearly in the two reviews of the national referral mechanism.

I hope that, at the least, the Government will accept my amendment. I would have no objection to the Government accepting either of the other amendments that have come forward. However, I have no doubt that, one way or another, within the next 12 to 18 months, we will need to have a statutory mechanism for dealing with victim identification and support.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I added my name to the noble and learned Baroness’s amendment for all the reasons that she has given. Never say never; in fact, let us say, “Let’s get on with it”—but let us get on with it in an appropriate way, which must include consultation. Jeremy Oppenheim’s review made very clear the lack of understanding of processes and the variability in standards across the mechanism. I found myself thinking, “Well, no wonder, because it is such a loose process that it is quite difficult to get to grips with”. When I first heard of it, a few years ago, it took me some time to understand just what this was about, given that it is so lacking in obvious governance arrangements and so in need of something against which one could appeal if one was dissatisfied with an outcome.

The two paragraphs—there may be more—of the NRM review that refer to the possibility of a statutory basis do not actually put it out of the question. Paragraph 8.2.14 says that,

“we believe strongly that to put the National Referral Mechanism on a statutory footing now would not guarantee”,

remedying the flawed system. At paragraph 8.3.1, it says:

“Although there is much support for … a statutory footing or providing a right of appeal, these may not be necessary if we have a well governed National Referral Mechanism”.

The prospect is certainly not dismissed by the reviewer.

16:45

I very much agreed with what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said about the potential conflict of interest, which is addressed in subsection (3) of his amendment. Of course, the review gives figures that support the proposition, quite apart from the conflict of interest. I also agree with him about the possible approach to Clause 48. I prefer this approach.

Like others, I want to see the NRM as a multidisciplinary framework—I very much like that about the review’s approach—and not as a straitjacket. I hesitate to use this analogy, but if it is not a straitjacket—and it should not be—at the moment, frankly, it feels rather more like a loose-fitting cardigan with a little bit of unravelling here and there. I say to my noble friend, if the Government cannot agree the basis now, please do not close the door. Please leave the opportunity to get on with the work. Obviously this door would never be closed completely, but to put enabling provisions into the Bill would enable us to build as fast as possible on the recommendations of the review and move towards a statutory basis, perhaps having done a little more work by way of consultation as the noble and learned Baroness suggested.

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I will contribute briefly to the debate. I hope the Government will take the time to take seriously the NRM review. Jeremy Oppenheim has made some crucial insights, particularly about the 45 days being used as a period for deciding about judicial processes, not a period for nourishment and proper support. Therefore, we need to think very carefully about how we pitch the 45 days or whatever period it is, alongside a commitment to support victims on a longer timescale. He also made an important point about the concept of safeguarding, just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I have spoken about this before in the House. It would be very helpful for everybody if we could connect what we are doing about slavery with the culture of safeguarding awareness. I very much support the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about what we call this mechanism.

Finally, from my experience as someone who works with the agencies and victims themselves, the value of a statutory approach is that it would provide consistency for all victims in the way that they are treated, and a proper, firm framework, which is what we need. Currently, some victims struggle because they are dealt with on the edges. If we are serious about the Bill, we need to have a firm and clear set of expectations and processes.

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

The Minister is aware that I have some continuing concerns since I withdrew my Amendment 29. Having listened to the debate on this amendment today, there is a word in the amendment that causes me great concern in the context of the story I recounted to the House. The word is “referral”. In the case of my story, referral would have come far too late: the children were in the middle of the Atlantic before anybody could have referred them. Those children could not have referred themselves. They were deposited at the quayside. We did not know who they were or where they came from. They were put on to a boat and they sailed away within three hours. As they could not have referred themselves, they were therefore wholly dependent on the authenticity and legality of some certificate to the effect that they were properly selected and briefed to become migrants. They are lost people, as far as I am concerned—a lost generation. There were 1,760 of them; I have been able to check up since.

Where this clause is wrong goes back to the point that I have been asking the Minister about since I withdrew my amendment. How have we got in here an absolutely legal authority for every child who is put into a migration situation? We have done this regularly about every 20 years for the last 250 years and we need to stop it. We need to outlaw ourselves from doing it any more. That was my concern when I recounted my story and I am not satisfied that the Bill in its present form locks that door once and for all so that we cannot prise it open again and do it.

In the circumstances I described, the travel arrangements could be made under the entire authority of the Australian Government and the Australian civil service in London. The children were coming from local councils that wanted to get rid of them and from orphanages that could not cope with the numbers they had. They put them in a truck and dumped them on the quayside at Tilbury. We put them on a boat and they sailed. Where is a referral going to come in to save those children from that fate? We have not made illegal the act of forced transportation. We have been doing it for 250 years and I am not satisfied yet that this Bill blocks it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, we have had a very good debate on this important area and I will respond to each of the amendments in turn. Effectively, they seem to be almost in grades. It was rather helpful to the House that we almost had revision-max from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in his amendment and it progressively got a little bit lighter to the mere enabling which was put forward by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The points were extremely well made and I will try to respond to them as best as I can.

The first point to make is that it is not quite the no-brainer that people have suggested. The national referral mechanism was set up in 2009 under the previous Government. It was not set up on a statutory footing. Therefore, it clearly was not an obvious omission at that point. We took the view that Clause 48 is adequate. I accept the comments that have been made about whether Clause 48, which refers to the issuing of guidance—by which is meant the national referral mechanism—is adequate. None the less, it is a point of discussion as to whether the flexibility of something not being on a statutory footing is balanced by the other side of having something in the Bill. We will come to that.

The second point to make is that much is rightly made of the good work of the Joint Committee which looked at this, took evidence and made recommendations. The very fact that the Home Secretary committed to a review and asked Jeremy Oppenheim to undertake it clearly reflects the fact that we were not satisfied with the way in which the national referral mechanism was working. That is why Jeremy Oppenheim was asked to undertake the review. A wide range of organisations and individuals were consulted. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, were engaged in that process. Some 129 organisations were engaged in the review and their views were fed into the process.

My final point, before turning to the amendments, is that we have a substantial number of recommendations across the six categories as to where the system needs to be significantly improved. The review identifies the weaknesses and deficiencies that many noble Lords have referred to, particularly my noble friend Lady Hamwee.

I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling Amendments 86P, 93 and 96 and for allowing us to follow on from our excellent debate on Monday on the crucial issues of identification and support of victims. I reiterate that the Government share the desire of noble Lords to ensure that as many victims as possible are identified and properly supported. We are already taking decisive action to ensure that that is the case. Amendments 93, 96, and 86P each propose placing a referral mechanism for identifying and supporting victims on a statutory footing, but with slightly different approaches, as I have mentioned. For Amendment 93, this would be a replacement mechanism for the national referral mechanism currently administered by the UK Human Trafficking Centre. Amendment 96 seeks to place an enabling power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make regulations to establish a statutory referral mechanism. Amendment 86P seeks to place the national referral mechanism on a statutory footing, including providing for all confirmed victims of trafficking, enslavement or exploitation to be entitled to a one-year residence permit.

I believe that the most important thing is that these victims are spotted and rescued in the first place. The best referral and support systems in the world will work effectively only if we find victims, who are so often hidden in plain sight up and down this country. That is why the Home Secretary commissioned a review of the national referral mechanism to ensure that victims can be identified quickly and effectively and be given the right support and assistance. As noble Lords will be aware, the review was published on 11 November and made a number of important recommendations. I know that, in taking the review forward, Jeremy Oppenheim consulted more than 100 organisations and the recommendations from the review take into account their views.

The recommendations in particular concluded that putting the NRM onto a statutory footing,

“will not change the UK’s commitment and obligations to abide by the trafficking convention or methodology with which it is implemented. Any process put on a statutory footing can become inflexible and unresponsive to changing demands and indeed improvements, due to the requirement to further legislate before making changes”.

Furthermore, the review noted:

“Pinning the National Referral Mechanism down now would not be an effective methodology particularly when the National Referral Mechanism is going through a period of significant change”.

It is absolutely right that we should fully consider the vital mechanism used to refer and support these vulnerable victims. But I am not convinced that putting it on a statutory footing will achieve our aim of improving the service we offer to victims. We consider the recommendations made by the review to be transformational and believe that they will overhaul the way in which victims are identified and supported and how those organisations responsible for identifying and protecting victims prioritise and co-ordinate their activities.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, talked about the difference between the UK trafficking centre giving 80% of cases a positive conclusive grounds decision while UKVI gives only 20% positive decisions. Those figures are not quite right, but it is true that a lower proportion of total referrals have received positive conclusive grounds decisions from the UKVI than from the UKHTC in the past. There is a good reason for the difference. In positive decision rates, UKVI deals with very different cases where corroborative evidence may be harder to obtain. Quality reviews to date indicate that UKVI has been making the right decisions in these difficult circumstances.

The NRM review recommendations include the recommendation to move to multidisciplinary panels to undertake decisions on all cases. This is one of the recommendations that will be widely welcomed. Fundamentally changing the way in which potential victims are referred for support and the way in which decisions are made will ensure that good-quality, timely decisions are at the heart of what we do. That is because the process will have a high level of independent scrutiny and will involve multidisciplinary panels, as suggested.

Our initial response to the review is set out in the modern slavery strategy, which was published on 29 November. Given the fundamental change in approach that is being recommended, we want to make sure that our approach is sound and enhances the experiences of potential victims who are referred for help and support. We will therefore establish two pilots as quickly as possible to test the core recommendations relating to the identification of victims and to the referral and decision-making processes. We want to make sure that we get these pilots right. Officials are meeting a number of NGO representatives later this week to discuss early proposals.

17:00

Although I fully appreciate the purpose behind the amendments, I remain reluctant to make changes to the national referral mechanism or to set out its roles and functions in the Bill when we have wholeheartedly accepted the recommendations of the review which have been made in consultation with so many stakeholders. I can also reassure noble Lords that we either already provide, or facilitate access to, the types of support that are listed in the amendments. As noble Lords are aware, victims who are helping the police with an investigation already have access to discretionary leave of at least one year and one day. However, the Government also make provision for victims who are not assisting with an investigation. Where a victim requires a period of leave in the UK to recover from their ordeal, the point raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, they will also have access to discretionary leave of at least one year and one day. Indeed, victims who require a longer period of leave—for example, due to ongoing medical treatment—can obtain discretionary leave for up to three years. I am sure noble Lords would agree that we would not wish to lose this flexibility to support victims by placing an arbitrary leave provision in the Bill.

We are aware of the key point made by my noble friend Lord James of Blackheath. He and I are in a detailed exchange of correspondence. Some of his points require quite a bit of research. I give my noble friend an undertaking that we will continue that research and revisit it on Report.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred to a possible change in the name of the national referral mechanism. I can see some merit in that. We fully intend to review the name of the national referral mechanism in the light of the recent review of the referral process. The review recommendations already suggest changing the name of first responders to slavery safeguarding leads, which is rather in line with what the noble Lord said. That perhaps shows that his contribution to the review and engagement in it are feeding into some of the recommendations that we want to see.

All the way through this process we have always said that we are creating something quite new, quite radical and quite significant to protect victims of modern-day slavery. We have always been open to listening to your Lordships and to responding in due course. I have heard the points that noble Lords have made very clearly and with considerable evidence and I have made the case in response. Officials have not dreamt this up in an ivory tower—not that there are ivory towers in 2 Marsham Street of course—but in consultation with organisations representing victims. We are determined to make these changes and to get it right. We will keep this under review, we will keep talking and we will, as the right reverend Prelate invites us to do, reflect on this in the period between Committee and Report to see what evidence there is to go further.

[Lord Warner]

Will the Minister take away a broader issue when thinking further about this? The way in which this country has dealt with difficult social problems has often started with administrative responses because that is the fastest way of dealing with a more immediate problem. That is why, in 2009, the previous Government started with an administrative system. But if one looks at the field of health—for example, human fertilisation or human tissue issues—at some point or another, the Government of the day have to get into some kind of statutory system. There are whole sets of issues about public accountability and the transparency of the decision-making, and there is an expectation that Parliament will intervene.

This is nothing to do with getting at the Home Office; it is the way we do business in this country. Perhaps the Minister might go back to his colleagues and talk about this. They should ask themselves: has this work in the area of modern slavery got to that point? I suspect it has. When you see the kinds of criticism of the present administrative system in the report, I think it has got to—or is very close to—the point where there will be a public expectation that the Government of the day, whoever they are, will put this system on a more statutory basis. It would be a shame if we missed the opportunity in this Bill to get the drafting such that we could move quickly to put it on to a statutory basis should, as I suspect will happen, that need arises.

[Lord Bates]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that suggestion. That is exactly what we will do. I undertake to take it away and reflect on it. If we come back, it will be more along the lines that he is talking about, where we will set out some broad general principles rather than being too prescriptive. The luxury that we have is because when it was set up by the previous Government, it was not set up on a statutory footing—it was not all in the legislation—and therefore we have been able to undertake this quite fast-paced process of review and recommendation, which will enable us to move far more quickly to fixing the system along the lines that we all want to see.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I would just like to pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said. It seems to me that the Government could put forward a very general proposition in relation to the national referral mechanism or statutory safeguarding organisation without tying themselves to how it would work. That seems to be the way forward because you would then have the power to put in whatever was appropriate after you had had the pilot schemes, which I am delighted to hear the Government are proposing to do. The important thing is for the Government not to tie themselves too much but to be able to come back and produce whatever is needed in any subsequent legislation, into which one could slip in an appropriate amendment. There will be no shortage of that, I suspect, with a future Government. If I may respectfully say so, something needs to be there to enable the Home Secretary of the day to go forward without having to look for some primary legislation.

[Lord Bates]

I accept that. I do not want to yield, as it were, to the position of saying that because we are being pressed by distinguished Members, we should give way on this. I have tried to put forward quite a robust argument as to why we have arrived where we have. We have before us a significant review of the national referral mechanism, which seems to address many of the concerns that people have recognised. That review, which everybody was in favour of and many people were involved in, came out against putting it on a statutory footing. We must take that into account but I give the assurance that, in the spirit that we have tried to keep all the way through this Bill, we will look at that very carefully and continue that discussion between now and Report.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his response and the indication that we can at least continue to discuss this issue, which is very helpful. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the review argued for a well governed national referral mechanism, so in the light of all the criticisms that it made—no doubt quite rightly—of the present system, it is a question of whether one feels that can be achieved without it being on a statutory basis. I think a lot of people will feel, in the light of those criticisms, that we need to put it on a statutory basis. As the right reverend Prelate said, it would provide consistency and clarity for victims in how they were treated and give a clear framework. I think there is a lot to be said for doing that.

I acknowledge the point the Minister made: when the national referral mechanism was set up in 2009, it was not done on a statutory basis. Equally, the situation in relation to the incidence and nature of human trafficking and exploitation in this country has changed quite dramatically since 2009. Certainly, there has been a bit of an awakening as to what exactly has been going on. I can only repeat what the review said:

“The National Referral Mechanism has grown somewhat wildly over time. It is now a complex system operating in a challenging and painful area of public life”.

That would seem to reflect a view on its part that perhaps the situation has changed since 2009.

There are three amendments in this group, one of which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke to. That one does not suggest instant action since it refers to the Secretary of State reporting to Parliament within 12 months. I rather sense from some of the comments the Minister made that the biggest drawback to putting this on a statutory basis at the moment appears to be that the Government feel the situation is somewhat fluid with changes to the national referral mechanism, and they therefore feel that this might not be the appropriate time to put it on a statutory footing. I am not entirely clear—and I am not asking the Minister to respond at the moment—whether the Government object in principle to it being on a statutory footing. That is not the way it came over. I felt that the Minister was saying that the situation is fluid in relation to the NRM and this is not the appropriate time to do it. I hope I have not misunderstood him but I welcome his proposal that there should be further discussions about this, which is extremely helpful. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 86P withdrawn.

Amendment 87 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clause 49 agreed.

Clause 50: Duty to notify NCA about suspected victims of slavery or human trafficking

Amendment 88

Moved by

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

88: Clause 50, page 36, line 39, leave out from beginning to “has” and insert “If a public authority to which this section applies”

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bichard) (CB)]

I should point out that if Amendment 88 is agreed, I will be unable to call Amendment 88A by virtue of pre-emption.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 89 to 92 in this group. These relate to the duty to notify potential modern slavery cases set out in Clause 50.

Modern slavery is a largely hidden crime. If we are to improve our operational response, protect more victims and bring more traffickers and slave-drivers to justice, we need to get a better understanding of the scale and nature of the issue. The duty to notify will help us to achieve this. The government amendments flow from the publication on 11 November of the review of the national referral mechanism which set out wide-ranging recommendations on how the support and identification of victims of trafficking and slavery can be improved. On 28 November the Modern Slavery Strategy was published. It commits to piloting these recommendations with a view to implementation. One of the review’s recommendations is that NRM referrals should no longer be made to the National Crime Agency. Instead, a case-working unit should be set up within the Home Office with decisions on cases being made by regional, multi-agency panels.

Given this change, the NCA is no longer likely to be a suitable central point for the collation of information relating to victims of modern slavery—a function that is likely to sit best with the authority managing NRM referrals, which is likely to be in the Home Office. These amendments therefore change the duty so that rather than notifying the National Crime Agency, specified public authorities will notify the Secretary of State. In order to future-proof the provision, the Secretary of State would also be able to make regulations to alter who the notification will be made to. These amendments are essential to ensure that the duty to notify works effectively alongside anticipated changes to the national referral mechanism. I hope that the House will support them. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lady Hamwee, when she speaks to her amendments, and to responding at the end of the debate. Meanwhile, I beg to move.

17:15

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendments 88A and 91A in this group. I take the point about pre-emption, but the reason for my amendments remains, and will remain if the clause is amended only as the Government propose. At the heart of this is my concern that it should not only be a specified public authority with a duty to notify the Secretary of State, or whoever else it might be, if the authority believes that someone is a victim of slavery or human trafficking. The clause provides that there must be notification if the public authority has reason to believe that a person is such a victim. However, should not all public authorities have that duty, rather than just specified public authorities? If the authority has no reason to believe that a person is a victim, the duty to notify is not triggered—but even if an apparently unlikely public authority comes across a victim, should it not give notification?

When I was trying to think of an example, the Highways Agency seemed to be one of those authorities. In engaging a contractor to undertake work on a motorway, the Highways Agency might well be concerned that with some of those operating machinery or doing the heavy work, the contractor has engaged forced labour. We know that the construction industry is a sector which is at risk, if I can put it that way. Surely, then, it should have a duty, just as a local authority visiting premises—for example, for environmental health—would have the same obligation. I am quite concerned that without any good reason—because, as I say, the duty would not be triggered unless there was a reason to believe—the Government are unnecessarily narrowing the provision in the clause.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I am grateful to my noble friend for speaking to her amendments, which gives me the opportunity to explain the Government’s approach on who the duty to notify will apply to. We thought carefully about how to define the duty to notify, and to which authorities it should apply. Modern slavery is a complex and hidden crime and we need to ensure that those who are charged with the duty to notify in the Bill have the appropriate expertise to discharge their responsibilities. If we extend the duty too widely, we risk placing a duty on public authorities that lack the necessary skills to identify victims of this complex crime.

We recognise that identification of victims is an area that needs further development. We have ensured that encouraging good practice in the identification of victims is part of the commissioner’s remit and have included statutory guidance on victim identification in the Bill. We will also work with public bodies to improve training and awareness of the issue. The flexibility of specifying public authorities to whom the duty applies means that when we consider that further public authorities have the expertise effectively to identify victims of modern slavery, they can be added to the duty.

The Government do not want to place a legal and administrative burden on public authorities unnecessarily. For example, requiring authorities which simply will not come into contact with victims to provide training to staff and set up data recording systems would not be an efficient use of public funds.

My noble friend mentioned the Highways Agency. If an authority such as the Highways Agency had concerns over modern slavery, it should call the police or voluntarily notify according to the process set out in the duty of notify, so it will have access to people who have more expertise in that area.

Given this clarification, I hope that my noble friend is satisfied that the Bill strikes the right balance between ensuring that the right bodies are subject to this duty and enabling flexibility for changes in the future. I hope she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I certainly will not press the amendment today, but I wonder which is the chicken and which is the egg here. Of course, there is a concern about skills in identifying possible victims, but because this is an issue, it seems to me that it is all the more important that a duty to do something—maybe not to notify the Secretary of State, but to do something—ought to apply.

This is an unprocessed thought from when my noble friend was speaking. She said, rightly, that anyone who is concerned can go to the police. As we are talking about public authorities—and the Government have a relationship with public authorities—should we be thinking about guidance to all public authorities? As a minimum, it would say, “You may not have the skills, but all public authorities should be aware of this and if you have a concern, go to the police—if you think that there is nothing else you can do, always go to the police”. I think there is some scope—maybe not on the face of the Bill—for a bit more thought to go into the way we are operating our response to these issues.

I think that the Box has had time to process the thought that I did not. What I am saying is that I would be uneasy about leaving it there, because we have all identified that there is a problem that needs getting to grips with.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, may I help the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee? Perhaps the words she is looking for are “reasonable suspicion” rather than 100% identification?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I was taking words from the Bill; “reason to believe” is what triggers the duty.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

Indeed, my Lords. In my reply I mentioned that we are working with public bodies to improve training in awareness of the issue. There will be guidance for public authorities on identifying victims. So my noble friend is quite right to raise this as an issue, but the Government are already working towards that end.

Amendment 88 agreed.

Amendment 88A not moved.

Amendments 89 to 91

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

89: Clause 50, page 36, line 40, at end insert “it must notify—
(a) the Secretary of State, or(b) if regulations made by the Secretary of State require it to notify a public authority other than the Secretary of State, that public authority.”

90: Clause 50, page 37, line 1, leave out “The regulations” and insert “Regulations under subsection (2)”

91: Clause 50, page 37, line 7, leave out “The regulations” and insert “Regulations under subsection (2)”

Amendments 89 to 91 agreed.

Amendment 91A not moved.

Amendment 92

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

92: Clause 50, page 37, line 9, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“( ) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the public authorities to which this section applies.”

Amendment 92 agreed.

Clause 50, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 93 not moved.

Amendment 94

Moved by

[Baroness Cox]

94: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Protection from slavery for overseas domestic workers
All overseas domestic workers in the United Kingdom, including those working for staff of diplomatic missions, shall be entitled to—(a) change their employer (but not work sector) while in the United Kingdom;(b) renew their domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visa, each such renewal being for a period not exceeding twelve months, as long as they remain in employment and are able to support themselves without recourse to public funds;(c) a three month temporary visa permitting them to live in the United Kingdom for the purposes of seeking alternative emplyoment as an overseas domestic worker where there is evidence that the worker has been a victim of modern slavery.”

[Baroness Cox (CB)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 94, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, and my noble friends Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Hylton for their support.

This amendment would provide vital protections for overseas domestic workers. The current lack of protection for these workers, far too many of whom are subjected to appalling conditions of domestic servitude, remains a serious omission from the Bill. Overseas domestic workers are predominantly women. They are currently bonded by Immigration Rules to their employer. In most cases, the employer’s name is written on the worker’s visa. The worker is totally dependent on their employer for their employment, accommodation and immigration status.

Both the Joint Committee on the Draft Modern Slavery Bill and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have expressed significant concern with this current bonded arrangement. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill claims that it,

“unintentionally strengthened the hand of the slave master against the victim of slavery”,

and concluded that,

“Tying migrant domestic workers to their employer institutionalises their abuse; it is slavery and is therefore incongruous with our aim to act decisively to protect the victims of modern slavery”.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights says that it regards,

“the removal of the right of an Overseas Domestic Worker to change employer as a backward step in the protection of migrant domestic workers, particularly as the pre-2012 regime had been cited internationally as good practice. We recommend that the Bill be amended to reverse the relevant changes to the Immigration Rules and to reinstate the pre-2012 protections in the Bill”.

However, the Government have remained strangely steadfast in refusing to make these recommended changes to the Immigration Rules to reinstate the pre-2012 protections for overseas domestic workers. We have therefore tabled this amendment, which would improve at least the minimum bargaining power of any employee—the freedom to resign their job. Without this opportunity, how can they challenge or question anything that their employers choose to do to them? I fail to understand why the current bonded arrangement for overseas domestic workers has remained in place for over two and a half years in spite of the widespread recognition of its disastrous impact.

It is true, as stated by the Minister in Committee in the other place, that abuse of these domestic workers took place prior to April 2012, a time when they had some protection in being able to change employer. However, this surely highlights the problem that workers employed in private households are particularly vulnerable to abuse and therefore need more protections, not fewer. The Home Secretary herself, in her foreword to the Modern Slavery Strategy, describes how:

“Domestic workers are imprisoned and made to work all hours of the day and night for little or no pay”.

This is indeed an apt description of the conditions found by Human Rights Watch in its report Hidden Away, published in March this year, documenting the conditions of domestic workers in the United Kingdom who had entered on the tied overseas domestic worker visa.

The excellent organisation Kalayaan, in its briefing Still Enslaved: The Migrant Domestic Workers who are Trapped by the Immigration Rules, gave statistics of the abuse reported to the organisation by 120 workers who were tied to their employers during the first two years since the introduction of the tied visa. Their accounts of their experiences are shockingly deplorable. The bonding of workers to their employers not only limits options for escape and justice but worsens their treatment during employment. For example, Kalayaan’s figures show that 71% of those tied to their employer reported not being allowed out of the house unaccompanied compared with 43% of those not tied, and 65% of tied workers do not even have their own room, often sleeping on the kitchen floor or in the lounge, with no privacy or time to themselves, compared with 34% of those not tied.

The Centre for Social Justice, in its significant report on trafficking in the UK, It Happens Here, recommended that overseas domestic workers again be permitted to change employer. Andrew Boff, Conservative leader of the GLA, came to the same conclusion in his report, Shadow City. As long ago as 2009, the Home Affairs Select Committee, in its report on trafficking, warned against the proposed bonded arrangement, stating that retaining the visa allowing change of employer and renewal if in employment was,

“the single most important issue in preventing the forced labour and trafficking of such workers”.

17:30

During the passage of the Bill through the other place, Members of all parties spoke in defence of overseas domestic workers. The vote was tied in Public Bill Committee, losing only to the chair. When Conservative MP and former Deputy Chief Whip, John Randall, explained at Report why he would vote for a Labour amendment to protect domestic workers, he said that he had,

“met too many victims to be able to say that it is a matter for another day”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/14; col. 766.]

In your Lordships’ House at Second Reading, 13 Members raised deep concerns about the issue. On 20 November, I sponsored an event in this House at which three overseas domestic workers courageously described the horrendous treatment meted out to them in this country, which ultimately drove them to run away without a passport and despite having nowhere to go. To run away in a strange country without your passport or any money and with nowhere to sleep demonstrates how desperate those women were to escape. One woman spoke of how she never wanted to come to the UK from the Middle East, where she had been working, but her employer had not given her a choice, bringing her here to work for her son. She eventually escaped after the son threatened to kill her. Another spoke of how her male employer required her to massage him naked and subjected her to gross intimidation.

Under the current domestic worker visa scheme, when these women escape, they are breaching Immigration Rules. They should not have to make a choice between becoming criminalised or continuing to suffer abuse, which is what happens at the moment. Lawyers and charities working with those victims also spoke at the event I hosted. Very disturbingly, the message from those professionals, some of whom have supported domestic workers for a decade or more, is that since the rules changed in April 2012, there is little they can actually do to help. Many of those workers, including those identified as trafficked, on being told that they are in breach of Immigration Rules in the UK if they run away, just disappear or return to their employers, as it is better to earn a pittance than to earn nothing. There are usually debt collectors waiting in their home countries, and their families cannot survive without their remittances.

I am grateful to the Government for acknowledging the problem of overseas domestic workers in the UK, and the commitments that they have made to introduce some protections against abuse. However, those measures will not provide adequate protection without basic rights. I would therefore be most grateful if the Minister would explain how the Government envisage ways in which overseas domestic workers on the tied visa can realistically access employment rights when they are either living in the employer’s house or have escaped and are destitute, putting themselves in breach of Immigration Rules and at risk of removal from the United Kingdom.

The Minister has also provided assurances regarding checks on the information provided at the point at which visas are issued overseas. That policy is not new, but correct procedures have not always been followed, as documented in the Human Rights Watch report, Hidden Away. For example, if a worker is in a Middle Eastern country with an exit visa requiring them to obtain the employer’s permission even to leave the country, they may be too vulnerable to disclose abuse. There is clearly a need to improve checks but, again, that must be in addition to workers being able to leave their employment in the UK. The requirement that employers be made fully aware of their responsibilities seems rather inadequate in view of the fact that many such overseas domestic workers are found to have been trafficked for domestic servitude. If an employer prepared to keep a worker in servitude knows that the worker is tied to them in law, they will use that as a threat, warning the worker that if they go to the authorities, they will be removed.

Another government commitment—to improve the law enforcement response—is highly problematic if victims are too frightened to come forward. The tied visa has driven many overseas domestic workers underground. Previously, they applied to renew their visas annually, providing an opportunity to scrutinise their conditions of employment. However, the tied visa has given the abusive employer a ready-made defence in the courts, which is to respond with the accusation that the worker has fabricated accusations of abuse in order to remain in the United Kingdom.

The Government have also explained that they are piloting a scheme whereby overseas domestic worker visa holders will be given information cards with details of public authorities in case they need help. This is a good idea in principle, but it is unclear how a card will help if it is immediately taken away from the worker by the employer, together with their passport. Moreover, many such workers have no means to contact their family. Some employers, especially those with information about the families of workers back home, use the long arm of intimidation to threaten harm to those families.

On 6 November I tabled a Written Question asking whether the Home Office maintains internal management information on confirmed cases of trafficking for domestic servitude of non-European Union nationals broken down by visa type and, if so, what are those figures for the years 2009-13. The Minister’s answer, on 20 November, indicated that there is, apparently, no breakdown by visa type. Therefore, beyond the information made available by Kalayaan and Human Rights Watch reports, there is no comprehensive information on the plight of workers on the tied overseas domestic worker visa. Such information as does exist shows that many overseas domestic workers suffer shocking abuse.

The original overseas domestic worker visa was introduced in 1988, in response to well documented exploitation of such workers, in order to improve basic and important protections. This amendment is a very straightforward attempt to insert a new clause to enable the Government to reinstate those pre-2012 Immigration Rules. In conclusion, I sincerely hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically, especially in view of the findings of Home Office research indicating the sheer scale of underreporting of modern slavery in this country, and given the express acknowledgement by the Home Secretary, in her foreword to the Modern Slavery Strategy, that domestic service is an area of particular concern—a point I made at the outset.

I hope that the Government will find this amendment helpful and worthy of a positive response. I beg to move.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, with her customary clarity, passion and eloquence, my noble friend Lady Cox has set out the arguments for Amendment 94, to which I am a signatory and which other noble Lords support, too. I was very struck in the representations we received about this amendment by what was said by the Trades Union Congress. It supported the recommendations of the Joint Committee and particularly highlighted paragraphs 224, 225 and 227, to which I shall come in a moment.

Before referring to those paragraphs in detail I will simply make the point that a reinstatement of the position that my noble friend has described, the pre-2012 position, is what we should look towards; the one that was originally enacted in 1988, with very good reason. Her amendment also concentrates our mind towards those who are in domestic service attached to diplomats. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Sandwich and others during the course of these proceedings and during other debates about the particular circumstances that such workers often find themselves in.

Returning to the Joint Committee, it is worth the Government looking again at what the Joint Committee had to say. In paragraph 224, it said:

“The difficulties faced by this group of workers appear to have been compounded by changes made to Immigration Rules in 2012 which had the net effect of removing their right to change employer, and thus denying them one means of removal from an abusive situation”.

In paragraph 225, it said:

“Evidence we received challenges the assumption that such mechanisms provide adequate protection … Tying migrant domestic workers to their employer institutionalises their abuse; it is slavery and is therefore incongruous with our aim to act decisively to protect the victims of modern slavery”.

Paragraph 227 states:

“We recommend the Home Office reverse the changes to the Overseas Domestic Worker Visa. This would at the very least allow organisations and agencies to remove a worker from an abusive employment situation immediately. It would also enable the abuse to be reported to the police without fear that the victim would be deported as a result. This in turn would facilitate the prosecution of modern slavery offences”.

I do not think one can do better than to rehearse those arguments from the Joint Committee because it clearly looked at this issue in some detail and everything that is in my noble friend’s amendment would give statutory provision to what it said.

I was also struck by my noble friend’s comment about what happened in another place. David Hanson MP moved an amendment similar to the amendment moved by my noble friend. As she said, it was narrowly defeated in Committee on a Division only after the chair added his vote to the no votes—so opinion in another place is clearly divided. That is another good reason why we should revisit this issue.

Sadly, the Government have so far declined to accept the Joint Committee’s recommendations and have claimed that existing and planned measures will be sufficient to protect migrant domestic workers. They have put significant emphasis on the fact that theoretically all overseas domestic workers have the protection of UK employment law while working in the UK. While in theory that may be so, and in theory they can take a case against an employer to an employment tribunal, in reality and in practice that right is denied to domestic workers on a tied visa. In addition to barriers, such as cuts to legal aid, which we have already referred to, if they want to avoid breaching the Immigration Rules, tied domestic workers must take a case against their employer while remaining in that employer’s home. It is totally unrealistic for these workers to take any kind of legal action against an employer who has potentially trafficked them, exploited them and denied them their most basic rights while still living with their home.

The noble Baroness referred to the charity Kalayaan. It told me that of the 120 domestic workers that it had registered on the tied visa system in the two years since the April 2012 changes, fewer than five had taken an employment case and none had gone to a tribunal. Domestic workers often report to organisations such as Kalayaan that their employers confiscate their mobile phones or refuse them permission to make calls during working hours, which can be excessively long, thereby ensuring that they cannot access services such as ACAS.

I asked for an example to illustrate the situation, and I will briefly mention it. It is a case study of a young woman called Nerita. She was brought to the UK by her employer to work in their private household. She explained that she came from a poor family in south India and her husband, children and elderly parents are dependent on her remittances for their support. This is a very important point. If someone is dependent on the money that you are sending them, that plays into all the emotional arguments and the blackmail that can be used against people in that situation.

An agency found Nerita work with a family who lived in the Middle East. She described having to borrow the agency fee from various relatives. It took over a year to save the money on her meagre salary to repay the loan. She accompanied her employer to this country in 2014. Her conditions of employment changed little when she came to the UK. She worked seven days a week from 7 am until midnight. She was not permitted to leave the employer’s home unaccompanied. Her passport was taken from her when she started working for them and was never returned to her. She slept on a small mattress in the children’s room. Her salary was the equivalent of £150 a month while she was in the Middle East, but she was not paid at all during her time in the UK.

She described being regularly verbally abused by her employer. She was told that she should not speak because she was a servant. The employer also threatened to send Nerita back to India. Nerita speaks very little English and was not aware of the terms and conditions of her visa. Her family’s situation in India is desperate and she was distressed to learn that as she had come to the UK on a tied visa she could work only with the employer who brought to the UK—and then only for a maximum of six months. When she asked for Kalayaan’s support in getting her passport back, it had to explain that involving the police—the point referred to a few moments ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—would almost certainly result in her being detained and her passport being confiscated until she left the UK. Kalayaan has spoken to Nerita about referral to the national referral mechanism, which we discussed earlier on, as a victim of trafficking. However, that would provide only short-term support for this very vulnerable woman. As she came to the UK on the tied overseas domestic worker visa, she will not get the justice she deserves. That is why we should support Amendment 94 in the name of my noble friend.

17:44

[Baroness Hanham (Con)]

My Lords, I greatly regret that I have not previously been able to take part in this Committee, having had conflicting commitments, but I very much hope to be able to rectify that on Report. I wanted to be here today for this amendment. What we have heard illustrates quite clearly what a desperate situation this is. In the debate on the previous amendment the Minister referred to “hidden victims”. If ever victims were hidden, it is in this domestic and overseas area. As other noble Lords have said, people do not know that they are there. They do not get out; they have no way of drawing people’s attention to the fact that they are abused. There is clearly so much wrong here that we cannot just ignore it.

As a member of the Joint Committee I should say that the committee was in absolute agreement on practically every part of our report, but this part affected us very deeply indeed. We very much hope that if the Government cannot accept this amendment they will give way to some extent so that we can go back to the situation as it was. As it is now, organisations such as Kalayaan that are involved in helping these victims are working with one hand tied behind their backs. They cannot do anything although they very much want to. I have not put my name to the amendment but I very much support the theory behind it regarding the problems that exist.

I will read a very short part from one of the briefings that we have received. It is from the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, and although part of it has been referred to, it is worth repeating. It says:

“The government does not deny that overseas domestic workers need protection”.

Indeed, they do not. It continues:

“But it suggests that this can come from the police—

as has already been mentioned—

“ACAS, the pay and work rights helpline and employment tribunals”.

We are talking about people from poor families in India who, as we know, do not always speak English, so how on earth will they access ACAS? It is way out of the bounds of reality. As for employment tribunals, you can hardly get an employment tribunal if you work in this country, never mind if you come in on a tied visa. The briefing goes on to say:

“It places heavy demands upon a person in a situation of exploitation, enslavement and extreme poverty to reach any of these sources of help, let alone where they do not speak English and are isolated and alone; let alone when they are undocumented, fear removal and are reluctant to jeopardise”,

their income.

I shall refer just to the undocumented aspect. Clearly these people cannot get in without documentation and the appropriate visa. However, we have had plenty of evidence showing that the last time that some of these people see their documentation is when they come into the country. Their passports are whisked away from them as they leave the airport and they never know when they will see them again.

On Second Reading I asked if I could see the card, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred, that is given to people who come in as domestic workers. Bear in mind that they may not speak much English and do not always come from articulate families, and that they may not be able to read or write. The card is headed:

“Know your rights when working in the UK”—

a starter for 10. It says:

“Your employer should give you a written contract of your terms and conditions”—

fine. It continues:

“If your employer provides you with accommodation, they are allowed to deduct up to £5.08 per day from your wages. No other deductions can be made by them unless you agree to it in writing first, and even then you should still be paid at least the UK minimum wage”.

It also says:

“You have the right to be safe at work”,

which of course they have. In the next section, “Help and advice”, it says:

“For advice on pay and work rights”,

they should ring a number. Then it states:

“If you are being forced to work or your employer isn’t willing to respect your rights”,

ring another number; and:

“If you are in immediate danger call the emergency services”.

Half these people have had not only their passports but their phones taken away. They have no access to phones. They have no ability to ring any of those numbers.

I do not know the answer to this aspect of the problem. I recognise that this is the Border Force’s way of trying to get some information to people as they come in. I have not made any inquiries about how it is handed out, but if it is just plonked in somebody’s passport—a passport that is then taken away—as they come in, that is of no use whatever. If they do manage to hang on to it, if they need it at some stage, one hopes that somebody will be able to tell them what it means—but that person is not going to be the employer, because that is the person they would be trying to complain against.

I am afraid that I have gone on rather too long about how badly I feel about all this. My question to the Minister is: when these people come in—they come in on specific visas, so they are perfectly identifiable—does the Border Force interview any of them before handing them this leaflet, to try to find out whether they understand what is going on? Otherwise we are doing nothing with the leaflet, other than playing a game by saying, “This is how we are welcoming you, and this is what you should do”, when they do not understand.

I am sure that the Minister will listen carefully to this. The changes made in 2012 have clearly had a very adverse impact. I understand why some of them were made—in immigration legislation, for example—but on the other hand, we are not talking about huge numbers; these are just miserable people.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I fully support the amendment—as the Minister knows, because I told him some time ago. I take the view that the recent change in the visa for domestic servants is shocking, because it puts a relatively small number of people into an utterly impossible situation. They can choose either to continue to be a slave, or to be deported. That is just not acceptable.

However, if the Government are not disposed to do anything effective about the visa, they might be interested in some discussions that I have had with the creative and inventive researcher of Frank Field MP. He has come up with an analogy that the Minister might just find interesting. Women who come over here with a marriage visa and become the victims of domestic violence are entitled to what is called a DDV—destitution and domestic violence—concession. This concession allows them three months’ access to public funds while their cases are being sorted out by the Home Office, with a view to deciding whether they will be given the right to remain here, or whether, after those three months, they will have to go back.

I ask the Minister, at the very least, to say whether there is not a very close analogy between such a domestic servant and a woman coming over here with a marriage visa who then has to leave home because of domestic violence. Goodness me, some of the violence that women in domestic servitude suffer is probably worse than the domestic violence suffered by a woman who has come over with a marriage visa. I suggest that three months is too short a period for a victim of slavery, so I ask the Minister to consider the marriage visa and see whether the same conditions could apply, by analogy, to the visa for domestic servants. I ask for six months instead of three months for these women to sort themselves out, and for their cases to be sorted out by the Home Office. If at the end of six months they had to go back, that would be a rather different situation, because they would have had some time at least, with public benefit, to try to see what their future lives might be. The marriage visa analogy may not be as good as some other means, but I urge the Minister at least to look at it as a possible alternative.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, a powerful case has been made for the amendment, and I simply want to add my support. This is such an important issue, which goes to the heart of what the Bill is about. The Minister, in his letter to Peers after Second Reading, said that he shared noble Lords’ determination to stamp out all forms of modern slavery, including abuse of domestic workers. That is a welcome aspiration, which has been repeated in various forms in various places.

The centrality of this issue to the Bill is underlined by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. On the basis of studies that it has funded, it writes that,

“there is most risk of forced labour where an individual’s work visa is tied to a particular employer. The most commonly cited example is the situation of overseas domestic workers who, since 2012, are again no longer allowed to change employers within the same category and hence become trapped in abusive situations”.

Evidence of the effects of being so trapped is, as we have heard, provided by organisations such as Kalayaan, which works with overseas domestic workers. I pay tribute to its work. Kalayaan argues that all the available evidence suggests that the change in the visa,

“has facilitated their exploitation and abuse, including trafficking”.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has said, Kalayaan details numerous ways in which the abuse experienced by overseas domestic workers who register with them has worsened since the change in the rules.

In their response to the Joint Committee on the draft Bill, the Government suggested that the previous rules “potentially encouraged abuse” because they enabled employers to bring domestic workers to this country for longer periods. Do the Government have evidence of such abuse? Or is this a hypothetical potential, which needs to be set against the actual evidence of abuse that has happened since 2012? In that time, as we have heard, abuse and exploitation has got much worse. It should also be set against the fact that the pre-2012 regime was cited by both the ILO and the UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants as best practice. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has observed, this was one reason why the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, regarded,

“the removal of the right of an Overseas Domestic Worker to change employer as a backward step in the protection of migrant domestic workers.

We recommended that the Bill should be amended to reinstate the pre-2012 position.

Given the clear evidence of how the removal of that protection has facilitated abuse, given the Government’s own commitment to stamp out abuse of overseas domestic workers, and given that I feel both Ministers are reasonable people, I hope that they will feel able to take this amendment away, think again, and bring forward their own amendment before Report.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I conducted an inquiry into trafficking for the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Scotland, and it was extended beyond sexual trafficking to migrant workers and domestic servitude. I went to Scotland imagining that it was unlikely that I would come across cases of domestic servitude, because the experience I had had in this field had usually been in the diplomatic area, when ambassadorial families had brought to this country people who had then fled the domestic setting, claiming serious abuse. But one of the things that came to light was a particular case involving a very wealthy family who had businesses in Scotland but had originally come from the Indian subcontinent. They would regularly bring young girls from back home, where their relatives still lived, to Scotland to work for them and care for their children. We can well understand any family wanting to have someone to care for their children who, for example, speaks the language of the place they come from, can continue certain traditions, and can cook in a style that the family might find more appealing.

The shocking thing was that the young woman had fled from the home of this family and given an account similar to the ones that we have heard—sleeping on the kitchen floor on a mat, not being allowed out of the house, not having access to her passport, and so on. But it was even worse than some of the circumstances that we have heard, in that her family back home were the people who received payment, directly from accounts presumably kept alive back in Bangladesh. The problem was that she did not have access to money; she only discovered that she might have rights because, on one occasion when the family allowed her to accompany the children to the park, she met someone else from back home, who had a discussion with her about her circumstances and her rights. It was through the intercession of the other person that, in fact, police went to her house and the girl’s circumstances were discovered.

18:00

The circumstances extend beyond those that we might have imagined. It came as a surprise to me that, even in Scotland, there were families living very wealthy and comfortable lives, with people living in their households who are available day and night to rise and to care for their children and to prepare food in the wee small hours, when the father came home very late at night from business. This girl’s life was a misery, and she was frequently beaten by the wife of the family. I think that there are some serious circumstances here that we have to address, and I am not convinced by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others that the circumstances that existed prior to 2010 were really much more effective. However, I am attracted to the suggestion from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that we could look at the analogy with the special provisions made for women who come to marry in this country, who are then met with abuse, because of the difficulty in returning immediately to their families. There are analogies there, and some creative thinking by government and others involved in this could find a remedy for those who are so severely abused.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, add support for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. This is a very important issue, affecting a group of extremely vulnerable workers, so it is right and fundamental that it forms part of the Bill. The change to the overseas domestic workers visa back in 2012, tying domestic workers to their employer, was too heavy-handed a response when you look at the number of domestic workers involved and the vulnerability of those workers. In 2010, visas issued to domestic workers accounted for just 6% of all employment-related visas issued. At the time of the change, the Government argued that this visa was a route to settlement that was abused. However, very few overseas domestic workers were granted the right to settle; between 2006 and 2010, an average of just 700 domestic workers a year were given the right to settlement. That figure taken as a percentage of the 2013 settlement figures represents less than 0.5%.

I understand, as the Government will argue, that because of their isolated working conditions this group of workers was vulnerable to, and suffered, abuse before the change in visa rules. But the research by Kalayaan, as others have said, has shown that abuse and exploitation has increased as a result of the new visa rules, figures that the Minister in the other place made clear are not disputed by the Government. This visa change has created the perfect storm, with work carried out in isolated conditions, employers having excessive power afforded to them and a legal system that offers absolutely no protection. It is therefore unsurprising that the abuse has increased.

The Minister will no doubt talk about having stronger pre-entry checks, a stronger written contract with explicit terms and conditions and more information given to overseas workers on their rights but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, the effectiveness of those provisions has yet to be proven in practice. Also, these actions are not mutually exclusive to any other action; it is not a choice between stronger support mechanisms or a change in the visa rules—we should be doing both.

The amendment has a lot of support inside and outside this Chamber. Three parliamentary reviews have supported a change to the visa situation for overseas domestic workers. I hope that the Government can support it too, and include this amendment, or a version of it, in the Modern Slavery Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, it happens here—it happens even in Scotland, as we have heard, that most civilised country.

A number of noble Lords have used words such as “unimaginable” but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I can only too well imagine the card—and I share her concerns about the card itself—being slipped into the passport as it is handed over. Of course, the passport is then very often taken by the employer.

I do not want to repeat the very powerful speeches made by so many noble Lords. I was grateful to hear from a number of people, including, most strongly and emphatically, from the three workers themselves to whom the noble Baroness referred, and at the meeting that she organised with Virginia Mantouvalou, who has written a report. Clearly, it is far too long to read here, but one thing particularly struck me. She gives the history of the overseas domestic worker visa and the diplomatic visa. When the concession was originally introduced, it was from concern to enable workers who had been with a family overseas to come here. The comment was made that it was for “a humanitarian reason”—to look after the domestic workers—and look where we have got to.

At that meeting, Kate Roberts from Kalayaan explained how her organisation could no longer help workers who managed to find their way to it, which must be a tiny percentage, because the organisation has to explain the problem with the Immigration Rules. Indeed, it often cannot help because of threats from employers to workers about criminalisation.

A number of noble Lords have also said that we must remember the realities. Measures such as dealing more effectively at the port of entry are important, but they are not enough. One thing that occurs to me on that is that, at the border on exit, when there is suspicion that a girl is being taken abroad for a forced marriage—the border officials are trained to recognise this—there are arrangements whereby they can be taken aside to be interviewed. The noble Baroness is right to point to that. I do not see why it should not happen in the other direction. We need to think about the realities. What people seem to be able to do to get around formal systems is almost beyond our imagining, and it is the realities that we need to fix on.

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, I happen to have been involved with this situation, which allows serious abuses of incoming domestic workers to happen, since the early 1990s. I have never known such universal support for the need for a reform as we have heard today. I leave it at that.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the name of my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon is attached to this amendment. I certainly do not wish to speak at any length, because the arguments have already been made, but I shall reiterate one or two things. Under the tied visa system, introduced in the changes in 2012 to the Immigration Rules, overseas domestic workers who are being exploited no longer have the option of seeking other employment to get away from an employer who is exploiting them since they are tied to their employer for a non-renewable period of six months. Under the tied visa system, people who are being exploited are normally not willing to go to the relevant authorities because they fear that, if they leave their employer, the outcome will be that they will be deported as an immigration offender. If they are being paid anything at all—evidence suggests that more than 60% may not be—they will lose what may be a source of income being sent to support dependants in their own country.

One would have thought that the Government would have wanted to abolish the current tied visa system for overseas domestic workers, since tying migrant domestic workers to their employer institutionalises their abuse, as has been said already, and precludes acting decisively to protect victims of modern slavery. Of course, as also has already been said, it is unrealistic for such domestic workers to take any kind of legal action against an employer who potentially has trafficked them, exploited them and denied them their most basic rights while still living in the home of their employer.

The impact assessment that accompanied the 2012 changes stated that the ability of these workers—that is, overseas domestic workers—to change employer and access the UK labour market was,

“contrary to general Government policy on low skilled migration”.

However, the impact assessment also acknowledged the,

“vulnerability to abuse and exploitation”,

of these workers. I do not know whether the Government’s resistance to date to going down the road of this amendment is related, in the light of that comment in the 2012 impact assessment, to a view that it would lead to an increase in immigration. Perhaps the noble Baroness could say what, if any, increase in immigration the Government believe there would be if the amendment that we are debating is adopted. Reversing the 2012 changes for the overseas domestic worker visa would, at the very least, allow organisations and agencies to remove a worker from an abusive employment situation immediately. It also would enable the abuse to be reported to the police without fear that the victim would be deported as a result and that, in turn, would facilitate the prosecution of modern slavery offences, which, surely, is the purpose of the Bill we are now discussing. I hope that, in responding, the Minister will take account of what has been said far more eloquently than I can manage by so many of your Lordships in this Committee today.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for introducing this amendment and speaking with such eloquence and acknowledge her expertise and campaigning work in this area. Holding anyone in modern slavery is totally unacceptable; I am sure that, around the Committee, we can all agree on that. Overseas domestic workers, like anyone else, deserve protection from modern slavery and support and help if abuse takes place. Noble Lords around the Committee have raised passionate concerns about some of the appalling situations that people find themselves in.

I shall set out why the main issue is not the nature of the visa that somebody has. Through both the Bill and wider policy changes, we will seek to provide protection to anyone who needs it, regardless of their employment type or any visa they may have. Obviously, we are focusing here on overseas domestic workers and seeking to strengthen their protections further.

The best way to prevent an abusive working relationship from being brought to the UK is to test its genuineness before a visa is issued. A number of noble Lords have raised these issues. Private household employers must prove to immigration officials that they have a pre-existing employment relationship of at least 12 months with their domestic worker, for example by providing pay slips or work records. All individuals applying to come to the UK on an overseas domestic worker visa must also provide evidence with their application that they have agreed in writing the core terms and conditions of their employment in the UK. That helps to establish that the worker is employed under terms that they find acceptable and allows us to ensure that these are appropriate. The evidence is to be provided in the form of a prescribed template—although, of course, I hear from around the Committee the concerns that these documents will not be adequately and legally kept to. The requirement for a written statement of key terms and conditions has been in place only since April 2012 and we believe that it could be improved to reflect international best practice. Officials have been working on a revised template to try to ensure that both employers and employees have an opportunity to see what standards are expected on both sides before workers come here and that they are aware of rights and responsibilities, including, sections on passport retention, sleeping accommodation and all the other things that noble Lords have mentioned, which so often are open to abuse.

18:15

As part of the visa issuing process, as has been mentioned, the Home Office has started a trial, through the Border Force, of handing personally to workers as they come in the form that tells them what their entitlements are. These forms are not just in English, which obviously would be of very little use to many of them. I agree that it is possible that they are snatched away by the employers and put in a passport, but this is the first step of making sure that workers will have in their hands documentation about what they are entitled to if they come to work in this country.

There are further protections in place for workers who are trafficked into the UK or exploited in the UK. If they are suspected to be victims of trafficking they can be reported to the national referral mechanism. There are mechanisms such as victim care contracts and, of course, they are entitled to legal aid if they are victims of trafficking. They will be granted a minimum of 45 days for reflection and recovery, which I think we discussed in our previous debates.

Let me be clear: if a domestic worker who is a victim of trafficking leaves their employment and seeks assistance, we do not consider that to be an abuse of their visa, nor will they be criminalised for doing so. All victims should feel confident that they can report any abuse they suffer to the authorities and that they will be believed, treated as a victim and supported. I was moved by the tale from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, about the worker who just happened to meet somebody in a park and found out about this. How we get these messages to the victims themselves is a very difficult issue and I acknowledge the concerns around the Committee.

I am aware also of the suggestions that the level of abuse of overseas domestic workers has risen sharply as a consequence of the changes made to the visa rules in April 2012. Much report has been made of the reports by Kalayaan, the NGO that supports domestic workers, and the figures that it has produced—albeit from a very low sample. Home Office internal management information suggests that between May 2009 and July 2014 there were 213 confirmed cases of trafficking for domestic servitude involving non-EU nationals. Of these, only 41 were linked to overseas domestic worker visas—so we are talking about an average of 8 per year. If we look more closely at the figures, before we made the changes to the visa rules and added new protections, there were 16 confirmed domestic servitude cases linked to these visas. So, far from a rise in servitude linked to overseas domestic worker visas, the numbers fell after 2011 and have been stable since.

Of course, even one case of abuse is too many and should be tackled robustly by law enforcement. However, before we consider the specific needs of overseas domestic workers, it is important to see these statistics in some sort of context. The figures quoted by Kalayaan are based, as has been quoted, on 120 overseas domestic workers issued with visas after April 2012, who approached Kalayaan for help over a two-year period. During that period, we issued more than 32,000 visas, so the 120 workers who approached Kalayaan represent 0.4% of the total number of overseas domestic worker visas issued and only 0.2% of the total who were paid £50 or less. I go back to the point that even one case of abuse is too many, but it is important that we put these in the context of the number of overseas domestic workers for whom the systems appear to work.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Does she not accept that the figures that she has just given to the Committee are very dubious? How can evidence of this kind by collated? By definition, many of these will be people who are frightened out of their minds about going to any of the authorities. The Kalayaan figures demonstrate that: the discrepancy between the number of people who approached it and then those whom it was able to take on was a very tiny percentage. Is this not just the tip of an iceberg? By ignoring it we are not going to help the situation at all.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I entirely accept what the noble Lord says; it may well be the tip of an iceberg. However, I am setting out that the Government are trying to tackle this problem, in a way that previous Governments have, by the dual action of contacting the employers and the workers to ensure that both are aware, before they come to work in this country, of their rights and responsibilities.

I entirely accept the difficulty of identifying the people who are abused, but I assure noble Lords that anyone who is abused, once that comes to light, will be treated with the sort of help and support that one would expect from a country with our rich tradition of giving refuge to people who have problems. While working over here, they of course have the protection of UK employment law. Anyone who believes that they are being mistreated can take action to report it. As I say, the measures we are taking extend the ones that previous Government have taken. The numbers that are coming forward appear to be stabilising because we are taking measures to try to ensure that the employers and the workers have a full view of their rights when they come here.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Of course, everything that can be done ought to be done to show the employer and the person they are employing what their rights and responsibilities are. I am sure that she would be the first to admit that that is a relationship of power to powerlessness. When it comes from that kind of relationship, particularly if there is a prospect of a family being left behind—say, in India—who will get a regular monthly pittance, what would a signature on a piece of paper really be worth?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I think we are all agreed that that is a difficult problem and we are trying to find ways to tackle it. The power of the employer and the fact that people support family links back home make it extraordinarily difficult for people to complain about their employment.

I turn to the tabled new clause and its proposal that, if they sought new work, overseas domestic workers would be allowed to extend their visas and be granted a three-month temporary visa where there is evidence that they had been a victim of trafficking or slavery. This particular visa is designed for the sole purpose of enabling workers who are part of a household overseas to accompany their employers to the UK while the employer is working here. Allowing them to change employer is not compatible with the purpose of this particular visa. It would create an anomaly in the system if non-skilled, non-European Economic Area domestic workers could come to the UK with an employer and then change employer and stay here in a way that is denied to other non-skilled, non-EEA workers.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me about the sort of numbers that we might expect. Between 2009 and 2013, on average 5,600 overseas domestic workers in private households extended their visas annually. We know that wages and working conditions in the UK are often more attractive than in the countries from which they may have come, so we would expect a similarly large number of workers to seek to remain here. The amendment would potentially allow overseas domestic workers to extend their visas indefinitely in 12-month increments, permitting all those who stayed in the UK for 10 years to become eligible to apply for settlement. It is arguable that this temporary, non-economic route should not have preference over those who choose to follow the official routes into employment in this country.

The ability to change employer does not necessarily protect against exploitation. Indeed, the long-term nature of employment and an ability to extend visas can, in some cases, facilitate abuse. It therefore would not necessarily provide protection against trafficking and other exploitation.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

Could the Minister explain how it would make abuse more, rather than less, likely if they have the power to make that choice? I did not quite follow the argument.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

If they had power to extend their visas indefinitely then the employer could keep them in the country indefinitely.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I thought the argument was that they had the power to change their employer. How does that make them more likely to be abused, if the reason they want to change their employer is because the employer who brought them into the country is abusing them in the kind of way that we heard from my noble friend Lady Kennedy?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

It would enable them to extend their visas. It is the extension of the visa that would mean that they could be here longer and therefore possibly open to abuse for longer.

One other thing worth saying is that, of those who sought to extend visas before, there was a whole range of reasons as to why they wanted to do so. The fact that they were victims of trafficking or abuse was not necessarily the only or the main reason why people chose to change employers and to extend their visas. Of course, we recognise that there are huge risks to people who come here. In the Bill we seek to provide methods of having a more secure life for the people who come into our country and who are here because of the employment they have with a particular employer.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, forgive me, but I am boiling over sitting on the end of the Bench here. I am sorry that I did not speak to this amendment; it was for my noble friend to do so and he did so very well. Throughout the debate on the Bill, all noble Lords around the Chamber have been at one with the Government in trying to make it a better Bill and in trying to ensure that the lives of people who are suffering in servitude, slavery and bonded labour are made better. We know that that is what the Government want to do. We are talking about a very few people who are in a desperate situation. It is not due to the noble Baroness the Leader, and I do not often blame civil servants, but I cannot believe the guff that the Minister has had to read out. We are talking about people who are unable to make telephone calls or act on all the information that is given to them. These people are in desperation. We need to help them. Frankly, what the noble Baroness is saying is just not good enough.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

If I may say so, I am not aware that the noble Baroness’s Government produced answers to this either. It is not a straightforward issue. We have been trying to take measures that will further create supportive situations for people who find themselves trafficked. As I have said, if they do find themselves trafficked they will be taken up, be given support and be given legal aid. I absolutely accept the difficulty of people in these situations to get access outside of their house and to escape an abusive employer. However, the measures we are putting in place are part of an effort to try to identify where things have gone wrong and where there are people living in abusive situations in our country.

I will touch on those in diplomatic houses. Very often the servants of diplomats come under a different area of protection from other workers. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office treats very seriously any mistreatment of domestic workers in diplomatic households. Of course, that requires immense sensitivity in dealing with people whose customs and norms are different. However, it now has set in place very strong systems so that diplomats can be withdrawn from this country if it is discovered that they do not conform to the standards of employment that we expect from them and from everybody in this country. I entirely share the anger of the Committee about people who come to this country and are exploited and victimised while here. We are seeking different ways; we are open to suggestions from all sides of the Committee as to what other measures we might—

18:30

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I am grateful to the Minister. If she is open to suggestions, I wonder what she is prepared to say about the analogy with the marriage visa. Would she at least take it away and look at it with a possibility of allowing up to six months of public benefit while they sort themselves and the Home Office sorts them?

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

I apologise to the noble and learned Baroness. I think she is referring to the domestic violence concession, which is a three-month visa to allow people to come to the UK with an expectation that they will settle here and during those three months they must make an application to settle. That is specifically for those coming here to join family with the expectation of staying. Victims who are helping the police with an investigation already have access to discretionary leave of at least one year and one day, so they have an extended time over here to make their case, if they are already in contact with the police. I think from the suggestions that the noble and learned Baroness was making, they would probably already have had to make clear that they were victims of abuse. That would have become public and they would have found a way of making that known to the authorities.

We are obviously going to come back to this clause to try to set out ways of dealing with this issue. If noble Lords around the Committee who feel as anguished about this as obviously people do have clear suggestions as to how the Government could do more to help the situation so that we do not have anybody in the country who is a victim of abuse and slavery while in domestic employment, then we are more than ready to listen to them. We have already set and strengthened the systems of trying to make contact with the worker at the point of entry. After that, it may be very difficult to make contact with them, but when they are coming in at the point of entry they will have to present a passport and that is a moment when the authorities can make contact with them. We are also seeking to make sure that all employers who come to work in this country are fully aware of the compliance which they should make for the people whom they employ.

For the reasons that I have set out, we think that this clause would not necessarily strengthen the safeguards for the very people whom we are trying to protect. We all have the same aims in mind—to attempt to strengthen the protections for these people. I hope that, with the assurance that we will be addressing this again and discussing it further before Report, the noble Baroness will feel minded to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Cox]

My Lords, I warmly thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment and have suggested creative alternative variations on the theme, as my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss has done. I find it a little hard to fulfil the characteristic courtesy of thanking the Minister. I am sorry, but I think that I rather felt sympathy for the reply that she was obliged to give. It seems to me that at the moment the Government totally underestimate the seriousness of the situation. They put forward remedial suggestions such as templates or providing information on arrival in the country. The nonsensical nature of the effectiveness of those remedies came out very clearly in the debate itself.

It has been shown again and again that these very vulnerable workers may well not have ways of understanding information that is made available, or it may be removed along with their passports. Frankly, those are not reassuring alternatives. The Government’s position totally underestimates the incredible vulnerability of these workers. They are trapped in these situations. There is also the whole aspect of the intimidation and abuse that they suffer and the intimidation and threats to their families back home—that is a very real long arm of intimidation which prevents many of them seeking help in the first place.

Figures were quoted, but figures really are a distraction. Kalayaan’s research may say 120, but one is one too many. Every case that has been reported is a situation of challenge to us in this country to do something effective about these immensely vulnerable people. The distance—the chasm—between the kind of de jure position adopted by the Government and the de facto reality of these immensely vulnerable people is a chasm that really has not been breached by the Minister’s suggestions.

I emphasise that all of us who have spoken share the conviction that the plight of overseas domestic workers in this country today is a very real and well documented form of slavery. It would be intensely ironic—ironic in the extreme—if we failed to use the Modern Slavery Bill to eradicate this form of slavery on our own doorsteps. I am sorry to say that I do not feel that we have received a very satisfactory reassurance from the Minister. I am sure that we will have to return extremely robustly to this issue on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 94 withdrawn.

Amendments 95 and 96 not moved.

Amendment 97

Moved by

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

97: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Gangmasters Licensing Authority
The Secretary of State may make regulations to amend the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 to enlarge the functions, powers and duties of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority set out in section 1 of the 2004 Act.”

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, this is another modest amendment to allow the Government to look at the Gangmasters Licensing Authority at an appropriate time to see whether the functions, powers and duties of the licensing authority should be extended to cover other areas, which are extremely obvious, where it is well known that there is quite a lot of slavery and trafficking.

Two particular areas that I have in mind are the construction industry and the hospitality industry. One area of the hospitality industry is the laundry. Almost every hotel uses outsourcing of its laundry. There are serious concerns as to what goes on in some of the laundries. There is no doubt at all that there are serious concerns about what goes on in the construction business, particularly with people working on sites.

A very obvious example of that was the Connors case in Bedfordshire, where a Gypsy family, the Connors, picked up out-of-work, homeless people from soup kitchens and homeless centres and took them, on the promise of £80 a day, to work on construction sites. These people were kept in appalling accommodation in caravans, first working on construction sites in England, and then a whole lot of them were taken across to Sweden where they were working in the northern part of the country. It was not until a young Swedish boy, who had also been caught like this, walked 500 miles to Stockholm and went to the police, who rushed to the area where these people were locked up—not being paid a single penny, in appalling conditions—that they were identified as slaves and victims, and they did not even know it. However, one of them gave evidence to the informal inquiry led by Frank Field MP, of which Sir John Randall MP and I were members at the request of the Home Secretary. This particular victim gave very clear evidence of what goes on in the construction industry.

I understand entirely the scarcity of resources, so I am not asking the Government to extend the powers of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. Indeed, Paul Broadbent would be horrified unless he had proper resources to manage what would have to be a larger enterprise if these two areas were taken into account. What I do not want is there to be inability on the part of the Government, when they have the money to extend the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, to find the proper legislative process to be able to do that. To put the matter in current usage, rather than faffing around looking for the right sort of place, if you have the power to do it, you do not have to do it until you can, but the power would be there so that you could do it in subsidiary legislation later. I hope that the Government will listen seriously to what I suggest. I beg to move.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley]

My Lords, I have Amendment 97A in this group, but I also support Amendment 97 in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and Amendment 101A in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser. Many people welcome the great job done by the GLA. In the sectors for which it is responsible, it has been extremely effective at raising standards and driving out poor performance. Ten years ago, given the context in which the GLA was established, limiting the sectors it covered made sense. But 10 years later the limit on the GLA remit now makes little sense.

Amendment 97A was recommended by the joint scrutiny committee, of which I was a member, to allow the remit of the GLA to be extended. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, many high-risk sectors fall outside the remit of the GLA, such as construction and hospitality—and I would add care and cleaning to that list. These sectors are high risk because they commonly use subcontractors, agencies and migrant labour. The work is seasonal and low paid, and workers often work on site and in isolated conditions. Therefore, these sectors need to be afforded greater attention and the workers need the extra protection given to them by the licensing regime of the GLA.

As I have said, the GLA is widely recognised as being effective and is often cited as an example of best practice. Many people have called for its remit to be extended to such high-risk sectors, which is why the Joint Committee looked at it in some detail and agreed. It would be a mistake not to consider it now or, as the noble and learned Baroness said, in the future, which is why I support Amendments 97 and 101A that allow for that. These amendments also would allow the GLA to be given greater powers. I agree. The GLA would have the power, for example, to enforce payment of unpaid wages and the ability to fine businesses which have deliberately evaded licensing.

The sentencing and penalties faced by unlicensed and exploitative gangmasters also need addressing. Some very ruthless people are getting away with comparatively small fines. In 2013, an unlicensed gangmaster was convicted of exploiting more than 60 Filipino workers on dairy farms in the UK. Despite having made more than £700,000 through exploiting his workers and housing them in appalling conditions, he was given a 12-month suspended sentence and was asked to pay £45,000 in compensation over three years. We must review the sentencing guidelines for GLA offences. We cannot have a situation where cruel gangmasters see fines, in the words of the GLA,

“as a hazard of the job”.

I hope that we can amend this Bill to address these significant issues, as when there is inadequate preventive action, abuse occurs.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 101A in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, and I support the other amendments in the group. Like others, we are seeking an enabling power by regulations to allow the Secretary of State to expand the remit of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority into other sectors when he or she wishes to do so. In Committee in the other place, the Minister, Karen Bradley, said:

“The case has not been made for extending the GLA’s remit at this stage beyond the core areas the Act sought to address”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/14; col. 480.]

I contest that point of view because, like other Members across the Committee, we have a deal of evidence to prove that there is a strong case for extending the GLA’s remit. But we are not forcing the Government to do that now; we are saying, as and when appropriate, please let us do it.

The introduction of legislation on gangmasters in 2004 has worked very well in protecting workers in the agriculture, horticulture and shellfish collection sectors. Widespread research from trade unions, charities and academics suggests that hundreds of thousands of migrant workers are routinely underpaid and overworked in dirty and dangerous jobs across the UK on farms, in care homes, providing cleaning services on the London Underground, in hotels and offices, and on construction sites, as others have said. Often employed by labour providers or gangmasters, many of these workers presumably have little idea of UK employment rights such as the national minimum wage, let alone the leverage to be able to claim them.

18:45

The draft Bill committee considered this in detail and recommended:

“The weight of evidence we received suggested that expanding the GLA’s powers and industrial remit would yield positive results”.

The TUC has described the GLA as,

“an example of an effective body that UK industry helped establish to manage and mitigate risks of slavery in the food and agriculture sector”.

In its report, Hard Work, Hidden Lives, it points out:

“Tighter regulation is needed of the sectors and businesses where risks are greatest. The GLA has demonstrated that it can effectively enforce standards in its sector and their approach could be applied to other sectors where vulnerable workers are exploited … The Government should be prepared to extend the GLA licensing regime—a proposal which responsible agencies back—to cover sectors characterised by vulnerable employment. The aim would be to ensure that an employer seriously exploiting workers and undercutting reputable companies would lose their licence to trade”.

Anti-Slavery International applauds the GLA for its model of good practice, which is widely recognised across Europe. Focus on Labour Exploitation, FLEX, points out that from the four Ps that the Government are using to tackle modern slavery—pursue, prevent, protect and prepare, with which we fully agree—prevention is addressed in the Bill only with regard to the new slavery and trafficking prevention and risk orders. It recommends that,

“effective prevention requires strong government led measures to enforce labour standards alongside business-led reporting requirements”.

Oxfam has researched this issue and has produced a report entitled Turning the Tide. It points to the other sectors that have been mentioned where action needs to be taken. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said:

“Many have called for extending the authority and the resources of the GLA to cover all industries where there is known risk of exploitation and forced labour associated with labour providers. The evidence from the JRF’s programme points to the same recommendation”.

On 13 October, the Salvation Army, which has managed adult human trafficking victim care and co-ordination since being awarded the contract in July 2011, produced a report saying that, of the more than 1,800 victims of human trafficking in England and Wales since 2011, 42% of cases last year involved forced labour, against 38% that were sexual exploitation cases and 10% that involved domestic servitude. This means that, for the first time, forced labour cases grew at a faster rate than those of sexual exploitation. That is a very telling statistic.

Of the forced labour cases in which the charity had been involved, almost 80% involved men. Sometimes, when we consider this issue, we tend to think of it as a very female problem but it now applies to men as well as women. I had hoped that the new modern slavery strategy would provide us with some reassurance as to the future of the GLA and its ability to work in other areas. However, on reading the strategy, there appears to be nothing to indicate that the Government intend to look at expanding the remit of the GLA. I hope that today’s debate will encourage them to do so. The strategy focuses its attention on the new better business compliance partnerships, which are being established as part of this Government’s programme of work to tackle illegal working practices and the exploitation of workers. Of course, new better business compliance partnerships are all well and good, but they do not tackle the problem that we seek to resolve here by expanding the remit.

I do not really understand why the Government to date have not wished to move on this. As the noble and learned Baroness and my noble friend have said, we are not saying that the Government must do this now. This is an enabling power, so that in due course, when the money is there and when all the evidence that the Government believe is necessary is there—we think that the evidence is there now—they will be able to act so that these people who are suffering in bonded labour will have a way to get justice. These amendments contain only enabling powers. They would allow a future Secretary of State to diversify and to add the work of the GLA to other sectors if and when appropriate—no more, no less.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, I support these amendments. I see them as a corollary of our concerns about supply chains. Increasingly in my work, I am looking at issues concerning the corporate world and human rights. Many leading figures in the corporate world are anxious to address these issues because of the implications for their brand and damage to their reputation internationally if they are seen to be participating in activities which breach human rights.

Outsourcing is similarly an area where there are risks of high levels of abuse. There needs to be a real awareness that, as with supply chains, in outsourcing aspects of a business there is often a risk that those who are providing labour are going to be exploiting and abusive of those they are bringing in. As I mentioned, I chaired an inquiry in Scotland for the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The whole of the central belt of Scotland is a provider of soft fruits and brings in migrant labour from abroad. It was the Gangmasters Licensing Authority that helped to eradicate some of the abusive practices that were happening there. The workers were living in the most terrible circumstances and there were issues around not just what they were being paid but how they were being treated. It falls to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to raise standards as well as to bring prosecutions. The inspectors within the GLA are often former police officers. I was very impressed with their commitment and with their evidence to the inquiry. As we have heard, this is moving beyond food and agriculture and into construction. It is also moving into care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, mentioned. In this area, the ill treatment of workers is great, as it is in the outsourced elements of hospitality, such as cleaning and laundry.

I urge the Government to look at this. I accept, as do others, that there are financial constraints and that there would need to be resourcing. I support the idea of enabling legislation so that when the time is right we will not have to take up more parliamentary time and the expansion of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority’s remit can be speedily introduced.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I will intervene very briefly because I agree with almost everything that has been said. I was the Minister who brought in the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. At that time there was considerable scepticism as to whether we could use administrative means to clean up what was broadly recognised as an exploitative situation within horticulture and agriculture. I wished then that it had been slightly broader than that because, even more than 10 years ago, it was evident that some of these terrible practices extended to some other industries. Indeed, the same workers were being used. However, we decided to focus on horticulture and agriculture. The general message is that, although we have not entirely eliminated exploitation, bad living conditions and illegality from those sectors, they are a lot cleaner than they were. The effectiveness of the GLA is widely recognised.

The important point that has not really been emphasised is that the GLA has the ability to sanction the users of the labour. It is not just the gangmasters who are in the frame but the farmers and the horticulturalists as well, and that has driven a change of behaviour and attitude which has been backed up by those who use the produce—the retailers and the processors. There is a whole supply effect because the direct employer of labour that is being provided under these terrible conditions can be sanctioned.

This situation pre-eminently applies in parts of construction and it very evidently applies in catering and hospitality and in the care sector. If pressure is not put on the apparently respectable users of that labour then the sanctions, although not entirely ineffective, are less than complete. I recognise, as other noble Lords have done, the need for more information and more resources but we must use this legislation to enable the Government to extend this kind of approach to these other sectors at the appropriate point.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 97 tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. It is clear that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority is widely respected and its role in preventing the increase in forced labour is very effective. The sectors that we are concerned about have all been mentioned and so I do not need to repeat points that have been powerfully made. It is not just a question of extending the sectors covered by the GLA. We should also not overlook its powers and duties. For instance, I understand that the GLA does not have the power to recover arrears of pay on behalf of workers. That sort of power or function might be one for further consideration.

The issue of resources arises. My noble friend Lady Suttie, who cannot be here at the moment, commented to me that there should be some sort of cost-benefit analysis of the extension of the sectors because of possible savings elsewhere. We know how hard this is in government. The DWP, the Department of Health and even the Home Office perhaps would not readily concede this, although they might be involved in some sort of analysis.

I am sorry to see that the CBI is reluctant to consider an extension. Its briefing refers to the GLA being,

“most effective in those sectors in which it currently operates”,

and to focusing on not extending work to “low-risk areas”. As noble Lords have said, construction, care, catering and hospitality are high-risk areas. The CBI is concerned about scrutiny of the compliant rather than action against the non-compliant. The obvious answer is that when there is compliance there need not be too much of a burden.

The British Retail Consortium takes a different view and has briefed a number of noble Lords about the GLA being an example of an effective body in helping to manage and mitigate the risks of slavery. It supports a review of the role and remit of the GLA, including extending its investigative powers, as long as it is sufficiently resourced, into other, as it puts it, high-risk areas. It is obvious that there is, if not unanimity, quite a lot of support. This surely must be something that the Government could at least leave on the agenda rather than exclude it.

18:59

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, I support noble Lords who have spoken in favour of these amendments, moved and spoken to so ably by my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.

At Second Reading, and indeed in the debate on my Amendment 32 about the proceeds of crime and creating a victims’ fund that could be used to resource the authorities that are involved in trying to police trafficking, I referred to the tragedy that occurred in Morecambe Bay, which led to the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in helping to create this authority. Noble Lords will remember that 23 Chinese men and women drowned in Morecambe Bay, having been taken there by gangmasters in order to go cockle-picking. A local fisherman, Harold Benson, said at the time that what happened was,

“not only awful beyond words—it was absolutely avoidable”.

However, the lessons of Morecambe Bay have not been fully learnt. As we consider this legislation, which provides us with the only vehicle to tackle these kinds of issues—it is timely, it is good legislation and it is an opportunity—the question for the House is: is there more that needs to be done? At Second Reading, I referred to academic work that has been done at the University of Durham, which identified not only the need to extend the mandate of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority but the need for more resources. In 2011, 30 miles away from Morecambe Bay, in the River Ribble—not far from where I live—17 cockle-pickers of eastern European origin had to be rescued when they were in precisely the same situation as those in Morecambe Bay. We have not overcome the problem. We have set up an authority to deal with it but we have not adequately resourced that authority or put sufficient powers into its hands.

Indeed, when I looked at the figures, I was struck by the fact that only 37 people are employed by the authority and they have to cover the whole of Great Britain. Between 2011 and 2014 its budget was cut by some 17% and in 2013—I asked for the numbers of convictions—only seven people had been convicted. That does not fill me with great confidence that it is able to do the job that it was asked by Parliament to do. The authority is a wonderful creation. It has been given reasonable powers but they need to be extended. It certainly needs more resources.

This enabling provision, which my noble and learned friend referred to as being a modest amendment, would provide Ministers with the necessary belt and braces in the future to do more as and when the authority feels it wishes to. Not to put such a provision in the Bill will lead, as my noble and learned friend said, to the messiness of having to come back to Parliament. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, told us, it would require parliamentary time. That seems to be the wrong way to go about this. We have the opportunity here to put something into the legislation that would give the Government the ability to act, and it is an opportunity we should seize.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Baroness for tabling this amendment, and to other noble Lords who have spoken with such concern about the issues around the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, particularly its remit.

This Government are committed to ensuring fairness in the workplace, tackling worker exploitation and encouraging and raising levels of compliance with workplace rights across all sectors. We are already doing this through the use of existing enforcement arrangements. We very much welcome the many comments that have been made in support of the GLA and its vital work. It has been operating for less than 10 years but it is a successful organisation doing excellent work in tackling harmful activity affecting workers who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation in the sectors that it currently covers.

We need to consider this carefully and ensure that in seeking to broaden the GLA’s remit, we do not risk undermining the good work that is being done already. As the noble and learned Baroness pointed out, it is a comparatively small body, with only 66 staff. It performs a targeted role in an effective way and has a positive influence in the broader fight against exploitation. We very much want that to continue.

Following the Red Tape Challenge exercise and the triennial review, the GLA is implementing changes that will lift unnecessary burdens on compliant businesses while enabling a stronger focus on enforcement action. It is important that both these aspects are developed and move forward together.

Amendment 97 provides for a very broad power, enabling expansion of the GLA’s scope, remit and powers. Changes in the scope or remit of the GLA may very well be sensible; that is something that we will wish to consider further and which the Government have said that they wish to keep under review. However, we are not convinced that Amendment 97 meets that need or is the appropriate way to deal with the issue at the moment.

The amendment is open-ended. The enabling power could be used to set up the GLA to tackle all forms of slavery, trafficking and exploitation far beyond employment. That is a very big step away from the GLA’s current remit, where it has been so effective. It would require a dramatically different organisational and funding model to achieve a much broader role, which would likely require further primary legislation, as has been alluded to. Amendments 97A and 101A focus specifically on the remit, enabling the current licensing regime to be extended to additional industrial sectors beyond agriculture and food. Noble Lords have mentioned a number of sectors where this would be particularly relevant.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who introduced the Bill in 2004 that established the GLA as a body to carry out a licensing regime and to take enforcement action against unlicensed activities. We need to progress on both these fronts. It would be interesting to discuss with the noble Lord why he did not seek to extend the remit from the two sectors that were mentioned in the original Act.

We have concerns about extending the regime to new sectors without clear evidence that that represents the most effective and efficient approach. Licensing affects the compliant business and the rogue gangmaster alike. The majority of gangmaster businesses are highly compliant small and medium-sized enterprises that are generating employment and economic growth for the UK. We would not want to burden them unnecessarily with regulation.

Simply extending the current licensing regime into new sectors would not necessarily improve efforts to tackle exploitative employers who flout the law. We need to focus on seeking and bringing to justice serious criminals who enslave innocent victims. So we wish to see a GLA with a strong focus on anti-slavery and worker exploitation that will support the Government’s broader strategy on modern slavery. We are working for that through an approach that builds on the GLA’s already excellent work.

I will set out some of the work that is already happening to develop the GLA. Bringing it into the Home Office has already increased collaboration and capability through easier contact with other law enforcement agencies engaged in addressing and disrupting serious criminal activity, including human trafficking for worker exploitation in the UK. The GLA is playing a full part in the better business compliance partnerships—a programme that will begin operation shortly. These pilots will look at more efficient ways of bringing together a wide range of compliance and enforcement officers locally. We expect the GLA to bring knowledge and experience to the problems identified in these areas to tackle worker exploitation and illegal working.

The GLA is working with the University of Derby to devise training and to develop an anti-slavery training academy for use by supply chain businesses. This will build on the GLA’s excellent existing collaboration with business in its regulated sectors. The GLA is well placed to tackle the serious worker exploitation that lies between the more technical compliance offences that fall to be investigated by HMRC and the serious and organised crimes that are addressed by the National Crime Agency.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee raised the concerns of the CBI, which we share, about the appropriateness of this measure and the expansion not just into other sectors but of the remit of the GLA. We have a very good working agency in the GLA and it is tempting to extend it beyond its natural remit too quickly and without due consideration of all the factors that would be required to make entirely sure that any extension was appropriate and as efficient as the GLA.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, mentioned the inadequacy of the fines and the sentencing. Sentencing is a matter for the courts and there have been some low fines issued against convicted unlicensed gangmasters, but she may be reassured to know that the first custodial sentence for an offence under the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act was imposed in December 2013 when a Lithuanian national was given seven years for operating without a licence. He ran an organised crime operation in Norfolk and controlled scores of workers brought over from his homeland, using tactics including debt bondage, psychological and physical intimidation, and violence. We have heard from other noble Lords of some appalling examples of the way in which workers can be treated by gangmasters. Fines have been increased for magistrates’ courts and Crown Courts, depending on the seriousness of the offence, so hopefully the levity of the fines is currently being tackled.

I can assure the House that there is a great deal of work going on within government to improve the work of the GLA and to consider its future. We will, of course, ensure that today’s contributions are considered during that work and we will further consider whether it might be expanded in sector or in remit. For the moment we do not feel that this particular legislation and these particular amendments are the best way of moving forward, but obviously we will discuss this again and I hope that meanwhile noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am very pleased to hear of the work that is going on. I do not know whether I missed it but is any work being undertaken to obtain the evidence of the need for an extension of the remit and an extension into other sectors? Many of us have been told about this but more evidence is needed. Is work being undertaken by the Government to satisfy themselves in response to the sorts of concerns that have been expressed? I accept that the Minister may not have that information now but I think that it is a question which it is appropriate to ask at this point.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

It is indeed. I do not have that evidence directly to hand but it is probably something that the University of Derby will be considering in its work in investigating and reviewing this.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, pursuant to that point, would the Minister also look at the evidence that I referred to earlier from the University of Durham, which looked at the mandate, the remit and the resources available to the gangmasters? In the case I referred to in 2013 they found that the gangmaster had given no safety equipment, issued no guidance and had no knowledge of the sea or the tides, and yet 17 eastern European workers were exposed to what was potentially a fatal situation in the Ribble estuary. Surely that demonstrates that something is amiss here and that we need to do more. Perhaps between now and Report we could look further at the empirical evidence that is available.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, that is an excellent idea. We will do that and come back at Report.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He ought to be proud of his baby, which is very successful. It is doing extremely well and is very well regarded. It has been running for something like 10 years, so when the Minister talks about not acting too quickly, I wonder what period of time we need if 10 years is not seen to be very long.

I am actually asking for something very modest. I understand perfectly well that the wording that I have put forward may not be at all what the Government want. All I am really asking them to do is to lay down a marker for future Governments to have the power to do this. To have a power does not require the Government to take action. There is all too much legislation with all too many enabling clauses which we all know never come to fruition, so it is no skin off the nose of the Government to put something down that enables another Government, by regulation, to put forward extensions to the powers and the remit and the various things that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has suggested at some future appropriate stage. It might be in five years’ time or even 10 but it will be there and something can be done without the Government having to find a vehicle in primary legislation to achieve it.

19:15

We know that there are other areas that need something done. Whether it should be done under the umbrella of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority or whether, as the Minister says, that might dilute it too far, I do not know, but what is wanted is a vehicle on which to hang the ability to do something effective without having to find time in primary legislation to do it. I have suggested two areas: hospitality and construction. The food industry was also suggested, which is one that we should be equally concerned about. Why should they be excluded, other than by some sort of research, from the opportunity to be helped in the way that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority is able to do, by providing penalties and having a charge over these organisations? It seems to me very sad that the Government should shut the door on that.

Let me just reiterate that I am not asking Government to do anything. All I am asking them to do is to produce their own variation, which all parliamentary draftsmen prefer to the wording that comes from anyone else. I am just asking the Government to think about it and give themselves or any other Government the opportunity to do a bit of extra good on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority’s work at some future stage, which may be in three, five or 10 years’ time—but why not just have it there? That is why I have put forward this enabling clause, which I am quite prepared to accept is too broad. I knew it would not be accepted but it is the idea of it that I am putting forward. It is with the hope that the Government will take it away and at least look at it and not shut the door that I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 97 withdrawn.

Amendment 97A not moved.

Clause 51: Transparency in supply chains etc

Amendment 97AA

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

97AA: Clause 51, page 37, line 27, at end insert—
“( ) A slavery and human trafficking statement by a commercial organisation must contain specific information in relation to the steps they have taken in the following areas—
(a) accountability for tackling modern slavery and forced labour, including policy commitments, resourcing and actions to exercise due diligence,(b) investigation, monitoring and auditing of modern slavery and forced labour risks in the UK and throughout their global supply chains,(c) support and access to remedy for victims of forced labour and modern slavery, and(d) training of staff and suppliers, and access to expertise and advice.”

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the movement the Government have made on this issue during the last stages of the Bill’s progress through the other place is welcome. We cannot accept products made using slave labour being sold here if we are determined to tackle modern slavery in this country. Over four out of five members of the public in this country want legislation on this issue, as do the overwhelming majority of companies themselves. The public will want to be satisfied that progress is being made to eliminate modern slavery in businesses and in supply chains, since awareness has arisen in the light of some high-profile cases that slavery or forced labour can be and is associated with the production of goods for major UK companies.

The public will want to be satisfied that the provisions of this Bill will lead to the end of products made using slave labour being sold on our streets. Although most commercial organisations are tackling this issue, it can be hard to see and measure tangible progress. There needs to be a way for consumers in particular to be able to judge the relative performance in this area of companies whose products or services they may wish to purchase. To achieve this, there is a need to introduce mandatory reporting requirements to ensure that companies adopt similar processes and approaches in reporting, which is what this amendment seeks to do. This will also help create the level playing field that responsible companies want to see and is the reason why so many companies are seeking effective legislation on this matter.

The Bill refers to a commercial organisation being required to prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement, which is defined as,

“a statement of the steps the organisation has taken during the financial year to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place … in any of its supply chains, and … in any part of its own business, or … a statement that the organisation has taken no such steps”.

The relevant clause, Clause 51, goes on to say that the Secretary of State,

“may issue guidance about the duties imposed on commercial organisations by this section”,

and that the guidance,

“may … include guidance about the kind of information which may be included in a slavery and human trafficking statement”.

Indeed, the Home Secretary’s title appears all over Clause 51.

While that clause goes on to say that,

“The duties imposed on commercial organisations by this section are enforceable by the Secretary of State bringing civil proceedings”,

it appears that the duty in the Bill in respect of preparing a slavery and human trafficking statement extends no further than producing a statement of the steps that the organisation has, or has not, taken. There is no duty imposed on what kind of information should be provided to substantiate or provide some specifics on the steps taken, since that requirement will be in the form of guidance which “may” be issued by the Secretary of State and which “may” be included in a slavery and human trafficking statement.

Thus, guidance, in effect, may not be issued at all. If it is—and the guidance may be specific or generalised—it is optional whether the kind of information that it suggests should be included in a slavery and human trafficking statement is actually included. Frankly, that is all pretty vague and woolly. It certainly does not ensure that companies provide sufficient information to be able to judge whether they are effectively addressing the issue of modern slavery in their own organisations and in supply chains and taking effective steps to ensure that, if modern slavery or exploitation exists, it is being eliminated.

If the Government believe that the prospects of civil proceedings will be rather more potent than I have suggested, perhaps the Minister could spell out the situations in which they could be initiated under the terms of the Bill, beyond a commercial organisation failing to produce a statement of the steps that it has, or has not, taken during the financial year to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place. Are the Government saying that, under the terms of Clause 51(9), civil proceedings can be brought on other grounds and, if so, in respect of which other duties imposed on commercial organisations by the clause?

Our amendment seeks to set out the specific information that must be provided in a slavery and human trafficking statement by a commercial organisation in relation to the steps that they have taken to ensure that modern slavery is not taking place. The requirement is information that must be provided, so if it is not provided that could be the subject of the civil proceedings. If the information is provided but suggests that very little is being done, that fact will be exposed in a way that would not happen under Clause 51 as it stands.

Our amendment would also better enable meaningful comparisons of the performance of different commercial organisations, in addressing and eradicating modern slavery in their own organisations and supply chains, to be made by consumers and other interested parties, including shareholders, relevant voluntary organisations and the media, in a way that Clause 51 does not provide. It would also better enable interested parties to examine whether what is said in slavery and human trafficking statements in fact represents an accurate assessment of the situation, or whether they are statements whose relationship to the facts is not immediately obvious.

The ability for interested parties to compare the performance in this field of different companies, and the knowledge that the content of statements which have to address specific points could be checked for their fairness and accuracy, will act as an incentive for commercial organisations to address properly the issue of modern slavery in their businesses and supply chains, because of the reputational damage likely to be caused if it is shown that their performance on this issue is poor, or that the slavery and human trafficking statements they produce—which, under our amendment, would have to contain the specific information laid down—are not as accurate as they might have been. That situation, and the pressure that it will place on commercial organisations to act, will not be there under the requirements of Clause 51. I simply ask the Government: how do they believe that the wording in Clause 51 provides a means of checking effectively on what some commercial organisations are doing in comparison with others, and of being able to check on the accuracy of the content of a slavery and human trafficking statement?

While Clause 51 is most welcome as movement on this issue by the Government, with its vagueness, its repeated use of “may” and its guidance rather than requirements, the clause is based too much on the “It’ll be alright on the night” approach. That is, frankly, not adequate on a matter as serious as this, involving the exploitation of and contempt for other human beings. This is something impacting on our own doorsteps, since it involves the goods and services that we buy. We need to get Clause 51 right first time. We need to place prominent emphasis on the position of those who are being exploited and to ensure that the terms and requirements in the Bill are strong enough to address and eliminate, over not too long a time, the evil that is modern slavery where it exists in businesses and in their supply chains. I beg to move.

[Baroness Goudie (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Rosser on this amendment. I feel extremely strongly about this as, throughout this evening, we have heard about not having enough money but we have to remember that we are talking about people. They are not robots or goods; they are human beings. It is really important to remember that when we talked earlier about the cost of implementing this, we are talking about saving people’s lives and ensuring that they have a life as good as we have, or even better.

The way I see this operating is that accountability in companies should be handled by their procurement department. Every large and small company has a procurement department or somebody who goes to the middle companies that they order from. We should not say that the middle people should be responsible. The companies should be able to tell us and, if necessary, go and inspect where and how the goods are made, and how the people are paid. They spend enough time on decorating, branding and PR, but instead of spending so much time and money on those things, they should spend it in their new procurement department. Some of them have these procurement departments; I see them as being as important as health and safety has become, thanks to the way that Governments have pushed that forward.

It is so that the companies can say, when the audit is done every year and in their annual report, that they have visited the factories and the building sites. It may be something that the construction industry here is responsible for in Bahrain, Beijing or Qatar. This should apply not just to companies but to government departments, when we are assisting as museums or parts of new universities are built abroad. What we are trying to say is that every company and organisation involved in labour or goods, abroad or here, should be audited and that the procurement department should be responsible. “May” is not strong enough; we have to say that this is to be done annually in the audit and that it can be inspected and questioned.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, at the end of Second Reading the Minister, referring to one noble Lord—but I think it might have applied to many of us—commented that he spent a minute welcoming the Bill and then several minutes asking for more. Clearly, this clause falls into that category.

I have tabled Amendments 97B to 97E, which come from a meeting that a number of us had with the Minister, after which we were looking for a peg on which he could hang the very helpful assurances given in that meeting. I appreciate that this is a developing area of work for the Government. As has been said, Clause 51 has not been in the Bill for very long. It is also clear that many colleagues feel that it needs to be strengthened. My amendments would provide a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the form of the statement and how it is to be reported—something that particularly concerned those who have spoken and features in briefings that we have had. They would also allow the Secretary of State to issue regulations about the duties imposed on commercial organisations, not just guidance.

19:30

I realise that the last of my amendments is not, in fact, necessary; it is covered by Amendment 97D. Amendment 97C which seeks to change “the Secretary of State” to “a Secretary of State” might seem a little odd—I know that “the Secretary of State” would be the right way to refer to any Secretary of State; you pick which is the appropriate Secretary of State depending on what you are looking at. It brings into the debate, however, not just the responsibility of the Home Office but the responsibilities and interests of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, BIS and DfID. I could probably go on, but those are the most obvious departments. As I said, in a meeting that obviously is not part of the public record of the Bill, the Minister was able to be very reassuring and give some interesting observations of his own on what goes on in supply chains. I will not steal his thunder by letting on what that experience and piece of work was, but he was very helpful and I hope that he can repeat some of that in public.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on putting Clause 51 down. It is a very important clause and a huge relief to see it here after the Select Committee of which I was a member made considerable noise about it in its report. So it is very good. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, says, having said something is good, we always want a bit more. I follow on from what she is saying.

The amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in particular, are those that I would support. There are two points that I am particularly concerned about. Who monitors the statements and to whom will the statements be given? What is being suggested—which might be a good idea—is providing a copy of the slavery and human trafficking statement to anyone who makes a written request for one. However, that requires someone to do it. It may be that in some relatively unknown company—which may not have a very good track record but may not have been exposed—no one would ask. I appreciate that there would be regulations, but my suggestion, as the Minister will remember, was that the commissioner should receive copies of the statement, and that the commissioner should monitor. He seems the most obvious person to do it.

The second point that worries me is the duties imposed. Clause 51(9) says:

“The duties imposed on commercial organisations by this section are enforceable by the Secretary of State bringing civil proceedings in the High Court”.

So far, so good, but what is the purpose of an injunction? Just bring civil proceedings. It should be much broader. Generally, injunctions are to tell people not to do something. There are mandatory injunctions, but they are rather limited in their use. I just do not understand why the only duty imposed on a commercial organisation by the Secretary of State would be an injunction. That ought to be looked at with rather more care, because why on earth can you not impose penalties or seek damages?

There are all these various regulators, both in the United States and the United Kingdom, which regulate banks and organisations and impose enormous fines. Why on earth can the Secretary of State not do that if there is an obvious example of a company that is not only not producing statements, but is not checking whether, right down the line of its supply chain, there is a company supplying it with the goods that it is selling which is acting as a slave owner? A penalty seems the most obvious thing.

I really do think that subsection (9) is utterly inadequate and something in particular that should be looked at. The commissioner should have some powers at least to look at these statements, but the Secretary of State should have much stronger powers to deal with defaulters. I ask the Government to look at this again.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate—and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for moving his amendment—and for the wide welcome that has been given to the clause. I will bask in that statement of welcome just for a couple of seconds, because it probably will not endure for very long. As is the case not only in Part Six but in all parts of the Bill, I totally understand the impatience of the Committee and of civil society on this issue. There is a wrong that is happening out there and we all want to tackle it. We want to go after the perpetrators and stop the abuse as much as possible.

I will deal with some of the issues that have been raised in some general opening remarks and, if the Committee will bear with me, I will put some remarks relating to the Government’s position on the record. I am also conscious that we are now coming to three groups that look at the supply chain from slightly different angles. Therefore, some of the issues and comments will overlap.

I certainly subscribe to the view of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I refer to my own experience in supply chains because I did my MBA dissertation in China, in Qingdao, where I was commissioned to research Nike footwear factories and analyse how they were performing against Nike’s standard and code—the apparel industry code, as I recall. We found some amazing stories, which made me very alert to the issues.

There is one issue that is worth putting on the record at this point. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the statistic that four-fifths of the public want us to go further and want more information on this. Although the factories were located in China, they were operated by Korean companies. Part of the reason those factories were being driven so hard was that the consumers were not prepared to pay the market price for the footwear. They wanted more and more features and more and more design intricacies, but they did not want to pay any more for them. Therefore, the price had to come down. The intricacies of the design meant that the level of injuries that workers received in these factories was substantially higher. So part of the debate here is about how to engage the consumers in this. Part of it is about providing information, but the other part is to say that they cannot be exempt from the process. Yes, it is something for government and for business, but it is also something for consumers.

That very helpful meeting was triggered by the timely debate initiated at the end of October by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, which came out with perfect timing because the debate was on or around the day when the new clause was published in another place. Then we had the follow-up meeting and a helpful discussion about what could be done, and some very good ideas were generated there. A lot of those ideas are now working their way through the policy machine to be tested for feasibility, perhaps to come back at a later stage of the Bill.

A number of the points that were raised then are effectively about whether we should be prescriptive in the Bill or try to engage with the industry and business to make them aware of the risks that they face of reputational damage, in an age where often the biggest item on a balance sheet is not a physical asset but good will towards the brand, which disappears very quickly when you find yourself on the front page of a newspaper or in a TV documentary, having not checked your supply chain sufficiently. That is also a reason why investors, such as major pension funds and public sector pension funds, should be looking at the companies that they invest in and asking the question: are their supply chains robust and checked? We should look at that area.

Meanwhile, we are engaging in a consultation. I know that there are many consultations; it is a good job that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, is not here or I think he would be intervening at this point. The reality is that it is a tough time out there for businesses and we want them to succeed and develop, so we want to try to take them with us as far as we can without being too prescriptive. We have been talking to a list of organisations and stakeholders, and it might be useful for the record to say that we are talking to the Ethical Trading Initiative—I know that that is something that the noble Lord, Lord Young, is involved in, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, who has done a lot of work in this area—the British Retail Consortium, the Engineering Employers’ Confederation, the Association of Labour Providers, the CBI, high street retailers including Next, Primark and Marks & Spencer and supermarkets including Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda and the Co-op. We have also been engaging with other NGOs, including Unseen and the Environmental Justice Foundation, as well as working with Deloitte and PricewaterhouseCoopers. I think that it is useful to place on the record that meaningful consultation is going on here to see how we can get the changes that we all want to see.

That consultation will formally start next month and follow the usual guidelines that we now have for consultations. It will last for three months; therefore, we will probably not see its results until the Bill has—we hope—received Royal Assent. That is why it is phrased in the present format about regulations coming forward with regard to how that will be applied.

I turn to the specific questions. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether Clause 51 allows enforcement by way of injunction. So far in the Bill, I have learnt this much: when talking about matters legal, I had better take my own injunction and consult my colleagues at the Home Office in detail before responding on the record. I will respond in writing on that point.

The duties are a duty to prepare an annual slavery and human trafficking statement, and to publish it prominently on the organisation’s website homepage or, if it does not have a website, to provide a copy on request. It was that latter point that the noble Baroness referred to. Who is meant to see that? The many NGOs, which are doing terrific work in this area and being vigilant in monitoring organisations, trade unions and other organisations should all be paying attention to what that statement says and holding companies to account for it. Civil society and the media will also be able to look at it, and if it is not there then that raises another set of questions. The idea is to provide the information to the public domain in the first place and then allow people to scrutinise it further.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked what role the Government were going to play in this. There are two constructive roles that the Government can have. The first is through the interdepartmental ministerial group on modern slavery. I mentioned this yesterday and listed the departments; the noble Baroness mentioned the Foreign Office in her remarks, but it goes much wider than that. It includes the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education. I will not go through the whole list.

19:45

[Lord Hylton]

While the Minister is on the point about the interdepartmental group, will it recognise—I hope that it will—that British consumers have shown that they are willing to pay a higher price for an ethical product as a result of the fair trade campaign and fair trade labelling? Secondly, if I were a purchaser, which I am not, I would steer very clear of bricks made in Pakistan or matches made in India, knowing that many of them are produced by either bonded labour or child labour.

[Lord Bates]

Those are very good points well made. My home town, Gateshead, is the proud home to Traidcraft, which does tremendous work in this area doing ethically sourced coffees and foods, which are often a particular problem, but I do not want to get into advertising around Christmastime otherwise I will get into a whole other set of problems. Ultimately the consumer has great power here, although perhaps they do not realise it. In the same way that they have the power to drive down prices and standards around the world, they also have the opportunity to drive them up through their purchasing patterns.

The interdepartmental ministerial group is one part of this but I want to talk about another important part: what the Government can do. The Government can do more by putting their own house in order. The Government are a huge procurer—I do not know whether that is the right term—and a major purchaser of goods and services. It is important that we do everything that we can to prevent modern slavery from infiltrating our public sector supply chains. Taxpayers’ money should not be allowed to drive demand for these heinous crimes. That is why we are already taking concerted action on this issue. Individual departments have already taken clear steps. For example, the NHS standard terms and conditions for suppliers have clear conditions on labour standards in the NHS supply chain, and it has developed a labour standards assurance system that encompasses issues on forced labour.

The interdepartmental ministerial group on modern slavery will help to encourage best practice across the Government and the devolved Administrations. Home Office standard terms and conditions already require compliance with the law, which will of course soon include ensuring that suppliers have complied with our transparency and supply chain measure. We are also strengthening the labour standards section within our annual corporate social responsibility assessment in order to seek specific assurances from the Home Office’s largest suppliers that they have policies in place to address the risk of modern slavery. In addition, we are currently seeking ways to go further and require specific assurances from suppliers about steps that they are taking to stamp out modern slavery, which is an approach that we hope to then roll out across central Government. As a result, we are already proactively going beyond the measures in the Bill to address this issue. This is a bit like what we are asking people to do: to make a public statement and then be held to account for it. I wanted to put that on the record and expect to be held to account for it, being careful not to tempt fate too much. It is right that that is where we start.

With that rather longer than expected introduction, aware that we have two further groups to come in this area of consideration and having put those points on the record, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would accept that as a response on the Government’s position on his amendment and consider withdrawing it at this stage.

[Lord Rosser]

Before I do that, did the Minister early in his reply refer to coming back at a later stage or not?

[Lord Bates]

Coming back at a later stage to spell this out in greater detail?

[Lord Rosser]

Yes.

[Lord Bates]

I do not think I actually said that. I think I related it to the consultation. The Government’s position is: let us have a consultation, let us try to bring industry with us. The consultation will start in January, it will finish at the end of March and it will then be evaluated, so we will probably be beyond Royal Assent before that is available. That was in my statement. I may have alluded to the fact—this may have given rise to the confusion—that we will be coming back to this issue in subsequent groups in Committee today, but the consultation will extend beyond Royal Assent.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for clarifying that point and for his reply. I suppose one’s observation would naturally be that if the Government had put this in the Bill in the first place or had agreed somewhat earlier to Clause 51, the consultations could have been completed before the Bill had gone through all its stages in Parliament, and we might have been able to have a rather more meaningful debate. That is what happens when a Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to put something in a Bill as it went through its last stages in the House of Commons.

I am still not clear what the Minister is saying about what action can be taken if a commercial organisation produces the slavery and human trafficking statement but it is a bit thin or vague in its content. The Minister said that the measures under Clause 51(9), civil proceedings, would relate to whether the organisation had actually prepared the statement—which has nothing to do with the content—and published it on its website. It did not address the issue which I raised as to what would happen if the statement was a bit vague in its content. After all, the purpose of my amendment was to stipulate the areas that had to be addressed in the statement. The Minister has not really responded to that point.

Surely, enough information needs to be required in the statement to enable a consumer, a voluntary organisation or the media to form a view on how well or otherwise a company is doing compared to other companies in ensuring that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in any of its supply chains or any part of its own business. Frankly, the Minister has not said anything to provide me with any comfort that the Government intend to include anything in the Bill that will ensure that the necessary information is provided to enable those meaningful comparisons to be made. In moving the amendment, I referred to the issue of guidance. The Secretary of State “may issue guidance”—it is not “must issue guidance”—which,

“may in particular include guidance about the kind of information which may be included in a slavery and human trafficking statement”.

We still have the problem: what action can actually be taken if the statement is produced and published but is a bit vague in its content and does not really enable the consumer, the voluntary organisation or the media to make a proper and effective assessment of the action that has been taken by that company, compared with other companies, to ensure that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place?

[Lord Bates]

I did not mean not to give the courtesy of addressing the specific amendment. We believe that it would be for civil society and the wider community to examine and assess whether a company’s statement on its supply chain is sufficient, rather than it being for the Government to do that. While trying to be courteous and respond precisely to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked a specific question about whether the anti-slavery commission might collect data on that. As worded within the anti-slavery commissioner’s remit, he can undertake research, consult, produce documents and engage in education and information. Of course, he is independent. I should have thought that a key part of that might be to consider transparency of supply chains.

[Lord Rosser]

I can only comment that it is very difficult for civil society to make a judgment if there is not enough information in the statements in the first place. There is no requirement, in my opinion—and there is nothing in what the Minister said to cause me to change my view—in Clause 51 to ensure that the necessary information is provided.

Still, I note what the Minister said in reply. I am obviously disappointed with it, as Clause 51 still does not go far enough and will not enable those judgments to be made by society, whether it be consumers, voluntary organisations, the media or others. That is a matter of regret. However, I note that that is the Government’s position and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 97AA withdrawn.

Amendments 97B to 97E not moved.

Clause 51 agreed.

Amendment 98

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

98: After Clause 51, insert the following new Clause—
“Slavery and human trafficking statements
(1) For each financial year, a commercial organisation within subsection (2) must prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement.
(2) A commercial organisation is within this subsection if it—
(a) supplies goods or services, and(b) has a total turnover in respect of that financial year of not less than £60 million or such lesser amount as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) an organisation’s total turnover is to be determined—
(a) by reference to the activities of that organisation worldwide;(b) by aggregating the worldwide turnover of that organisation with any other organisation which forms part of the same group undertaking; and(c) otherwise in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.(4) A slavery and human trafficking statement for a financial year is—
(a) a statement of the steps the organisation has taken during the financial year to identify and address slavery and human trafficking—and which complies with the minimum requirements set out in subsection (5); or(i) in any of its supply chains, and(ii) in any part of its own business,and which complies with the minimum requirements set out in subsection (5); or(b) a statement that the organisation has taken no such steps with an explanation of why the organisation considers such conduct to be appropriate.(5) A slavery and human trafficking statement shall give details of—
(a) actions taken to assess the risk of the presence of slavery and human trafficking in the organisation’s operations and throughout its supply chains;(b) who has been involved in the assessment of such risks and the extent to which such persons are independent of the organisation;(c) what risks have been identified, and what action has been taken to mitigate any risks which have been identified;(d) whether any slavery or human trafficking has been identified and, if so, what steps have been taken to address it, including action to support victims;(e) the extent to which information for assessment and monitoring has been gathered directly at suppliers’ sites and whether such information has been verified by independent persons; and(f) any such other matters that may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section.(6) The organisation must publish the slavery and human trafficking statement in each of the following ways—
(a) if the organisation has a website, it must—(i) publish the slavery and human trafficking statement on that website, and(ii) include a link to the slavery and human trafficking statement in a prominent place on that website’s homepage;(b) upload the slavery and human trafficking statement report to the website maintained for that purpose by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills under subsection (8);(c) an organisation which is obliged to prepare a director’s report in accordance with section 415 of the Companies Act 2006 shall include in that report— (i) the name of any director who has taken responsibility for slavery and human trafficking issues within the organisation (or a statement that no director has taken responsibility),(ii) a fair summary of the slave and human trafficking statement, and(iii) the web address where a copy of the report may be found, or if the company does not have a website a statement that a copy of the report will be provided on written request.(7) If the organisation does not have a website, it must provide a copy of the slavery and human trafficking statement to anyone who makes a written request for one and must do so before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the request is received.
(8) The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills shall maintain a website—
(a) on which it shall publish slavery and human trafficking statements which are uploaded to the website or delivered to it under subsection (6)(b);(b) in a form in which the published data is freely searchable by the public.(9) The Secretary of State—
(a) may issue guidance about the duties imposed on commercial organisations by this section; and(b) must publish any such guidance.(10) Evidence under subsection (9) may in particular set out the kind of information in addition or supplemental to that set out in subsection (5) which may be included in a slavery and human trafficking statement.
(11) The duties imposed on commercial organisations by this section are enforceable by any of the Secretary of State, the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Financial Reporting Council; or such other person as may be specified by way of regulation, any of whom may bring civil proceedings in the High Court for an injunction or, in Scotland, for specific performance of a statutory duty under section 45 of the Court of Session Act 1988.
(12) Where a commercial organisation is in breach of any duty under this section the commercial organisation and every director, partner, or other person occupying an equivalent position shall have committed an offence.
(13) It is a defence for any person charged with an offence under subsection (12) to prove that he took all reasonable steps to ensure compliance with this section.
(14) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (12) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment to a fine.
(15) This section shall be reviewed by the Secretary of State 3 years after the section comes into force and following this review the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a report assessing the effectiveness of the section and recommending whether any amendments should be made.
(16) For the purposes of this section—
“commercial organisation” means—
(a) a body corporate (wherever incorporated) which carries on a business, or part of a business, in any part of the United Kingdom, or(b) a partnership (wherever formed) which carries on a business, or part of a business, in any part of the United Kingdom,and for this purpose “business” includes a trade or profession;“group undertaking” shall have the meaning set out in section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006;
“partnership” means—
(a) a partnership within the Partnership Act 1890,(b) a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907, or (c) a firm, or an entity of a similar character, formed under the law of a country outside the United Kingdom;“slavery and human trafficking” means—
(a) conduct which constitutes an offence under any of the following—(a) section 1, 2 or 4 of this Act, (b) section 57, 58, 58A or 59 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (trafficking for sexual exploitation), (c) section 22 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 (traffic in prostitution etc), (d) section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 (trafficking for exploitation), (e) section 71 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour), (f) section 47 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour), or(b) conduct which would constitute an offence in a part of the United Kingdom under any of those provisions if the conduct took place in that part of the United Kingdom;“supply chain” means those raw materials, purchases, processes, products, labour, services and transportation by means of which the company’s goods and services whether or not for sale to customers are acquired, manufactured, assembled or otherwise produced from their original source up to and including their sale or provision to the company’s customers;
but a company’s supply chain shall not include those products and services that are acquired, rented, leased or otherwise used by a company for a purpose which is incidental or ancillary to the matters referred to in the definition of supply chain above.”

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said, this is the second of three amendments that consider supply chains. It is an issue that I flagged up at Second Reading. The amendment emerged from a meeting which I chaired in this building with many of the charities and non-governmental organisations involved in this question. I particularly thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of Cradley and Lady Mobarik, and my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth, who are all signatories to the amendment. I also thank those Members of your Lordships’ House, some of whom are here this evening, who signed a letter to the Times last Saturday supporting the arguments outlined in the amendment—about 20 Members from all sides. On the same day, the Daily Telegraph published a letter signed by 19 of the leading charities and non-governmental organisations, also supporting the proposal.

Inevitably, we want in the amendment to take the opportunity, while legislation is before your Lordships’ House, to tackle the problem, not to leave it, as the Minister said, to a consultation and review process, which can seem like the long grass. The Government have every reason to be very proud of the Bill. I welcome the fact that they introduced Clause 51—Part 6—at a late stage in another place, but clearly it was not subject to all the pre-legislative scrutiny that everything else in the Bill received. There was some, but not much, and it was not considered in Committee in another place. Therefore, we have a particular duty, while these issues are before your Lordships’ House, to spend some time on them. There are 16 subsections in the amendment, so I hope that the patience of your Lordships’ House, even at this late stage in our deliberations on the Bill, will not be too exhausted as I try to describe why so many Members and organisations outside the House feel that they are necessary. All the signatories of both letters I have mentioned welcome the inclusion of a new requirement for business to report on slavery and forced labour in their supply chains, but the provision must be strengthened if it is to drive real change in company supply chains.

20:00

Part 6, and this amendment, should be read in the context of the International Labour Organization’s estimate that around 21 million men, women and children around the world are in a form of slavery, estimated to generate a profit of $150 billion every single year. Part 6 rightly recognises that we all have a responsibility—a point alluded to by the Minister in the earlier group of amendments—to encourage businesses to look deep into their supply chains to investigate the practices of their suppliers and subsidiaries and to then take action. That is why the Government have repeatedly emphasised that compliance with the transparency and supply chain measures will be driven by consumers, investors and campaigners.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said on the previous group of amendments, there is a temptation here simply to hope that it will be all right on the night. These amendments seek to provide real strength in putting into practice the sentiments which have been expressed by the Government. As currently drafted, neither the content of what is reported on, nor the location of the report are likely to produce the meaningful, accessible and comparable information that is so essential to take a proper view on how companies are tackling the risk of slavery in their supply chains. As it stands, the provisions will encourage superficial reporting, which is why the Ethical Trading Initiative, to which the Minister referred, the British Retail Consortium and many investors are demanding more specificity. Simply relying on follow-up guidance to fill gaps in the legislation is a doomed strategy, as only the leading companies are likely to pay heed to the guidance.

At present, there is no requirement on businesses to publicise what action they have taken to ensure that their supply and product chains are free from slavery. While some businesses are already taking positive action to address this issue, many clearly are not. I remind your Lordships that in 2013 a factory building collapse in Bangladesh killed more than 1,130 workers at one site, highlighting the life-threatening conditions faced by garment supply chain workers in low-cost sourcing countries. It is just one example of the gap between industry codes and the real situation on the ground. My noble friend Lord Hylton reminded your Lordships of other examples, such as kiln workers making bricks in inhuman conditions in Pakistan and children manufacturing matches in India. There is a growing public expectation that businesses should act ethically and take action to ensure that forced labour does not occur in their supply chains or business practices.

The Government’s own Modern Slavery Strategy recognises the importance of addressing slavery in supply chains. Paragraph 6.24 says that,

“if we want to ensure that the UK plays no part in perpetuating modern slavery we must ensure that consumers here are not unwittingly creating demand for modern slavery elsewhere”.

Paragraph 6.25 says:

“This will take a concerted, collaborative effort by Government and business, within the right regulatory framework”—

not consultations or reviews, but the right regulatory framework—

“We will ensure that businesses investigate and report on modern slavery, and then help them to stamp it out”.

Paragraph 6.27 says that,

“we are committed to introducing measures that specifically address modern slavery. We will use the Modern Slavery Bill to introduce a legal duty on all businesses above a certain turnover threshold to disclose each year the steps they have taken to ensure that modern slavery does not take place in their business or supply chains anywhere in the world”.

The strategy is right and the Government have articulated the need; the question is, does the legislation do it? Clearly, there is a real need for measures to tackle modern slavery in company supply chains. This is amply demonstrated by abuses and exploitation of workers in such places as the cotton mills of Tamil Nadu in India. The mills in that region supply high-street retailers such as C&A, Mothercare and Primark. The Flawed Fabrics report, published by the SOMO Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations and the India Committee of the Netherlands in October, details many examples of forced labour abuses.

I suspect that my noble and right reverend friend, if he is able to speak a little later, will probably mention the situation he has regularly raised about the Dalits in India and say how many of those in the untouchable caste are doubly exploited because of the way in which they are used as forced labour and become part of these supply chains. That can include physical confinement in the work location, psychological compulsion and false promises about types and terms of work. The SOMO report also details trafficking abuses such as recruitment by deceit and by abuse of vulnerability, exploitative working conditions, coercion and abuse of vulnerability in the workplace.

The report highlights the severe restrictions on freedom of movement. Women and girls are mostly forced to live in hostels within the factory grounds. Rooms are shared by up to 35 people and the facilities are very basic. Toilets and bathrooms are shared by 35 to 45 workers. A local NGO reports that during recruitment some families were even shown photographs of the swimming pools that workers would be able to use—needless to say, these swimming pools did not exist. In the face of such stories, the Bill, as drafted, would not be effective, for the following reasons.

First, there is insufficient content in the Bill to deliver on what the Government have promised and desire. Secondly, there is a real risk that the Bill will not result in this issue being given the attention it deserves at the top of a company’s decision-making hierarchy. The reality is that slavery and forced labour in supply chains will need to be on the agenda and priorities of boardrooms if real and lasting change is to be achieved: this is the desire of many companies. Thirdly, there is no effective mechanism by which the provision will be monitored and enforced. Fourthly, there is no penalty for non-compliance.

We should study with care the example of California’s Transparency in Supply Chains Act 2010. There is a great deal that we could learn from it. Indeed, this amendment seeks to build on the experience in California. Let me spell out the amendment’s provisions. Subsection (2) specifies a £60 million worldwide receipts threshold. This provides a consistent approach with the size and international nature of companies covered by the California Act, and is a similar provision to that which applies to companies operating in that state. Companies have expressed a desire for parity with California around the threshold level here in the United Kingdom. It also recognises the reality that large companies have the resources to do the initial heavy lifting, as it were. This experience will then be shared across business sectors and, over time, have application in smaller companies. Effective legislation will swiftly work its way down the procurement and subcontracting chain.

Subsection (3) introduces the term “group undertaking”, which allows for a definable aggregation of turnover. Subsection (4) proposes a modification of the Government’s wording, bearing in mind the reality of current corporate reporting and accountability mechanisms. The amendment requires a statement setting out the steps the organisation has taken to identify and address slavery and human trafficking in any of its supply chains or parts of its own business. It is vital to have minimum disclosure measures in the Bill because of the lack of transparency in many of the organisations which the requirement is designed to cover. Significantly, it is the business world which is calling for these minimum measures. I suspect that we will hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, on that specific point. The Ethical Trading Initiative and the British Retail Consortium, as I have already explained, support the principles that underpin this amendment. The amendment encourages companies to identify the process they have gone through in identifying and addressing slavery in their supply chains. Subsection (5)(f) provides flexibility and allows for further measures to be specified by order as required.

Subsection (6) addresses this by requiring companies to publish statements on their website and, crucially, to include within their directors’ report the name of the responsible director and a fair summary and the web address of the full statement. Subsection (6)(c) will help to propel responsibility for tackling slavery in supply chains into the boardroom, so that it is not just delegated to an employee charged with the remit of corporate social responsibility. Subsection (7) makes provision for organisations that do not have websites.

Subsection (8) proposes a centrally maintained website which will assist with monitoring of compliance and public accountability, with reduced costs to government through self-uploading of statements by companies. Subsection (11) is important and relates to enforcement of the requirement. As we heard during the debate on Amendments 67ZC and 68ZA, in the name of my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, there is a strong feeling that the commissioner should have an oversight and monitoring role in relation to supply chains. In fact, the commissioner-designate himself has already said as much, as reported in the Financial Times on 17 November. He said:

“Once they know they are being monitored … they will want to have clean supply chains … If they fail they will be exposed—and no company in the world wants to be shown as employing slaves”.

Last Sunday, 7 December, the Sunday Times reported that Nigerian boys are being lured to England with promises of riches from playing football in the Premier League but are being forced into slavery once they arrive. The commissioner-designate immediately said that he would travel to Nigeria to investigate the claim. The issue was raised by John Onaiyekan, the Archbishop of Abuja, at an anti-trafficking conference in London hosted by Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. It is clear that each of the specified organisations in Clause 11 may come across modern slavery issues, and it is important for there to be a direct enforcement route for any of them.

Clause 12 proposes a new criminal offence without which the measure would be completely toothless. Clause 15 provides for the requirement to produce slavery and trafficking statements to be reviewed three years after it comes into force, an issue that we will return to a little later in terms of post-legislative scrutiny. In Clause 16, there are a number of necessary definitions, most of which are existing government definitions. The definition of supply chains is new and would certainly benefit from discussion in your Lordships’ House.

Amendment 98 has the support of the business community. The Ethical Trading Initiative and the British Retail Consortium, which between them represent many of the companies that would be caught by the requirement, have published a briefing note on the Bill. At Second Reading, I mentioned the support of Rathbones, which holds £96 billion-worth of investments. It wants an amendment like this in the Bill because it says that it would better safeguard its investors and mean that it would be far easier to effectively enforce the sentiments in the Bill. In calling for the anti-slavery commissioner to be responsible for monitoring compliance with the reporting requirement, the legislation would set clear minimum criteria for reporting and specify the penalty for non-compliance, among other things.

The amendment also has the support of a wide coalition of civil society organisations that have been working on this issue and which include corporate accountability, fair trade, development and anti-slavery groups, as shown by their letter to the Daily Telegraph on Saturday. Finally, it also commands support from all sides of the House. I therefore hope that the Minister is able to listen to and reflect on this consensus, and that between now and Report there will be a chance to consider this part of the Bill further, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was pressing in an earlier group of amendments. I have already spoken to the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and we have agreed that we will bring back the coalition of groups which came into the first meeting here. I hope that that may be an opportunity for the Minister to meet them and hear their arguments. I beg to move.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has set out the case in his usual full and very effective way, and I rise to speak briefly to support the amendment.

I begin by addressing something that the Minister said at the beginning about consumers having a role and a responsibility here. I absolutely agree. If we pose the question of how consumers will be best educated and alerted to the issues, the answer is that it is by a good law. A good law is not one which just sets out certain generalities, but one that has some bite to it, some detail. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, stated so effectively on the previous group of amendments, however welcome it is to have Clause 51, there should be some requirement for more detail on the transparency statements and it should be possible for the general public and NGOs to have easy access to all these statements so that they can compare one thing with another.

The Minister talked about the discussions and dialogues which are going to take place with business. That is absolutely right because business has to be drawn along with this and to be fully supportive of it. I think the businesses involved would find it helpful to have a little more bite about this clause before they begin to think about how best to put it into practice.

I have a particular concern in this area, as already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, as chair of the All-Party Group for Dalits because they suffer disproportionately in every aspect of trafficking and enslavement, particularly in this area of bonded labour and different kinds of exploitation. I very much hope that the Minister will feel able, after further consultation, to bring back a clause which has a little more bite to it. I think it would be warmly welcomed around the House. It may not require all the detail that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has, but perhaps the Minister could look at the amendment and the amendment put forward in the previous group by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about statements and see whether there are certain details that he would be able to take out and bring back to the House on Report.

20:15

[Baroness McDonagh (Lab)]

I shall speak to Amendment 98A and support Amendment 98. I start by declaring an interest as patron of the Lily foundation, an anti sex-trafficking charity operating in India and the UK. Is it not absolutely fantastic that we are here on all sides of the Chamber to support a Bill that we all want to see enacted? That is a very unusual occurrence. In that spirit of unity, I am pleased that this amendment is being supported by me and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick.

Our concern is that this clause on supply chains will turn out to be warm words and good intentions. Indeed, when assemblies all around the world have sought to phrase legislation in these terms, they have rarely been able to meet their objectives. If the Bill cannot meet its objectives, what then? That is what this small enabling amendment covers. It would allow the Home Secretary to intervene and require extremely large companies to risk assess, create an action plan and audit. We think this is a very simple thing to do and would welcome a meeting with the Minister to discuss it further.

Let me be clear about the companies to which this amendment would apply. I understand that the Government would be concerned if it were to apply to all companies. I understand that placing such a regulatory responsibility on SMEs would be extremely difficult. Indeed, our amendment would not even apply to large companies; it would apply to really large global entities, which are very specifically defined as companies with a turnover of £1 billion per annum. Not only that, there is a secondary locking qualifier, which is that they would be in the wholesale, retail, manufacturing and construction sectors, in which you find more people who are working in servitude in the supply chains.

I ask the Minister and the Government to accept this small enabling amendment. It is a safety net to ensure that all the hard work in tackling this terror will not have been in vain. If it is needed—and if the Bill does what is intended, it will not be needed—it will apply to a small number of companies. Behaviour change in the 124 companies which would qualify would have the biggest impact on the greatest number of people and would bring up the standards of all.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley]

My Lords, I support Amendment 98, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool.

The case for legislating for transparency in supply chains as part of the Bill has been well made and it is very welcome that it is being progressed by the Government through Clause 51. Now, as many noble Lords have said, the task is to get the detail of the legislation right and agree between us a well crafted clause that levels the playing field for business, informs investors, shareholders and consumers and drives change to end slavery in supply chains. I support Amendment 98 because it would do exactly that.

Amendment 98 would rewrite Clause 51 by adding, where necessary, elements of detail to ensure that it is more meaningful, effective and workable. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, in line with the California Transparency in Supply Chains Act, which came into force in 2012, the amendment defines the threshold as not less than £60 million and, most importantly, includes the term “group undertaking” when determining the total turnover. That is important because it allows multinational companies that may have small operations in the UK to be covered by this legislation.

We all want the Bill to have global reach. Therefore, having a way to ensure the inclusion of all large foreign companies that provide services to the UK is vital. Clause 51 is ill defined in parts and Amendment 98 seeks to correct that in a number of ways. First, it suggests a simple change in the language to make the intent of the clause explicit. In the Modern Slavery Strategy the Government make it clear that they want this legislation to ensure that businesses investigate and report on modern-day slavery through the annual statements they are required to produce. It is therefore important that that aim is made explicit in the Bill. Subsection (4)(a) is consequently amended to confirm that the statement is specifically to “identify and address” the issue of slavery and human trafficking. It is its primary aim.

It is also important that the remit of this statement is more tightly defined. The clearer this legislation is, the better for business and consumers alike. Subsection (5) of Amendment 98 provides a framework for the statements. It makes sure that minimum disclosure measures are included in the Bill: the need for risk assessments; the need to set out who has been involved in identifying the risks; what actions have been taken to mitigate the risks; and what has been the impact of those actions. The “how” should be left to guidance. Without those minimum criteria, as other noble Lords have said, comparisons between companies will be impossible to make and the level playing field desired by good businesses will be difficult to achieve.

We also need to look to and learn from the Californian Act and not repeat its mistakes. The learning from the application of the California legislation to date also shows us why it is necessary to be clear in the legislation about what you want to achieve and what you expect business to report. In California hundreds of organisations have issued statements in line with the Act, but there is a wide variation in the information provided in those statements. Some have disclosed meaningless information, some have disclosed misleading information, and a few—perhaps worst of all—have thwarted the legislation and disclosed that they do nothing and are indifferent to the issue of slavery in their supply chains. For example, Caterpillar Incorporated, a multinational company reported to hold $89 billion in assets, which manufactures its products and components in 110 factories worldwide in high-risk countries such as India and Indonesia, issued a woefully inadequate statement. Krispy Kreme Doughnuts issued a statement of just 182 words, using them to say that as regards slavery it does not verify product supply chains, conduct audits of suppliers or require direct suppliers to certify materials.

Getting businesses to produce statements of that kind is not what this part of the Bill is about, and I do not believe it is what the Government intended it to be about. Clause 51 is not a paper exercise for businesses to write down in 200 words or less that they do not do any of this kind of work and do not intend to start. It is a serious measure that we need businesses to engage in and which good businesses want to engage positively with, properly and on an equal footing with each other. It is not fair that the good businesses that do excellent work, actively searching for evidence of exploitation, are being undercut and undermined. That is why having minimum criteria in the Bill is vital. Setting out those minimum criteria would not make the task more burdensome for business; the task—the production of the statement—remains the same. Minimum measures just give a framework for the task so that a level playing field between businesses is achieved.

Proper monitoring is also vital and, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, it is not currently clear how this part of the Bill will be properly monitored and enforced. Amendment 98 seeks to address that, too. Again, if we look to learn from the experience of the Californian Act, here some companies have ignored the Act completely. Research in January of this year quoted 85 companies as ignoring the legislation. That level of disregard is unacceptable, and we should make sure it is not replicated in the UK. Amendment 98 also ensures that a named government department receives and makes sure that the statements are easily publically available. It ensures that there will be consequences for blatant flouting of the legislation—as we have seen in California—by companies that do not comply or refuse to comply. Most importantly, it makes sure that compliance with this clause is a corporate responsibility. You need leadership from the top to change attitudes and make things happen.

I also very much support the requirement for a review after three years, which is included in Amendment 98. This part of the Bill in particular, as it is a completely new area of work, would benefit from a re-evaluation over a specified time period. Formally being able to hear the views of businesses, NGOs, trade unions and consumers on how this legislation operates in practice, and committing to bring forward changes where needed, would be a positive step forward.

I hope that the Government can accept much—if not all—of what is included in Amendment 98 and that they will look seriously at Amendment 98A in the name of my noble friend Lady McDonagh. She has clearly set out the impact multinational corporations can have in the fight against slavery. The 124 companies to which she referred, which operate in high-risk sectors and which have a combined turnover of approximately $1 trillion, can clearly influence the working conditions in tens of thousands of workplaces and help many millions of workers across the world. The power of this small group of companies is huge. They have the power to reform their business models, insist on inspection regimes, support local efforts to empower workers and insist on decent wages and formal contracts for all workers here in the UK and across the world. Her amendment brings home to us that we cannot rid the world of slavery without the help of big business.

The provisions in my noble friend’s amendment would enable the economic strength of these companies to be a force for good—something they want to be and something we desperately need them to be. Many if not all those companies understand the reputational damage and loss of both consumer confidence and market share they will suffer if they are found to be sourcing from suppliers which use exploitative labour. Most companies want supply chains that reflect their brand, not brands that reflect their supply chains, so I am sure that, like Amendment 98, this amendment will not be seen as a burden but an advantage. I hope that both amendments and what they set out can be accepted by the Government.

[Baroness Mobarik (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I am grateful to him for tabling it.

I have put my name to this amendment because it would do two important things. First, it will give businesses more certainty and clarity when producing the slavery and human trafficking statements required of them. That clarity is vital in saving businesses time. Secondly, however, it would also provide consumers with the information they need to hold businesses to account. Without the clarity that the amendment would provide, I am concerned that stakeholders, investors and campaigners will not be able to play their part effectively in helping stamp out the abhorrent practices that exist in some of our supply chains.

The media have done an excellent job in highlighting just how far slavery and forced labour have penetrated the supply chains for many of the goods and services that we take for granted, from basic foodstuffs to electronic goods, clothing and fashion. But modern slavery exists across the globe, and whichever form it takes, business supply chains are involved in some way or another. Slavery in supply chains is closer than we often realise. A couple of weeks ago, the owner of a bed factory in West Yorkshire that supplied retail chains such as Next and John Lewis was charged with human trafficking and slavery offences.

20:30

I believe that it is not for government to keep legislating. One could say that we should deregulate in order to get the economy going. Indeed, we must work with private sector organisations, such as the Federation of Small Businesses and the CBI, to take the lead in education within various industry sectors. However, when considering any new regulation to impose on business, we must answer three important questions: is it necessary, is it clear, and how much will it add to the bottom line?

On the first of these questions, I am left in no doubt as to the necessity of the amendment. It is rare for business groups and civil society organisations to reach common agreement on new regulation, but in this instance that is exactly what they have done. All are calling for minimum measures of disclosure, greater clarity in reporting, and tougher monitoring, enforcement and compliance. On the second question, the amendment would make it clearer for all those who have to produce these statements what they need to include, where the statements need to be lodged and what they can expect if they do not comply. Thirdly, I believe that the amendment would actually be good for business. It would help protect businesses, because constant stories about the failure of companies to monitor their supply chains will cause significant harm to their reputation and brand, and thus their bottom line.

Transparency in supply chains is the first step in the journey of rooting out slavery and forced labour from supply chains for good. The more explicit we can be at this stage, the more effective we will be over the long term. Both the Ethical Trading Initiative and the British Retail Consortium have written to me in support of the amendment. Their members include global companies with thousands of suppliers—familiar high-street brands such as Asda, Debenhams and Marks & Spencer—so their views on this issue should carry significant weight.

As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has indicated, there is a consensus across civil society groups as well as businesses that the amendment is needed, and that it would provide the information they need to play their part. I would also bring to noble Lords’ attention the fact that more than 20 asset management providers have added their support for the inclusion of supply chain reporting requirements in the Bill, including Hermes, Rathbone Greenbank Investments and Alliance Trust.

I recently spoke with Katherine Garrett-Cox, the chief executive of Alliance Trust, who is a highly respected figure in the Scottish business community. She says:

“We have been passionate advocates of a greater level of transparency in the management of supply chains and believe that the UK has a unique opportunity to lead the way in recognising those that do this well—by rewarding companies that promote and practise strong values. As a leading investor we also believe that by focusing upon this critical topic, our industry will increasingly differentiate between good and poor practice and can rightly hold those who violate basic human rights in their business models to account”.

Finally, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Bates for all his efforts in steering this important Bill through the House, and ask him to bear in mind that Clause 51 has been added because there is a genuine effort on the part of the Government to progress this matter. I hope that he will be able to respond positively to the amendment, which I believe would make what is already a good Bill even better.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will be brief. These two amendments are wider-ranging than my amendment but their intentions and objectives are similar, and I wait to see whether they will elicit a more enthusiastic government response. I also await the response to what I believe to be the request of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for discussions involving the Government on this matter before the next stage in the passage of the Bill through this House.

[Lord Bates]

I cannot quite match the noble Lord’s brevity, but I will try to go as far as I can, because some interesting proposals have been made. The first was the idea, suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of reconvening, between now and Report, his group, including the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, on the issues of the supply chain. That would be a very helpful thing to do, and I would be happy to take part in it. The noble Lord talked about the process—the journey that we are on—starting when the new clause was tabled. Some may use the term “kicking and screaming”, but I think that a sinner who repenteth ought to be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven—and into Parliament. I believe we are making progress down that route.

Many points were made about the regulatory framework, to which the noble Lord referred in great detail. The regulatory framework is setting out the long-term strategy. That is where we want to be. There are some stages to go through, in relation to the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. He raised the desire to see more bite than there is at the moment. I cannot give any assurances that that will be there by the time the Bill reaches Royal Assent. However, by the time of the process of consultation is complete and the guidance has been issued—

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank the Minister for giving way, but will he pay particular attention to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik? She spoke from the point of view of business and emphasised the fact that businesses would value greater clarity in what was being required of them in these statements and how they were to go about it. I felt that she was making a very important point from the point of view of business.

[Lord Bates]

I agree, and my noble friend Lady Mobarik made a very good point by making it clear that it is out of enlightened self-interest that business ought to be pursuing these things. We also need to recognise that we introduced into the Companies Act the requirement for ports to carry a statement on human rights. As with so many of the issues raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady McDonagh, this relates to human rights. You could almost say, without waiting for anything else, that the current legislation that requires a report on human rights could be broadened to include a statement on the human rights of the people involved in the supply chain. Those types of things might give urgency to it. On the assets idea, from my experience of business, nothing grabs the attention better of the chief financial officer, the chief executive or the chairman of the board and the people who invest. The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, referred to about 20 institutions of the size of Hermes, which is a huge fund, and Rathbone. When they put weight on that, when they hold shares and hold votes to determine who is the chairman of the board and the non-executive directors and what the remuneration of the senior employees should be—that is precisely the type of group that will grab more attention for these important issues than possibly even more specific legislation.

I am conscious of time, but I am also conscious that I want to pay respect to the two tablers of the amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, with an undertaking to meet and continue the dialogue; and to give an assurance that we will do further work, if or when we meet between Committee and Report, when we will have the terms of reference for the consultation to look at. We can get some early responses to that and see what can be done further to reassure the noble Lord that the Government see this very much as a way of starting down the road. As with all these things, business should be aware that once you start putting down legislation such as this, it tends to be a one-way street. You do not go back. If people do not comply and if business does not take it seriously, this Government or future Governments will say that there is a demand and that they need to act to put more legislation down for businesses to comply with. So I hope, with that canter around the issues, but with some specific commitments to look carefully at this, that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, the Minister has been generous in how he has dealt with the issues that have arisen, especially at this late hour. I was struck that he talked about how sinners repenteth, when I was thinking more that Ministers are damned if they do and damned if they do not. I am personally appreciative of the fact that the clause is now in the Bill and, of course, it is incumbent on noble Lords to try to build on provisions in the amendment.

One might use another metaphor about the bird in hand. On this occasion there is a Bill in hand, and a legislative opportunity. We cannot come back in another year from now with legislative proposals. This is the time to make them and I do not think that any of us wants to feel that the moment has passed without our doing justice. I reiterate that, because this is something that came into the Bill so late in another place, it is something to which, outside your Lordships’ House, we should give more time and attention. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, Lady McDonagh and Lady Mobarik, as well as my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth for the contributions that they have made in supporting the principles that underpin this and the other amendment before your Lordships. I am also grateful for the Minister’s willingness to meet those who tabled the amendments and the large array of those involved in this issue.

The Minister said that the important thing was to grab the board’s attention to get them thinking about these things. He is right about the power of investment and resources. I was very struck that Matt Crossman at Rathbone Greenbank Investments, which has more than £900 billion of investment, said:

“It is in the best interests of business to join the fight against modern slavery … Specific, but proportionate, legislation can allow companies to continue making progress, whilst ensuring that firms can no longer turn a blind eye to these issues”.

Naheeda Rashid of Hermes, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said:

“Companies which are able to demonstrate that they understand and are actively addressing the complexities of the risks in their supply chains will be better placed in managing both their reputation and disruptions to their operations”.

That is what these amendments seek to do—they put real flesh on the bones of Clause 51. I hope that, when the House resumes after the Christmas break, we will have a chance to hold the meetings to which the Minister referred. I hope that Report will not be reached for some weeks, which gives us some time to do that. With the assurances that the Minister has given us, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 98 withdrawn.

Amendment 98A not moved.

Amendment 99

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

99: Before Clause 52, insert the following new Clause—
“Review
(1) Within 5 years of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must—
(a) carry out a review of the provisions of this Act,(b) carry out a review more broadly about the current position of slavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labour, and human trafficking within the United Kingdom and internationally, and(c) prepare and publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review.(2) The report must in particular—
(a) set out the objectives intended to be achieved by this Act, (b) assess the extent to which those objectives have been achieved,(c) assess whether those objectives remain appropriate and, if so, the extent to which they could be achieved in another way, and(d) consider the strategic plans and annual reports submitted by the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament.”

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, I fear I have drawn the short straw and may be exasperating one or two noble Lords, but this is the last amendment and I do not intend to delay the Committee for very long. In many ways, the amendment is self-explanatory: it calls for a review of the legislation within five years of the passing of the Act—the review could come much earlier than that, if it was so desired. The report would,

“set out the objectives intended to be achieved by this Act, … assess the extent to which those objectives have been achieved, … assess whether those objectives remain appropriate … and … consider the strategic plans and annual reports submitted by the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner”.

20:45

A lot of emphasis has been placed on how successful the pre-legislative process has been. Surely, it is reasonable to talk about post-legislative examination of the Bill, too, and to put in the Bill a requirement for that to happen. I remind your Lordships that in 2004 the House of Lords Constitution Committee reported on the process and said that:

“Post-legislative scrutiny appears to be similar to motherhood and apple pie in that everyone appears to be in favour of it. However, unlike motherhood and apple pie, it is not much in evidence”.

The Constitution Committee, the Law Commission and the Government have looked at these questions. When the Constitution Committee reported in 2004, it found that there was significant room for much greater post-legislative scrutiny. The committee recommended that government departments should be responsible for producing a memorandum of the post-legislative review of the Act, which a Select Committee could then conduct an inquiry into. Acknowledging the Constitution Committee’s findings, the Government then asked the Law Commission to conduct its own inquiry into post-legislative scrutiny. The Law Commission reported back in October 2006, proposing a Joint Committee for post-legislative scrutiny.

The Constitution Committee argued that greater scrutiny might encourage the Government to reframe their definition of success from getting,

“their ‘big Bill’ on the statute book”,

to measuring the effect that it had. Given that we are sometimes inclined to pass declamatory legislation that looks good on paper and is a “big Bill”, surely it is right that we come back to have a look at how it worked out in practice. That committee, by the way, also warned that leaving any post-legislative scrutiny exclusively to the Government or solely to Select Committees might encourage selective scrutiny. Interestingly, the Government in their response said?

“the Government believes that strengthening post-legislative scrutiny further could help to ensure that the Government’s aims are delivered in practice and that the considerable resources devoted to legislation are committed to good effect”.

I will not go through this in detail, but I was struck by evidence that one witness gave at the time that the Law Commission was looking at this issue. He said:

“If post-legislative scrutiny is to be effective ... it should be owned by, and directed by Parliament. The Government will of course be a major contributor to that review but should not be in charge of the process or be in a position unduly to influence that process”.

The Law Commission concluded that a Parliament-based review process was popular, seeing it as an extension of the legislature’s existing remit to scrutinise and consider legislation wisely.

More recently, in 2010, the Leader’s Group on Working Practices in the House was appointed to,

“consider the working practices of the House and the operation of self-regulation”.

I note that it considered post-legislative scrutiny. At paragraph 139 it referred back to that statement about “motherhood and apple pie” in 2004, and went on to say that,

“neither Parliament nor the Government has yet committed the resources necessary to make systematic post-legislative review a reality. Like the Law Commission and the Hansard Society, we see merit in post-legislative review being undertaken by a Joint Committee. However, in the absence of Government support and bicameral agreement, no progress has been made towards this goal. We therefore believe that it is time for the House of Lords to establish its own Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee. This could lead to the establishment of a joint committee in due course—but the desirability of joint action must not be a brake on progress”.

At paragraph 141 it said:

“We recommend that the House of Lords appoint a Post-Legislative Scrutiny Committee, to manage the process of reviewing up to four selected Acts of Parliament each year”.

The House debated that report in June 2011 and the Leader of the House at the time made the following comments:

“As regards post-legislative scrutiny, I am well aware of concerns that once legislation is passed, insufficient attention is devoted to its implementation and effects”.—[Official Report, 27/6/11; col. 1553.]

Paragraph 38 of the Liaison Committee’s report, Review of Select Committee Activity and Proposals for New Committee Activity, states:

“Post-legislative scrutiny is potentially an important new area of Select Committee activity for the House of Lords”.

This legislation is not about motherhood and apple pie. As the Minister and noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber have said throughout all its stages, this is about one of the most awful evils being perpetrated in the world today. The Minister has rightly emphasised throughout our proceedings that this is legislation that we want others to emulate throughout the world. Surely, with such world-class legislation, we fairly rapidly should go back, look at it and see how it worked out in practice. My amendment would put in the Bill—and it is not without precedent—a commitment to doing that. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will feel that it is a modest and reasonable proposal and one that the Government might accept. I beg to move.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, the Government will be rightly congratulated when the Bill has gone through all its stages, but, as I think we are all aware, that is only the first stage. What really will count will be how effectively they get the legislation implemented. Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I am very glad to support his amendment. It is crucial that we review the Bill within five years of its passing into law. In many respects the Bill is pioneering new ground. Obviously, it will turn out that some things are perhaps not quite as effective as we hope that they will be, but I regard this review as crucial to the effectiveness of this legislation. The thought of having a review in five years will also help to focus and sharpen people’s minds as they know that things will be assessed.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

My Lords, I also support the amendment. I am not sure in what year the review should be held. I think to say “within five years” is sensible, but it might well be wiser to do it within three years. This is such an important Bill. As I have said previously, the Government are to be congratulated on bringing it forward and for doing so much to make it work. Although we on the Cross Benches, like noble Lords on other Benches, have been critical from time to time, we are well aware of the effort that the Government have made. However, it is important to make sure that the Bill works. The strategies of government that are not in the legislative process will have to be reviewed, but in reviewing those it will also be important to see whether the legislation is strong enough and working well enough for it to manage the strategies that go with it. I urge the Minister to support the idea that there should, at some stage, be post-legislative scrutiny of this important Bill.

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for proposing the amendment. The Government are committed to post-legislative scrutiny of legislation under the existing arrangements agreed with Select Committees. The Government believe that post-legislative scrutiny is generally preferable to ad hoc and potentially inconsistent specific statutory requirements in individual Bills. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report into legislative standards praised the Government’s record on post-legislative scrutiny, saying:

“We urge the Government to continue to produce these useful memoranda. In return, we will undertake, and we take this opportunity to encourage other Select Committees to undertake, more visible post-legislative scrutiny work when opportunities arise”.

Since 2012, the House of Lords has established committees on an ad hoc basis specifically to conduct post-legislative scrutiny. I am sure that the House will consider carefully whether the future Modern Slavery Act would be a good candidate for such scrutiny.

However, I would like to place on record once more the Government’s commitment to providing a post-legislative scrutiny memorandum on the Bill within three to five years of Royal Assent. The Government will consult the Home Affairs Committee on the timing of publication of the memorandum, but that is a commitment. In the longer term, the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner will continue to assess the response to modern slavery and how it is provided, and if new forms of abuse emerge. In addition to the commitment of a memorandum in three to five years, we will also have the update of the Modern Slavery Strategy, produced by the interdepartmental ministerial group on modern slavery. We will also have the anti-slavery commissioner’s annual report, which I am sure will be awaited with great interest by Members of your Lordships’ House.

There are therefore a number of opportunities for this type of scrutiny to happen. Having taken part in the Leader’s Group, which considered ways to improve the workings of your Lordships’ House and elsewhere, I have to say that one of the joys of this Bill is that it has been a textbook example of how legislation should work: first, producing a Bill, which is scrutinised in pre-legislative scrutiny. The Government then come back with a revised Bill and go through a meaningful stage in another place where amendments are made. The same happens in this place, so it seems to me absolutely logical that we should not leave the job unfinished but follow it through right to the end. That is why we are very much behind this commitment. We will produce the Explanatory Memorandum to ensure that that post-legislative scrutiny does arise.

Given that this may well be the last time that I am on my feet in Committee, I thank your Lordships for the way in which we have engaged in this very tough and passionate four days. It has given a huge amount of work for officials to think about and work on between now and Report. Somebody once said: “To govern is to choose”. There are going to be so many issues that we are going to have to work on that we will have to engage in some prioritisation about what is absolutely critical to get in the Bill before Royal Assent and what work can be continued under the watchful eyes of your Lordships and the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner thereafter. That work and the meetings will continue and we look forward to making further progress on Report. I thank the noble Lord and ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, if, as the Minister has said, this legislation has been exemplary in the way in which it has been handled, and I think it has been, then I would also say, and I do not think I would be alone in saying this, that the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, have been exemplary in the way in which they have treated each of us. I can only speak for myself as a Cross-Bencher, but I suspect that it is a view shared across the Chamber that throughout proceedings we have been treated with great courtesy and thoughtfulness in the way in which the amendments have been considered, not least this amendment. I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has promised that post-legislative procedures will be put in place. Obviously, I would prefer it to be in the Bill, but he will not be surprised by that. However, I feel very pleased with the assurances that he has given to your Lordships. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 99 withdrawn.

Amendment 100 not moved.

Clause 52: Interpretation

Amendment 101

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

101: Clause 52, page 39, line 10, at end insert—
““child” means a person under the age of 18;”

Amendment 101 agreed.

Clause 52, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 101A not moved.

Clause 53 agreed.

Schedule 4: Minor and consequential amendments

Amendment 102

Moved by

[Lord Bates]

102: Schedule 4, page 62, line 16, at end insert—
“Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (c. 10)9A In Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, in paragraph 32(8) (civil legal services for trafficking victims: definitions), in the definition of “exploitation” for the words from “section” to the end substitute “section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2014 (meaning of exploitation for purposes of human trafficking offence in section 2 of that Act);”.”

Amendment 102 agreed.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed.

Clause 54: Regulations

Amendment 102A not moved.

Clause 54 agreed.

Clauses 55 and 56 agreed.

Clause 57: Commencement

Amendments 102B to 104 not moved.

Clause 57 agreed.

Clause 58 agreed.

In the Title

Amendment 105 not moved.

Title agreed.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.

House adjourned at 9 pm.