House of Commons
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)
1. What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the tripartite mechanism for the reconstruction of Gaza.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
We are supporting the temporary Gaza reconstruction mechanism to facilitate the import of construction materials into Gaza. Almost 40,000 people have now been able to buy materials to repair their homes. There is still a lot more to do, but the mechanism is a step in the right direction.
Dame Anne McGuire
Does the Secretary of State agree that the UN needs to take action to ensure that all the building materials going into Gaza are used to alleviate the dire conditions of the Gazan people, rather than diverted by Hamas for military purposes?
Justine Greening
The right hon. Lady is quite right to raise that as an issue to be considered. There is no evidence at the moment to suggest that what she is worried about is happening. In addition, part of our support for the reconstruction mechanism has been to fund a monitoring process so that the right checks can be made to avoid such things happening.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State has said. How on earth does she know that Hamas is not using such material to build tunnels for terrorist purposes? How do we know?
Justine Greening
There is a mechanism to check and control the materials as they come into Gaza. My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the very difficult issues involved in reconstruction. Even with the mechanism in place, we expect reconstruction to take two to three years. Ultimately, the alternative to not using this sensible mechanism is for Gazans who have been forced out of their homes and have lost their homes simply to have nowhere to live. That situation is clearly not sustainable—it would certainly not be good for the many children who live in Gaza—and we are therefore right to be taking action to address it.
Sir Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Has the right hon. Lady seen early-day motion 746, standing in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House? It salutes the Big Ride from Edinburgh to London by 1,000 cyclists, which will take place later this year to provide funds for the Middle East Children’s Alliance, a non-profit organisation dedicated to helping deprived children who are war victims in Gaza. The right hon. Lady has an admirable record on this issue. Is she willing to give her support to the Big Ride?
Justine Greening
I was not aware of the early-day motion that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. I will certainly take a look at it. It sounds as if it is a very valuable fundraising effort. As I have set out, we are absolutely determined to play our part in supporting the Palestinian Authority to enable it steadily to rebuild after the conflict in Gaza.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Many of my constituents, including a group called Knighton Action for Peace and Justice, have grave concerns about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. How are the Government using their influence to encourage Israel and Palestine to reach a more satisfactory agreement about water resources in the occupied territories?
Justine Greening
A significant amount of infrastructure was damaged during the crisis over the summer. Part of the £20 million we committed at the reconstruction conference attended by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is to help to replace the infrastructure that has been lost. All the discussion and debate we can have today is simply palliative while a long-term political settlement is being reached, which is the only thing that can in the end improve the long-term prospects of people living in that part of the world.
Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
Some 100,000 homes were destroyed or damaged in the most recent crisis in Gaza, and flooding, heavy snow and plummeting temperatures have now intensified the terrible conditions faced by Palestinian men, women and children. While I was in the Occupied Palestinian Territories last month people were literally freezing to death because they struggled to get hold of the materials they need to rebuild. Will the Secretary of State explain why her Government pledged £20 million to help such efforts, but have so far disbursed only a quarter of that figure?
Justine Greening
It is important that the hon. Gentleman reflects on the broader assistance that we provide. As he will be aware, over the summer we provided £17 million of emergency assistance. I have talked about the £20 million that we have pledged to the Gaza reconstruction mechanism, which we are in the process of delivering. He will be aware that from 2011 to 2014, we pledged significant resources of about £350 million. We are one of the leading supporters of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides key day-to-day services. He is right to draw attention to the conditions in which people are living. That is why we provide so much support, of which I am sure he is supportive.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
2. What support her Department has provided to Commonwealth multilateral agencies since May 2010; and whether she plans to change the funding her Department provides to those organisations.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)
Since 2009, DFID has provided £180 million to six Commonwealth organisations. The budget is some £50 million this year and it will remain so in the next financial year.
Chi Onwurah
The diversity of the Commonwealth of nations is part of its strength. Programmes such as the Commonwealth scholarships and the Local Government Forum build on that by supporting education and the exchange of best practice among Commonwealth citizens and Governments. Does the Minister agree that at a time of rising extremism, both political and religious, in a number of Commonwealth countries, the contribution of those programmes should be celebrated and extended to build shared values and understanding?
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
3. What steps she is taking to target humanitarian assistance at the poorest children in the developing world.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Desmond Swayne)
We work with agencies such as UNICEF and Save the Children to meet the immediate needs of children, but our key agenda is to link humanitarian assistance with long-term development.
Mr Allen
Getting food and shelter to children is essential, but will the Minister consider the global investment that is necessary in the social and emotional rehabilitation of children? That will make them less traumatised by their experience; enable them to raise good families of their own and to rebuild their cultures; and, perhaps above all, make them more resistant to political and religious fundamentalism.
Mr Swayne
Yes; absolutely. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s work in driving forward that agenda. He is right that people will not achieve their potential while they are traumatised and do not have education and proper support. One third of refugee children are without primary education and some three quarters are without secondary education. It is for that reason that we have more than doubled our budget for education in conflict-affected and fragile states. We are determined to drive forward that agenda internationally.
Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
An outstandingly good charity in my constituency, Alive & Well, ships essential equipment such as water purification equipment to some of the poorest children in the world, particularly in Sierra Leone. The next shipment was due to go on 24 February, but the charity has discovered that the import duties that are being applied by the Government of Sierra Leone, which are up to 100% of the value of the goods, will make it impossible. Will the Minister take up the matter with his opposite number in the Sierra Leonean authorities to reduce the unfair import duties?
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Almost 5 million children die every year across the globe, principally because of malnutrition. What targets are being set internationally to ensure that that figure reduces year on year?
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
4. What steps her Department is taking to support children affected by the conflict in Syria.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
The UK has pledged £700 million so far in response to the Syria crisis, providing food, medical care and relief items to some of those most in need, including children. That includes the £50 million that I announced at the UN General Assembly for the No Lost Generation initiative, which will provide education, psycho-social support and protection for Syrian children who are affected by the crisis in Syria and the region.
Mr Jones
Children who are displaced by the Syrian crisis not only lose their homes, but are at risk of having their life chances permanently and irreparably damaged. What is my right hon. Friend’s Department doing to help ensure that Syrian refugee children can not only expect adequate primary and secondary education, but have some hope of higher education?
Justine Greening
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend about the need to address the lack of education for children affected by this crisis, and the package that I mentioned announcing at the UN covers three new programmes specifically for education for Syrian refugees and host communities in Jordan and Lebanon. Those programmes will be about improving the quality of education, particularly for early-grade primary school children in Jordan, and integrating Syrian refugee children into the system. My right hon. Friend is right to say that more needs to be done, and we launched the international No Lost Generation initiative precisely to get more and broader support for the issue.
Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)
14. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is simply not possible for some of those children to receive the support and treatment they need in countries such as Lebanon and Jordan, and that her Government should be doing more to resettle Syrian children and their families in this country?
Justine Greening
I agree it is important that we play our role in the refugee crisis and provide refuge to people affected by it, which is precisely what we are doing. On helping children where they are—the overwhelming majority of children affected are still in the region—we are working hand in hand with the Lebanese Government to ensure that there is the capacity for children to get education. There is more to be done, but we can be proud of the leading role played by the UK.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
On the visit to Jordan and Lebanon by the International Development Committee last year we saw the huge amount of work that those countries are doing to support children affected by the conflicts. What is the Department doing to ensure that the children of Jordan and Lebanon do not suffer because of the huge burdens placed on their public school systems?
Justine Greening
We are working directly with both those Governments to ensure that our programmes help not only Syrian refugee children but, particularly in Lebanon, a host of children who were in school but perhaps did not get the textbooks they needed. We have provided a much broader package, and it is important that host communities are helped to cope with the strains that the refugees are putting on them.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Over a year ago, the Government committed to allowing a small number of refugees from Syria into the UK, including children with specific medical needs. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many children from Syria with specific needs have been allowed to come to the UK?
Justine Greening
I do not have that precise information but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman. As I said in response to an earlier question, that programme is in place to help Syrian refugees who particularly need to take advantage of it. The most important thing is to get broad international support to help the 3.8 million refugees who are now in the region and need assistance.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
5. What the cost has been of the UK’s contribution to the response to the Ebola outbreak to date.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
The UK has committed £325 million to tackling the Ebola crisis. The UK is leading the international response to the crisis in Sierra Leone by diagnosing and isolating Ebola cases more quickly, trebling the number of treatment beds, supporting burial teams, and assisting in the research for a vaccine.
Richard Graham
Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that at the recent London conference, Britain was able to persuade other Governments to contribute financially? Does she agree that we should be proud of the hugely positive contribution made by Great Britain through DFID’s budget—symbolised by Nurse Cafferkey and others with medical and other expertise—to resolving the Ebola outbreak?
Justine Greening
Yes; the international effort has involved not only financial assistance from a host of countries, but assistance in kind from countries such as Australia which is helping to set up Ebola treatment centres. I pay tribute to the work done across the Government, not just in my Department. As my hon. Friend says, vital work has been done by Public Health England, NHS workers and our amazing Ministry of Defence and soldiers who have done an incredible job. Without their efforts none of this would have been possible, and thanks to them we are now turning the corner.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady’s permanent secretary told the Public Accounts Committee that one of the key lessons of Ebola was the need for more research and development on vaccines. Between 2008 and 2013, Britain gave £40 million to support the work of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative. I understand that IAVI’s research contributed to the science that led to the fast-track Ebola vaccines, yet she has slashed the UK’s support for IAVI from £40 million to just £5 million for 2013 to 2018. Does she regret that 86% cut?
Justine Greening
No, I do not. The hon. Lady talks about the science, but we stopped funding the vaccine research because the basic science to support a vaccine was not in place. To have continued putting money into this research, when the early indications were that it was not going to deliver a vaccine, would not only have been a waste of money, but done a disservice to our investment into tackling AIDS. I should also point out that, in 2009-10, the Government invested £249 million in tackling HIV/AIDS, but in 2013-14 we increased that by 50% to £372 million.
Mary Creagh
I do not know whether the right hon. Lady heard me say that IAVI’s research contributed to some of the science that led to the Ebola vaccine. The point of research is that it builds knowledge.
The world must never again be left so exposed to Ebola. The good news that Ebola infections are falling in Liberia has meant that the trial of Brincidofovir as a drug therapy for Ebola was halted last Friday. Does the right hon. Lady agree that we need urgently to roll out the Ebola vaccine trials from Liberia to Sierra Leone and Guinea to discover which vaccine works?
Justine Greening
I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is aware, but we have worked hand in hand with the Medical Research Council and GlaxoSmithKline to help those trials to come forward faster. In fact, the Minister for Government Policy and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster , my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Oliver Letwin), has played a pivotal role internationally in ensuring that those trials could progress. It would be more constructive if she asked some relevant questions, rather than scoring pointless political points.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
6. What recent progress has been made on negotiations to agree the sustainable development goals.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
8. What steps she is taking to ensure that the UK plays a leading role in preparations to set new UN development goals in September 2015.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
The UK plays a leading role internationally at the EU and UN and bilaterally to push for an ambitious and implementable post-2015 framework. As the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) will know, the first session of intergovernmental negotiations on the SDGs has concluded, and the open working group proposal includes 17 goals and 169 targets. We support the breadth and balance of the proposal but will be arguing for a much more concise and workable agenda as negotiations progress.
Seema Malhotra
Millennium development goal 3 was to promote gender equality and empower women. Will the Secretary of State be championing the inclusion in the new SDGs of texts on ending violence against women and girls and supporting sexual and reproductive health and rights, as well as statements in the declaration of the commission on the status of women?
Justine Greening
Absolutely—yes. The Government play a leading role in raising the issue of violence against women and girls, and I pay tribute to the amazing work done by the then Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague). I can assure her that we will continue to play that role.
Naomi Long
The Secretary of State has already indicated the complexity of the goals under discussion. What steps are being taken to ensure effective integration of the different goals, particularly the proposed target on under-fives mortality and those on water, sanitation and hygiene, given that most diarrhoeal diseases result from a lack of investment in that sector?
Justine Greening
I very much agree with the hon. Lady. The key to success in getting a sensible outcome for a new post-2015 framework is to ensure that it is not a shopping list, but that it actually works as an overall strategy to bring change on the ground and lift people out of poverty over the next 15 years.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)
My Department continues to work closely and effectively with the Sierra Leonean Government to defeat Ebola, and our strategy is working—there are now signs that the infection rate is falling. We are far from complacent, however, because many cases remain, and we will see our mission through to the very end.
Since the last session of DFID questions, I have attended the Gavi replenishment conference in Berlin, at which Gavi surpassed its replenishment target of $7.5 billion from donors, which will help to immunise 300 million additional children and save more than 5 million lives. The Government have confirmed an additional commitment to Gavi of £1 billion in funding from 2016 to 2020.
Guy Opperman
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. On Syria, along with many colleagues I visited the Nizip 2 camp on the Turkish border last year and met the 17,000 refugees based there, half of whom were children. What the children particularly need is books in Arabic, so they can learn and then become the doctors and engineers they want to be. What steps are the Secretary of State and her Department taking to ensure that these children get the Arabic books they need?
Justine Greening
I too have had the chance to visit one of the refugee camps on the Syrian/Turkish border. The Turkish Government have put an immense amount of investment into supporting those people, and indeed providing some of the best quality refugee facilities that I have seen. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that textbooks are an important part of that. We have provided textbooks in Lebanon; I would be happy to look further at the point that he has raised.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
T2. I will take my moment, Mr Speaker. Over 30 years ago, this country was very generous in response to the Ethiopian famine, but now, over the last three years, we have given £1 billion in aid—despite the fact that the security forces in Ethiopia are raping, torturing and killing. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with her counterpart in Ethiopia on these matters?
Justine Greening
The right hon. Lady is right to raise her concerns about the behaviour of the police and security services. We raise our concerns, too. That should not overshadow the rest of the important work we are doing to help people in Ethiopia steadily to lift themselves out of poverty. If we consider development over the last 30 years, we can really see that Ethiopia has come on a tremendous way since it first appeared on our TV screens when it was facing the famine of 1984.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
T3. Following on from the question about Gaza, may I ask what this Government are doing to assist the Palestinian Authority in their economic development of the west bank?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right to point out the importance of economic development. In respect of our bilateral programme, we work on three key areas, and one of those, of course, is indeed wealth creation. We are promoting private sector development that can contribute to state and peace building by increasing fiscal sustainability and reducing unemployment and poverty.
Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
T4. In the light of the problems with the Private Infrastructure Development Group, does the Secretary of State believe we get good value for money from the £12 billion a year overseas aid budget?
Justine Greening
Yes, I do. We have been more clear-cut about the outcomes we are trying to achieve. As for the facility the hon. Gentleman mentions, it has pulled in £6.8 billion-worth of investment in infrastructure in some of the poorest countries in the world, which will help them steadily to make their way out of poverty. Surely creating the markets of the future is one of the smartest things we can do if we want to stay prosperous ourselves.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
T5. More cowardly and unforgiveable executions have again reminded us of the depths of ISIL’s depravity. As temperatures plummet in northern Iraq, will the Secretary of State update us on progress in providing humanitarian assistance to the 5.2 million Iraqis affected by this brutal conflict?
Justine Greening
Yes, I will. It is worth saying that the reason we have women and girls at the heart of our international development agenda is that we know they have no rights whatever in so many parts of the world, so my hon. Friend is absolutely—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting the Secretary of State. These are extremely important matters, affecting very vulnerable people. The answers from the Secretary of State should be heard.
Justine Greening
On Iraq in particular, we work extremely hard on the so-called winterisation approach, ensuring that tents are warm, that people have blankets and that appropriate shelter, food and sanitation are in place. That has been done, but the challenge in the region is now immense. The Syrian crisis alone has seen 3.8 million refugees.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
T6. Many people who live and work in the United Kingdom, including people in my constituency, wish to send money back to their families in other parts of the world. Initiatives from companies such as Xendpay are starting to challenge some of the costs of money transfer. What is the Secretary of State doing to address the charging of exorbitant fees of up to 20% for money transfer services such as those provided by Western Union?
Justine Greening
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the role played by remittances, which are a key part of the grand sweep of cash flow into developing countries. As she will know, we are working very hard in countries such as Somalia to ensure that families can continue to send money back to their relatives. I agree with her that one of the most important things we can do is introduce competition to the market, as well as helping to develop banking services so that people have more choice.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
T8. What work is the Department doing to bring about behavioural change in areas that are affected by Ebola, and has it made an assessment of the impact of that on transmission rates?
Justine Greening
So-called social mobilisation has been key to bearing down on transmission rates. We understand that they are now well under 1%, which is great news. If we are to combat local outbreaks, however, it is vital that people understand how to stay safe, and DFID has played a major role in bringing together a consortium of different organisations to help to ensure that that happens.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 February.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the sickening murders in Syria of the Japanese journalist Kenji Goto and the Jordanian pilot Lieutenant Moaz al-Kasasbeh, and I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of the whole House will be with their families at this very difficult time. We should also think of our own pilots and their families, and of all those who serve. I can assure the House that we will not stop until the murderous ISIL extremists who are behind this, and their poisonous ideology, are eradicated.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Phil Wilson
May I associate myself with the comments that the Prime Minister has just made?
A constituent of mine, an agency worker, told me that he pays income tax only if he works overtime. Part of his wages is paid in expenses, even when he is on holiday, which affects his national insurance contributions and therefore his benefit and pension entitlement. The sum of £16 a week is deducted from his wages to administer his payroll, and he even has to pay for his own pay slip. Is that any way in which to treat our working people?
The Prime Minister
We are looking into abuse by the so-called umbrella companies that can sometimes bring such things about, but the broader point is that I want to help people like that by cutting their taxes and taking them out of income tax altogether. We have already taken 3 million of the lowest-paid people out of income tax altogether, and we plan to enable people to earn £12,500 before they start to pay income tax, which will take another 1 million out of it altogether.
Mr David Willetts (Havant) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister welcome the increase in the number of students—especially those from the poorest backgrounds—who are applying for university places? Will he confirm that both universities and students would lose as a result of the reduction in funding that would be caused by a cut in fees? How could a policy that helped only rich graduates possibly be called progressive?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The coalition’s university policy was a long-term policy which has resulted in a record number of students going to university, as well as an increase in the number of university students from the poorest backgrounds. That is good for our country, good for students, and good for universities. What a contrast with Labour Members, who told us four years ago that they were going to get rid of tuition fees and who, four years later, have absolutely nothing to say about it. When will they make up their minds?
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in condemning the appalling murders of the Jordanian pilot and the Japanese hostages by ISIL. These were sickening and despicable acts, and simply reinforce our determination to defeat that evil organisation.
Everyone pays stamp duty on stock market transactions except those involved in hedge funds, who are allowed to avoid it. That is costing many hundreds of millions of pounds. Why is the Prime Minister refusing to act?
The Prime Minister
I have to say that for 13 years, during many of which the right hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury, they did absolutely nothing about this. What this Government have done is more than any previous Government to make sure that individuals and companies pay their taxes properly. I have to say I am delighted that he has raised the economy on the morning after his shadow Chancellor could not name one single business leader who backed Labour.
Edward Miliband
This is Prime Minister’s questions and the Prime Minister should try to answer the question. I asked him a very specific question about why hedge funds are not paying stamp duty on stock market transactions. It is costing hundreds of millions of pounds. He is being funded to the tune of £47 million by the hedge funds. Everyone knows that is why he is refusing to act, but what is his explanation?
The Prime Minister
Let me just remind the right hon. Gentleman that when we came into office foreigners did not pay stamp duty on the properties they bought, foreigners did not pay capital gains tax on the properties they bought, and because of his tax rates City hedge fund managers were paying lower tax rates than the people who cleaned their offices. That is what we had to sort out. But let me put it to him again: the day after his shadow Chancellor was asked on television whether he could think of one single business leader, do you know what he said, Mr Speaker? He said, “Bill Somebody”! Bill Somebody is not a person—Bill Somebody is Labour’s policy.
Edward Miliband
I will tell the Prime Minister what people on the Opposition Benches are doing: we are standing up for hard-working families and businesses while he is a friend of the tax avoiders. I am going to keep asking him the question until he answers it. It is a very specific question about hedge funds avoiding stamp duty on their share transactions. It is costing hundreds of millions of pounds. He is bankrolled by the hedge funds. He claims he wants to act on tax avoidance. Why will he not act?
The Prime Minister
If the right hon. Gentleman has a good submission for the Budget, he can talk to the Chancellor about it. He says what they are doing on his side of the House. Let me tell him what he has been doing on his side of the House: two former Labour Health Secretaries completely condemned his health policy; all the leading university vice-chancellors condemned his university policy; and he cannot find one single business leader to back his economic policy. Is it any wonder that the Chuckle Brothers have lodged an official complaint and said they do not want to be compared to the two clowns opposite?
Edward Miliband
I am afraid I am going to keep asking the question until the Prime Minister has an answer. Let me explain it to him. [Interruption.] You can’t help him George; you’re too far away. Let me explain it to him very simply. Everybody pays stamp duty on their share transactions. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I apologise for interrupting. The questions and the answers will be heard. This is a democratic Chamber and no one, but no one, is going to be shouted down. The point is very simple and very obvious, and I hope everyone can grasp it.
Edward Miliband
Let me explain it to the right hon. Gentleman very simply. Everybody pays stamp duty on their share transactions, but the hedge funds are protected. We have been calling for action on this. It could raise hundreds of millions of pounds. Why will he not act?
The Prime Minister
We have acted on stamp duty. We will continue to act on stamp duty, but the right hon. Gentleman sat for 13 years in the Treasury and never did anything about it. If he wants to make sure that he acts on tax avoidance and evasion, why does he not start with Labour’s biggest donor, Mr John Mills— yes, we all remember this—who gave his donation in shares in order to cut his tax bill? Has he paid back the taxes yet?
Edward Miliband
I am really pleased the Prime Minister wants to talk about donors. Let us talk about his donors: £7 million—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The question will be heard. It is a very simple point. I have had to make it a second time, and I will make it as many times as necessary: the right hon. Gentleman will be heard.
Edward Miliband
I was talking about the Prime Minister’s donors, Mr Speaker: £7 million from Lord Laidlaw, a tax exile living in Monaco; £3 million from Michael Hintze with a company based in Jersey; and Michael Spencer, who gave him £4 million, involved in the LIBOR scandal. Same old Tories.
Now, let us give the Prime Minister a fifth chance. I know he does not do his homework, but this is his fifth chance. The hedge funds are avoiding tax to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. Will he now promise, from that Dispatch Box, to act for the national health service?
The Prime Minister
We had Labour for 13 years: no action on stamp duty, foreigners not paying stamp duty, foreigners not paying capital gains tax, no bank levy. The right hon. Gentleman talks about tax exiles: Andrew Rosenfeld, the man who raises his money, was for years a tax exile living in Geneva. That is what we get. But is it any wonder the right hon. Gentleman wants to find one particular issue to raise today? He cannot talk about minimum wages because his policy is to cut them, he cannot talk about energy prices because his policy is to keep them up, he cannot talk about universities because his policy is to trash them, and he cannot name a single business leader who supports Labour. No wonder the person who wrote “Things can only get better” says it no longer applies to Labour.
Edward Miliband
So basically, the right hon. Gentleman has been found out: five chances to answer the question, no answer coming. Let us close that tax loophole so we can have more doctors, more nurses, more care workers and more midwives. This is the difference: this is a Prime Minister who will not tackle tax avoidance for the simple reason that too many of his friends would get caught in the net. They are the party of Mayfair hedge funds and Monaco tax avoiders, and under him you always know that it is one rule for those at the top and another rule for everyone else.
The Prime Minister
There is only one person who has been found out this week and that is the leader of the Labour party: his economic policy has collapsed; his health policy has collapsed; his universities policy has collapsed. The most vital election in a generation is coming, and people can see the choice: a Labour party that is anti-enterprise, anti-business and that is falling apart under scrutiny, and a Conservative party turning this country around. That is the choice: competence from us, chaos from them.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
This week we have seen that fear is spreading across this land among senior business people. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that he will stay the course of his—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question must be heard. If he wants to continue the last bit of it, he can: spit it out.
Steve Baker
Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that he will stay the course to prosperity with his long-term economic plan?
The Prime Minister
We will stay the course, because we can now see 1.75 million more people in work, the deficit down by half, the British economy growing faster than any major economy in western Europe, and business and enterprise large and small saying we have the right plan and we should stick to that plan. That is what we will do: it is competence versus chaos.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
Q2. They were elected by fewer than 15% of the public and their first elections cost £80 million: why will the Prime Minister not scrap these ridiculous police and crime commissioners and instead put the money into front-line policing that would keep our communities safe?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady might want to ask why her former colleague Alun Michael stood for one of these posts. I think this is bringing accountability to our police service, because everybody knows there is now one person they have to account to. In the past, people did not know how to access their police authorities; they do now.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Q3. When my right hon. Friend visits Yorkshire tomorrow, he will be spoilt for choice by the number of businesses that are investing in creating jobs in Leeds, bringing unemployment in my Pudsey constituency down 55%, in Leeds West down 39%, and in Morley and Outwood down 51%. Does that not show that all parts of Leeds are contributing to the northern economic powerhouse, thanks to this Government’s economic policies?
The Prime Minister
I am very much looking forward to explaining how our long-term economic plan will really benefit and continue to benefit Yorkshire and north-east Lincolnshire. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have got employment up by 114,000 since the election; private sector employment is up by almost 200,000 since the election. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
The shadow Chancellor says come to Morley and Outwood. Believe me, I will be there, and I am afraid to say I have a plan to increase unemployment in that constituency by one, to give him a bit more time to remember a single business man who supports him.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
The Labour party was in power for 13 years and failed to deliver a single additional power to Scotland that was outlined in the vow. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems have been in power for five years and, like Labour, they are not proposing the real home rule that was promised. Do the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party now understand why the voters of Scotland are sick of the Westminster parties, in contrast with the SNP, which will always put Scotland first?
The Prime Minister
This coalition Government have actually taken part in a massive exercise of devolution to the Scottish Parliament, and have already set out a significant extra increase in powers that will take place whoever is standing at this Dispatch Box after the election. Yes, we have had a Westminster Government here for the last five years. We have an SNP Government in Scotland, and as the new Labour leader in Scotland has pointed out, under the SNP, A and E waiting times in Scotland are now worse than they are in England. So apparently, it is all right to compare Scotland and England, but of course, it is not all right to compare England and Wales. That is interesting, is it not? It is a fascinating political strategy for the Scottish Labour leader to say that life is always better under the Tories, but I agree.
Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)
Q4. Given the success the Prime Minister claims for the coalition’s long-term economic plan, why, if allowed to govern alone, does he want to change it to bring in even deeper cuts to public services?
The Prime Minister
I believe that after seven years of economic growth, which is what we will have had by 2018, we should be starting to pay down the deficit by running a surplus. I think that is something that every business and every family in the country will understand. You need to fix the roof when the sun is shining, and as far as I can see, it is only the Conservative party that will offer that at the next election.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Q5. When the Prime Minister comes to Yorkshire, he might reflect on the promise he made to a Barnsley business to support efforts to secure a major international contract to manufacture solar panels. Billions of pounds of investment depend upon him keeping his word, but delays in Whitehall mean that the deal is now at risk. Will the Prime Minister do what he said he would do: intervene to make sure that we can bring hundreds of good, skilled jobs to this country?
The Prime Minister
I understand that UK Trade & Investment, the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Foreign Office have all been providing advice and support to Solar Europa, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and have met it on a number of occasions. We want to promote all projects that can create jobs in the UK and benefit relations with international partners. So I will look to see if there is anything that can be done in the Whitehall system that is getting in the way of this company, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
My constituent Mr Mohammed Naved Bashir was arrested in December. Despite pointing out on numerous occasions that he had a different name from that of the wanted man, he was held in prison cells in Halifax for three days. It was confirmed that the police had arrested the wrong person only when he was transported and presented to a judge in Glasgow. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to look into this case and perhaps supply the answers that Mr Bashir is not getting to the questions he is putting to the police?
The Prime Minister
This sounds like a very concerning case. My understanding is that West Yorkshire police are investigating the circumstances surrounding the arrest and detention of Mr Bashir. I cannot give the House the specifics of the case because it involves ongoing legal action, but I will discuss it with the Home Secretary as my hon. Friend asks. Of course, one option would be for Mr Bashir to make a formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, but let me try to get my hon. Friend some more information about this.
Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Q6. I know that the Prime Minister has followed closely the recent upheaval in the NHS in north Staffordshire, involving the Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent hospitals merger, the PET-CT scanner and the waiting times at accident and emergency. His Government commissioned KPMG to produce the Staffordshire “distressed economy” report, but it is being withheld. Will he now commit to publishing the full report so that we can all see his real plans for the NHS in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire?
The Prime Minister
I will look closely at the specific issue that the hon. Lady has raised. As she knows, the safety of patients in Staffordshire is absolutely our main priority. I know that the University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust is working hard with the trust development authority and the other parties involved to manage a safe and timely transition of services, and I think that all parties should work together to do that. I have to say that that is not helped by the Leader of the Opposition going to Stafford and deliberately scaremongering and trying to frighten local people. He has said that Stafford hospital is on “the road to closure”. This is what he means by “weaponising” the NHS. It is an absolutely disgraceful tactic. The hon. Lady knows it is not true, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it is not true but he has not got the gumption to say so.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
Q7. I know that the Prime Minister shares the gratitude expressed on both sides of the House for the sacrifices made by our health care professionals and members of our armed forces, including my constituent Lieutenant Marc White, who have risked their lives to help the people of Sierra Leone to combat the scourge of Ebola. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a way should be found to recognise their bravery?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I am sure that everyone would like me to put on record my praise for those incredibly brave people who have worked in very difficult conditions, including over Christmas. They include doctors and nurses from our NHS and people from our armed forces, our civil service and non-governmental organisations. They are helping to save thousands of lives in Africa and protecting the UK from the potentially disastrous consequences of the disease spreading. In recognition of the bravery of those from the UK, I intend to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen the introduction of a new medal to pay tribute to their efforts. Details will be out in due course, and this should be in place by the summer. It is absolutely right to say that those people are incredibly brave and that we owe them an immense debt of gratitude.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
Today’s “Green Budget” from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that median wages were still almost 5% lower last year than they were in 2008. Will the Prime Minister now admit that families across the country are indeed facing a cost of living crisis?
The Prime Minister
What the “Green Budget” today shows—I think we should take this as an important reference work—is that Labour would lead to an extra £170 billion of borrowing. That is the official figure. The shadow Chancellor was busy yesterday. In another of his interventions, he said on Radio 2 that “debt would be higher”. The cat is out of the bag. It is official: Labour would borrow, tax and spend more, and do all the things to put us back into the mess we got out of.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Q8. In recent weeks, Dover and east Kent have suffered gridlock due to problems at the port of Dover and the fire in the channel tunnel. Will the Prime Minister support the finding of a long-term solution to the problem? Will he consider making this a national strategic priority and using lorry levy funds to help to pay for it?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise this question, and I know how hard he works for people in Dover and across east Kent. I understand that he met the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) about this, and as a result we have ordered an urgent review to look at the contingency arrangements for the M20/A20 and for the M2/A2 in the event of severe disruption at Eurotunnel and the channel ports, taking account of the recent congestion. It is important that we learn the lessons from this incident, and if the report comes up with good suggestions, we will look at them very carefully.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
In 2010 the Prime Minister said that if he failed to deliver on his promises, voters should kick him out—his promise on pointless reorganisations of the NHS, his promise on immigration in the tens of thousands, his promise to wipe out the deficit in this Parliament. He has broken his contract with the British people. If he is a man of his word, there is a P45 with “Cameron” on it. He should take it, take that lot and go.
The Prime Minister
I can tell the hon. Gentleman the commitments that I made. I said we would turn the British economy round—we have turned the economy round. I said we would get the country back to work—there are 1.75 million more jobs. I said we would get the deficit down—it is down by a half. I said we would protect the NHS and we have protected the NHS. I said I would look after Britain’s pensioners—we kept our promise to pensioners. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what the competition will be at the next election—competence and a long-term plan from the Government, chaos from Labour.
Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Q9. On Friday I visited the Cranswick pork facility in my constituency. It now employs 1,500 people at that site alone, hundreds more than in 2010. A lot of that investment came about because Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers opened up the Chinese market and have kept it open. Will the Prime Minister come and visit the facility, see the northern powerhouse in action, and see the effect of a long-term economic plan with exports at its heart?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that. One of the largest and most important manufacturing sectors in Britain is the food sector. It is very competitive. We need to do more to promote exports and my right hon. Friend the Agriculture Secretary is doing just that. The Chinese market represents an enormous opportunity. A number of important trade missions have already been carried out there, but we are also pushing within Europe for a free trade agreement with China. Other countries, including New Zealand, have shown the massive amount of benefit that that can bring to their country, and Britain will always be at the forefront of arguing for these trade agreements.
Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Q10. Does the Prime Minister know of anyone who owns or works for a UK- registered company that uses a Luxembourg-based holding company in order to avoid paying their fair share of tax in the UK?
The Prime Minister
I want to see more and more companies headquartered here in the United Kingdom. Under this Government, that is exactly what is happening. We inherited a situation where company after company was leaving our shores. Because we now have competitive tax rates and a business-friendly Government, more and more businesses are coming here, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Last week six-year-old Sam Brown from my constituency, with 10-year-old Kamal from London, came to see the Prime Minister to deliver personal letters to him about the NHS England failure to come up with a process to allow the NHS to fund the drugs they need for Morquio syndrome, which also apply to Duchenne muscular dystrophy. NHS England is still dragging its heels. Will the Prime Minister, who I know has taken an interest in this, please intervene to come up with an interim solution so that all these children can get the drugs that they need?
The Prime Minister
I well remember meeting the hon. Gentleman and the young boy with Duchenne muscular dystrophy syndrome. I have looked into this. The consultation is under way and will finish at the end of April. Following this, the NHS will make a decision as quickly as possible whether or not routinely to fund Translarna. I have discussed this with the Health Secretary and we will do everything we can to help.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
Q11. In 2010 the Government withdrew £80 million from five schools in my constituency. This destabilised the school in the village of Ryton so much that it is being forced against the will of all concerned to become an academy. The curriculum is constantly being cut, dedicated staff have lost their jobs and there is more of the same to come in the summer. What do I tell my constituent Lauren White, who loves this school, when she has seen her chosen career disappear before her very eyes?
The Prime Minister
All the evidence is that schools that have converted to academy status have seen their standards improve at a faster rate than maintained schools. Is it not interesting that the party that started to promote academies has given up on that good reform, as well as the other reforms it has given up on? We have put extra money in for school places, we are seeing improvements in school standards and we have said that any schools that are either inadequate or require improvement will need to be taken over by an academy if they do not have a proper plan for improvement. All parents who want to see their children succeed at school will welcome that.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
Q12. My right hon. Friend has been admirably robust at combating anti-Semitism, and this Government have been generous in supporting security measures at state faith schools. However, 120 community buildings are now at risk of a terrorist attack of the type we saw in Paris. Will he commit to looking at creating a counter-terrorism fund to help maintain the security measures at these community buildings?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I have met the Jewish Leadership Council and discussed this issue in the light of the Paris attacks. As he knows, the schools security grant, which we introduced, has made available £2.3 million of funding in the current year to protect security at Jewish schools, and it will be maintained next year. The Education Secretary is also going to meet the Community Security Trust to see whether we can do more to help Jewish independent schools. In my view, we need to do everything we can to help this community feel safe and secure in our country. I would hate it for British Jews not to feel that they have a home here in Britain—safe, secure and a vital part of our community.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Q15. It is now two years since a meningitis B vaccine was licensed for use across the EU. To achieve its effect of being able to prevent more than 80% of meningitis B cases here, it needs to be on the routine immunisation schedule for the NHS. The Prime Minister sounded hopeful in the House in November. Can he give us some indication as to when there will be a conclusion to the negotiations between the Government and Novartis?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid I cannot give any further update; the discussions are still under way. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this would be a vital step forward, because of the horrors of this disease. But he also knows that there would be huge cost issues if we were to make sure that this was made available. So those discussions with the drug company are vital. They are ongoing, and if I can give him an update in a letter, I will do so.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Q13. The whole of Herefordshire is behind a transformative project to create a new university specialising in engineering and technology, and, in particular, the agri-technology, defence and security sectors. That is possible only because of the Government’s universities policy and their decision to lift the cap on student numbers. Will the Prime Minister look hard, with the Chancellor, at the potential to award some public capital funding to support this enormously worthwhile project?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to say that uncapping university numbers removes the cap on aspiration. We want to have a country where everyone can have the choice of an apprenticeship or a university place. He is right that some areas of our country, including Herefordshire, have been under-served by university provision, which is why we have got the extra £200 million available in the Higher Education Funding Council for England to support STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—capital investment. I know he is discussing this with the Chancellor to see whether we could make available some of this funding for the scheme he talked about. Let me say how important it is that we maintain a long-term plan for funding our universities. Young people in Britain want to know that we have the best universities in Europe and that they will continue to be that way. That is why what the university vice-chancellors have said this week about how our plans are working and costed, and Labour plans are completely unworking and uncosted, is so important.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Last night, the Prime Minister was on television saying that he would crack down on firms that move abroad to avoid paying their tax. So my question is this: when the Government launched the taxpayer-backed national loan guarantee scheme in 2012, why did the Prime Minister decide to allow companies based offshore in tax havens to apply for this form of state aid?
The Prime Minister
The national loan guarantee scheme was run by the banks, and it was the banks that chose what companies to fund. Let me say this: we have done more than any previous Government to ensure that companies pay their taxes. We inherited a situation from Labour in which foreigners were not paying stamp duty, companies were leaving Britain, and we were giving knighthoods to bankers who had failed Britain. All of that has changed.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
Q14. This week is the anniversary of the great storm that ripped up the railway line at Dawlish in my constituency. I thank the Prime Minister and Network Rail for their very fast action to restore the line. Will he confirm his ongoing commitment to the South West rail link and the future funding for it?
The Prime Minister
First, let me join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the orange army that did such a fantastic job at Dawlish in getting that line back on track in such a short time. As she knows, we have also committed a further £30 million towards resilience and protection this year, but, more importantly, we are working with the South West Peninsula rail task force to bring together all the strategic and local transport schemes. I am absolutely determined that the south-west will have strong connections—road, rail and air—with the rest of the country, and those connections are absolutely vital to our long-term plan.
Child Sexual Abuse (Independent Panel Inquiry)
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse.
As the House knows, the Government established this inquiry so that we could get to the bottom of whether important institutions—public sector bodies as well as non- state organisations—have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse.
In November, in my last statement to the House about the inquiry, I said that in appointing two chairmen who had failed to win the trust of survivors, we had got things wrong. I said, as we worked out how to move forward, that we would listen to survivors and their representatives, and that if we stay patient and work together we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to find out what has happened in the past and what is still happening now, and to stop it happening in the future.
Since my last statement, I have held meetings with young survivors, adult survivors and groups that represent thousands of survivors in total. During those meetings, many people shared their experiences no matter how painful or how difficult it was to speak out. In doing so, the young survivors displayed immense courage, as did the older survivors who showed me how abuse that has taken place decades ago can feel like it took place yesterday, and how they have had to live with the consequences of that abuse for the whole of their adult lives. I am grateful to all of them.
Throughout those meetings, for every person who told their story, there was one common goal: to save others from the abuse that they had suffered. So let me be clear: I am now more determined than ever to expose the people behind these despicable crimes; the people and institutions that knew about the abuse but did not act and that failed to help when it was their duty—sometimes their very purpose—to do so; and the people and institutions that, in some cases, positively covered up evidence of abuse.
Other common themes emerged from those meetings and from the wider feedback that survivors have given me. Although there is no single point of view for the many thousands who have suffered—and that means that not every survivor will agree with everything that I announce today—there is a remarkable degree of consensus on what is needed for this inquiry as it goes about its important work.
Survivors have been clear about the type of chairman who would command their confidence. They have said that they want to see powers of compulsion to make sure all witnesses give evidence, and that we need to revise the inquiry’s terms of reference. They have raised the importance of help and support as this inquiry triggers memories that cause great pain, and, finally, they have emphasised the importance of prosecuting the perpetrators of these terrible crimes where evidence emerges.
I will turn first to the matter of the chairman. After my previous statement, the Home Office received more than 150 nominations from survivors, their representatives, MPs and members of the public. The Home Office also contacted Commonwealth countries, via the Foreign Office, to identify any suitable candidates. Each and every name was assessed against a set of criteria, incorporating the views of survivors on the most important factors. The criteria included: the appropriate skills to carry out this complex task; experience of the subject matter; and the absence of any direct links to any individual about whom people might have concerns, or any institution or organisation that might fall under the scope of the inquiry. A copy of the criteria will today be placed in the House Library and published in full on the gov.uk website.
Following an initial sift, due diligence checks were carried out on all the remaining names, which included academics, social workers, people from the charitable sector and a significant number of judges and members of the legal profession. The list was narrowed down to a shortlist of those who matched the set of criteria and were most suited to taking on the undoubtedly challenging role. I then took the views of a small group of survivors, all members of larger groups, who represent more than 100,000 individual survivors.
As the House will remember, during the debate on 22 January I said that I would reach my decision by the end of January and update the House shortly thereafter. Based on the clear feedback from survivors, and the assessment of the nominations against the agreed criteria, I can tell the House that I plan to appoint Justice Lowell Goddard as the new chairman of the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse.
Justice Goddard is a judge of the High Court of New Zealand. She is a highly respected member of the judiciary who has been at the forefront of criminal law and procedure. As chairman of New Zealand’s Independent Police Conduct Authority, she conducted an inquiry into the policing of child abuse in New Zealand, and she is also a member of the United Nations sub-committee on prevention of torture. She will bring a wealth of expertise to the role of chairman and, crucially, will be as removed as possible from the organisations and institutions that might become the focus of the inquiry.
I can confirm that I have discussed Justice Goddard’s appointment with the shadow Home Secretary, and I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her constructive comments and bipartisan approach. The House will also remember that I agreed with the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) that the nominated panel chairman would attend a pre-appointment hearing before the Home Affairs Committee, which will bring further transparency to the appointment process. I can confirm that the right hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Committee, has agreed that this will take place on 11 February. I have asked the Committee to publish its report as soon as possible.
I will now turn to the form of the inquiry. As I told the Home Affairs Committee on 15 December, I am clear that the inquiry should have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence. I also said there were three ways to do that: first, by establishing a royal commission; secondly, by converting the current inquiry into a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, subject to consultation with the chairman once appointed; or, thirdly, by setting up a new statutory inquiry under the 2005 Act.
Having taken in-depth legal advice and discussed the options with survivors, I have concluded that a royal commission would not have the same robustness in law as a statutory inquiry. In particular, it would not have the same clarity over its powers to compel witnesses to give evidence. I have decided not to convert the current inquiry, because doing so would not address the concerns of survivors about the degree of transparency in the original appointments process. I have therefore decided upon the third option of establishing a new statutory inquiry with a panel.
I want to make it clear that that is by no means a criticism of the current panel members, who were selected on the basis of their expertise and commitment to getting to the truth about child abuse in this country. The fact that the panel is being dissolved has nothing to do with their ability or integrity, and I want to place on the record my gratitude to them for the work they have done so far. I have asked the panel to produce a report on their work so far, which I am sure will provide valuable assistance to the incoming chairman.
In order to make sure that the appointment of the new panel is as transparent as possible, I will publish in full the criteria by which each new member will be selected and place a copy in the House Library and on gov.uk. I hope that the original members and the expert adviser to the panel, Professor Alexis Jay, will put themselves forward to be considered against those criteria if they so wish. I can confirm that Ben Emmerson QC will remain as counsel to the inquiry. I will wish to discuss the make-up of the new panel with Justice Goddard, but I am clear that each member must have the right skills and expertise to do the job, satisfy the statutory requirements of impartiality, and command the confidence of survivors.
So the process is being reset, and that means that I will also revisit the terms of reference. In accordance with the Inquiries Act, these will need to be discussed with Justice Goddard, but I want to assure survivors and the House that I have heard the strong call that the inquiry’s remit should go back further than the current time limit of 1970. There are, however, good reasons for confining the inquiry’s scope to England and Wales. The Hart inquiry in Northern Ireland and the Oldham inquiry in Jersey are already under way, while the Scottish Government have announced their own inquiry into child abuse—but I shall discuss this with the new chairman. In the event that the geographical scope remains the same, I propose that a clear protocol is agreed to make sure that no information falls through the cracks and that no people or institutions escape scrutiny, censure or justice.
I wish once more to reassure the House that the Official Secrets Act will not be a bar to giving evidence to this inquiry. I am clear that the inquiry will have the full co-operation of Government and access to all relevant information, including secret information where appropriate. I shall be writing to Secretaries of State to ask for their full co-operation, and I will ask the Cabinet Secretary to write to all Departments and agencies, and to public sector organisations, including local authorities, setting out the need for full transparency and co-operation with the inquiry.
I should now like to turn to the important issue of support. Survivors have fought hard for this inquiry, and they have done so knowing the intense emotional toll it will take. Charities have already reported a huge increase in demand for their services as more and more people come forward, many for the first time. That is why, in December, I announced a £2 million fund available to non-statutory organisations that had seen an increase in demand as a direct result of the announcement of the child abuse inquiry. A further £2.85 million fund for non-statutory organisations providing support across England and Wales was also announced. I am pleased to announce that these funds are now available and organisations can now bid for them. Going forward, further support will be needed for those who wish to give evidence to the inquiry and the many thousands of people who may be affected by its work. It is essential that these people are given the help they need, and I expect appropriate Government funding to be made available at the next spending review.
The final issue survivors have raised with me is the need to do everything we can to ensure that the perpetrators of child sexual abuse are prosecuted wherever possible, and of course I share that aim. I can confirm that a co-ordinated national policing response will link directly into the inquiry and will be able to follow up any lead the inquiry uncovers that requires a policing response. This will be led by Simon Bailey, the national policing lead for child protection and abuse investigations as part of Operation Hydrant, which will co-ordinate all child abuse investigations concerning people of public prominence or those offences that took place in institutional settings. The Hydrant team will be responsible for the recording of all referrals from the inquiry that relate to potentially criminal abuse and failures to act. It will also oversee the quality of responses from police forces to any requests for information from the panel. It is also important that there is a central point of contact within the Crown Prosecution Service for any referrals resulting from the inquiry. I can confirm that the Director of Public Prosecutions has appointed her legal adviser, Neil Moore, to this vital role.
There is one separate but related matter on which I promised to update the House. As part of the review that the Home Office commissioned of Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC last July, we asked a number of other Government Departments, as well as the Security Service and the police, to undertake a careful search of their records. Following reports in the press last month about a Cabinet Office file title listed in the national archives, the Cabinet Office has undertaken urgent work to establish why this file was not identified as part of its original search for the Wanless and Whittam review, and whether it was a duplicate of a file that was held at the Home Office and seen by Wanless and Whittam during their review. This work has established that it was not an exact duplicate; the two files are different, but contain much of the same material. The Cabinet Office file has additional material that the Home Office file does not, and vice versa. Some of this additional Cabinet Office material falls within in the scope of the Wanless and Whittam review. My officials have since spoken to Peter Wanless and summarised the additional information it contains, and he has confirmed that it would not have changed the conclusions of his review.
None the less, the file should have been identified when the Home Office first asked the Cabinet Office to conduct searches in connection with the Wanless and Whittam review. My right hon. Friend Minister for the Cabinet Office will today table a written ministerial statement explaining that as a result of the discovery of the file the Cabinet Office has undertaken additional searches of its papers and files. As a result, Cabinet Office officials have identified a small number of additional files that should also have been identified and passed to Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam last summer. I have said that they must be shared with Wanless and Whittam immediately, with the Goddard inquiry and Hart inquiry, should they wish to see them, and with the police. My right hon. Friend has agreed.
It is imperative that the whole Government co-operate fully with the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse and provide full access to any information that is requested. I have of course asked for these files, in common with all other relevant documents held by Government, to be made available to the inquiry so that it leaves no stone unturned in its bid to get the truth.
That brings me to my final point. I have said before and I shall say again that what we have seen so far in Rotherham, Oxford, Greater Manchester and elsewhere is only the tip of the iceberg. This afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will give a statement on Louise Casey’s report on Rotherham borough council, which will contain further evidence of its failure to protect vulnerable children. With every passing day and every new revelation, it is clear that the sexual abuse of children has taken place and is still taking place on a scale that we still cannot fully comprehend.
What we do know is that the authorities have in different ways let down too many children and adult survivors. In many cases, people in positions of authority have abused their power. Now, those of us in privileged positions of public service must show that we have listened, we have heard, we have learned and we will come together not to avoid difficult questions but to expose hard truths. Most importantly, we will keep in mind the people on whose behalf we seek justice, the survivors of these appalling crimes.
On that note, I end by thanking survivors for their patience, their determination and their willingness to help us get this right. I commend the statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Rotherham, Oxfordshire, Savile, the BBC and the national health service, the north Wales care homes, Rochdale, the Elm guest house and too many others: too many institutions that failed to listen to children, failed to protect them, turned a blind eye while they were abused and, in some cases, even covered up awful crimes. Those who endured abuse need justice. They want the truth, they want answers about what will change for the future and they need support. We all want to know that abusers and criminals are being prosecuted and stopped, that children are being heard and kept safe and that the same mistakes are not being made over and over again. That is why the inquiry is so important, why it must work to get the truth and also why it must set out the reforms we need for the future. It is why we will support it and why we wish Justice Lowell Goddard well in getting it swiftly under way.
It has now been 213 days since the Home Secretary first announced an inquiry and more than two years since we first called for it. It has now had three false starts under the first two chosen chairs, as well as the process of panel hearings that the Home Secretary launched in November and that she has now had to abandon.
We cannot afford for the Home Secretary to fail on this again, so we need to be clear that the previous problems have been resolved. First, the two previous chairs went because the Home Office did not apply due diligence and the Home Secretary did not consult survivors. I welcome the fact that she has now met many groups of survivors. Will she assure us that there has been due diligence? I strongly welcome, too, the additional support for survivors and I hope that she will keep the level of support under review and talk to the Department of Health about the support that it will need to provide. How will she ensure that survivors have an ongoing voice in shaping the inquiry, perhaps learning the lessons from Northern Ireland and other countries?
Secondly, the inquiry was repeatedly not put on a sustainable footing and concern was raised about its independence from the Home Office. Making the inquiry statutory is welcome and is something that we called for. Have the counsel to and staff of the inquiry been appointed by the Home Office or by the chair, and what will their relationship be with the Home Office?
Thirdly, there has been considerable confusion over the role of the panel. Can she assure us that it will continue to include survivors and explain what its role will be? Is this a panel inquiry chaired by Justice Lowell Goddard or a judicial inquiry by Justice Goddard, advised by the panel?
Fourthly, the scope and purpose of the inquiry has not previously been clear. I agree that it must consider the institutional failure and make recommendations for the future. I also agree that individual crimes must be investigated by the police, rather than the panel, and I strongly welcome the greater clarity she has announced today about how criminal investigations will be handled and co-ordinated by the police and prosecution. What about the continued question of whether there was a cover-up in Whitehall or Westminster of very serious crimes over many decades? Extremely serious allegations have been made, but they have not been investigated.
Today, the Home Secretary has had to tell the House that more files were missing from the Wanless review, including files on briefings to the Prime Minister of the day, which came to light only when something was discovered by accident in the National Archives. Have the Foreign Office, MI6, Downing street and other Departments now been asked to look at their files, and why was that not done before, when the Wanless review started?
The Home Secretary will know, too, that no one has looked more widely at allegations that have been made about cover-ups or decisions not to investigate or prosecute in that period. Will she clarify whether she expects the Goddard inquiry to look in detail at those allegations and whether it will have the investigative capacity to do so? For example, will it be able to look at top-secret information held by the security agencies? If that is not its purpose, who will pursue that investigation? It is clear that people will expect us to get the truth of what happened within Government.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, what is the Home Secretary doing to ensure that the police and social services have the resources to deal with these serious cases right now? The current police investigations are immensely important and she will know that there are grave allegations in the papers only today that must be pursued. The police must have the ability to pursue serious investigations wherever they lead, but forces have said that they are struggling to cope with the cases that are now rightly coming forward, both current and past cases, particularly given the scale of officer cuts that they have experienced. We know that there are long and dangerous delays, too, in the National Crime Agency in dealing with online abuse. The Home Secretary rightly talked about her renewed determination to tackle the problem, and this is the area in which we need to act urgently. What is she doing to respond to the extremely serious concerns that police forces and social services still lack both the capacity and the policies to investigate and keep children safe today?
For too long, this appalling crime has been ignored. Children who called for help were not heard and too many of them are still not being listened to. I know that the whole House will want the inquiry to work, to be thorough and effective and to support the announcements that the Home Secretary made today.
The Home Secretary concluded by asking for patience, but she will know better than anyone that the inquiry has gone wrong too many times already and that we still need assurance that the measures will be in place to protect children today. She will know that patience is running out and that we need action to support child protection now and to get this inquiry finally and properly under way so that it can get to the truth and provide the justice and reforms we need to keep all our children safe. The whole House will unite behind ensuring that that can happen.
Mrs May
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for her commitment to the inquiry. One of the issues raised with me by survivors is that they want to be certain there is cross-party support for the inquiry so they can be confident that it will continue. From what she has said, I think we can give a very clear message that the whole House is of one accord in saying that the inquiry should be able to do what we all want—to get to the truth.
The right hon. Lady asked about the panel hearings. She said that I had set up the listening events. Of course, I did not set them up; they were set up by the independent inquiry panel. The panel decided to stop them in the middle of January, partly in expectation that a decision would be made about how the inquiry was being taken forward. I have been very clear that I have asked the panel to report on the work it has done so far. That will ensure that nothing undertaken by the original inquiry is lost in the process, and that its work can be taken forward, as appropriate, to the new panel inquiry.
I assure the right hon. Lady that greater due diligence has taken place in the Home Office and the Cabinet Office, including lengthy interviews with the individual concerned. On the role and ongoing voice of survivors, I have been very clear that it is important for the panel inquiry to be informed by survivors. They have the experience, understanding and expertise, and their voice will therefore be an important part of the panel inquiry.
The right hon. Lady asked about advisers to the panel. The Inquiries Act 2005 provides the possibility of individuals being advisers—or assessors, as they are called—to a panel. I will explore with Justice Goddard how we can get the greatest breadth of input from survivors to ensure that their voice is truly heard in the inquiry’s work.
The inquiry will be an inquiry panel, with Justice Goddard as its chairman. Appointments of staff to the inquiry will be undertaken in consultation with Justice Goddard. The staff—the secretariat—are and will be independent of the Home Office.
The right hon. Lady referred to the issues around the cover-up in Whitehall and Westminster. I have been clear about the files, and we will renew our efforts to ensure that proper searches are undertaken across Government. When I last made a statement to the House, I was very clear that I could not stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there has been no cover-up. One of the things that the inquiry will look at, and which I expect it to be able to unearth, is whether there was a cover-up in the past. That is important for us all, but particularly for survivors and those involved in the acts that might have been subject to such a cover-up.
Another of the issues relates to investigative capacity. The formal process is that I will discuss the make-up of the panel with Justice Goddard. We have already had some discussions about the investigative experience of panel members to make sure that they can do what is necessary in their work. As I said in my statement, we have clearly told the Security Service and the police that information they have relevant to the inquiry should be brought forward to it.
At one stage the right hon. Lady said that the police do not have the policies to investigate. I have to say to her that the police do have the policies and powers to investigate. One of the issues in the recent Rotherham case, sadly, was that the police had the ability to investigate, but—I am afraid because of what I have already described as dereliction of duty—they did not investigate. We must deal with that attitude as much as anything else. That is why we are working with the national policing lead to put in extra support for investigations across the country to make sure that such investigations can go where they need to go and can identify the perpetrators and bring them to justice.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
May I commend the Home Secretary on her announcement? There can be doubt of the integrity and thoroughness of the approach she has announced. I am sure that, even now, people are searching for unsuitable links to Justice Goddard. Does she agree that, realistically, this is the last chance saloon for this essential inquiry? It is essential for everyone to row in behind the inquiry, which will need robust support. Justice Goddard will need robust support from the Home Secretary, the Government and the Opposition, and everyone who wants to get to the bottom of the truth in this sordid matter.
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I commend him and a number of other MPs, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wells (Tessa Munt) and for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), who is not in the Chamber—[Interruption.] He is in a different place from normal. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), and the hon. Members for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) have all been particularly active in dealing with this issue, and I commend them for their work.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is absolutely right. My intention, hope and expectation is that the inquiry will now be able to get up and running, and to undertake the work it needs to do to bring truth and justice to the people who, sadly, have suffered from these terrible crimes. As I said in my statement, what I am announcing today will not be supported 100% by everybody. I hope, however, that everybody accepts that we need to get the inquiry under way, and that we need to support those involved—Justice Goddard and the panel members, when they are selected—to ensure that they can do the job we all want them to do.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the chair, since I will be at the pre-appointment hearing next Tuesday. May I say to the Home Secretary that although the inquiry—I hope it will get under way very shortly—should obviously be as thorough as possible, it should not go on endlessly for years and become another Chilcot? The people who have suffered so much, about whom the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary spoke very eloquently, deserve a conclusion. That is why it is so essential for the inquiry to come to a conclusion well within, say, 12 months.
Mrs May
I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman’s last point about the inquiry coming to a conclusion well within 12 months. I think that it will take longer than 12 months, but, as he said, it is important that it does not go on endlessly, seemingly being pushed ever and ever further into the future, with no report. This will of course be for the chairman of the inquiry to determine, but my own view is that it would be helpful to set a date by which a report will be made, even if at that point the inquiry says that it needs to do further work in certain areas. People need to see that there will be a report. Indeed, the inquiry will need to consider how to keep people updated on an ongoing basis during its work so that they do not feel that it is just going on behind closed doors.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I have documentary evidence to substantiate the allegation that the Foreign Office recently turned a blind eye to child abuse in St Helena. We are also aware of the recent banning of the American journalist Leah McGrath Goodman from investigating child abuse in Jersey. In both cases, that was done by UK Government authorities in recent years; I am not arguing that Ministers were involved. Are those cases within the inquiry’s terms of reference?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on the abuse that may have taken place in both those geographical areas. I am afraid that my answer will disappoint him. Work is of course already being done in relation to Jersey. It would not be appropriate for this inquiry to look at Jersey and St Helena. As I have said, I expect the inquiry to confine itself to England and Wales. I will of course need to discuss that with the chairman, but that is my expectation.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary will know of my interest in this matter, because of my 10 years as Chair of the Children, Schools and Families Committee. May I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick)? If this is seen as being kicked into the long grass, a lot of people will be very disappointed.
A major inquiry such as this one has to be based on good policing, for which resources must be provided, as well as good quality research. Some of the evidence from Operation Pallial is causing us to worry about that. I want every person guilty of child abuse to be prosecuted and punished, but such inquiries always include false allegations of abuse that destroy people’s lives, often because such people are put on bail and never charged. In my capacity as Chair of the Select Committee, I saw the lives of social workers, teachers and head teachers destroyed by false allegations. Can we get the balance right in how the criminal justice system works?
Mrs May
It is obviously important that we get the balance right. I am very clear that it is not for the inquiry to investigate individual allegations that could lead to criminal charges being brought. Those are matters for the police. I have indicated that under Operation Hydrant, arrangements will be put in place to look at the quality of the response of police forces across the country to ensure that nobody falls between the various stools of the different inquiries.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about people who find themselves on bail, but who are not charged. The Government intend to deal with that issue through the changes that we have proposed. We are looking at a limit for bail, except in exceptional circumstances, because I recognise the concern for people who are put on bail for many months, but who are not charged. That is the case across a range of crimes and is not confined to child sexual abuse. Such people can be in limbo for a considerable time. That is why the Government are looking at the whole question of how long bail should last.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Many people will warmly welcome the progress that the Home Secretary has brought to the House today. I commend her for the listening process that she undertook before the announcement. My constituent Tom Perry, who has spoken out bravely, met her and came to my surgery last week to give me positive feedback about the meeting.
As the Home Secretary knows, I have raised before the matter of resources for organisations that provide support to the survivors of abuse. I would like to know that, despite the announcement today, she will keep those resources under review, so that if the £4.8 million that has been announced is not enough, more funds will be available.
Mrs May
I know that my right hon. Friend has taken an interest in this issue. I was pleased to meet her constituent, which I have done on more than one occasion. On resources, we are looking ahead to a new spending review. As I said in my statement, I will work with ministerial colleagues across Government to look at the various aspects of this business, including the support that is needed for victims and survivors, and not just at the aspects that relate to the Home Office. We will take that forward into the comprehensive spending review to ensure that funding is available to provide what is necessary for those who will be affected by the very fact of the inquiry and by coming forward. There will be many people for whom the inquiry will raise difficult memories, and support needs to be available.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I particularly welcome the statutory nature of the inquiry. Will the Home Secretary say a little more about whether there will be a senior police assessor or adviser who can act as a liaison between the ongoing police investigations and the inquiry to ensure that one is not allowed to frustrate the other?
The Home Secretary and all hon. Members have used repeatedly the word “survivor”, which is wonderful. May I make a quick plea to the press and the media who are following this debate and this issue to use the word “survivor” and not the word “victim”, because every time they use that word, it adds to the hurt and the disrespect?
Mrs May
On the first point that the hon. Lady raised, as I said in answer to another question, we will have to look at the investigative capacity that needs to be available to the inquiry panel, but under Operation Hydrant, Chief Constable Simon Bailey will work to ensure that there are appropriate links between the inquiry and the police investigations. What is important is that nothing falls between the various exercises and that information is shared appropriately between the investigations and the inquiry panel.
On the second point, the hon. Lady is absolutely right about language. It is important that we use the language of survivors or, in some cases, of victims and survivors. There is another element in respect of language. Sometimes people refer to “historic” cases of child abuse. Many of these cases took place in the past, but for those who suffered them, they are not historic—they live with them every single day. I say to the House and to all outside who comment on this matter that we should be very careful about the language we use. We should not use inappropriate terms that are hurtful and that could cause harm to individuals.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on arriving at the right solution to the heinous, dangerous and difficult situation that she has been faced with. May I say on behalf of those of us who campaigned for a 2005 Act inquiry to be applied to this matter because of our experience of other 2005 Act inquiries that she has done exactly the right thing? May I also say what a good move it is to ensure that Ben Emmerson stays as counsel to the inquiry? This is a tremendous move in the right direction and I am certain that my right hon. Friend is completely right.
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We received a very clear message that the inquiry needed statutory powers, which is why I have brought them forward. It is important that the inquiry is able to compel people to give evidence and that appropriate sanctions are in place in relation to that. I thank him for his comments, given his experience in this area.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s statement. Very sadly, a constituent of mine was horribly abused throughout his teenage years at Highgate Wood school in the London borough of Haringey. That led to a conviction last summer. There are suggestions that there were other examples of abuse at that school and in the London borough of Haringey. Will that matter fall within the scope of the inquiry?
Mrs May
The inquiry will look at abuse that has taken place in state institutions and non-state institutions. It will look at why it was possible for that abuse to take place. Those who are in authority in a school have a duty to protect the children and not to abuse them. The inquiry will look at whether the duty of care was exercised properly by people in those institutions, and at what lessons we need to learn to ensure that such abuse does not happen in the future.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
Mr Speaker will not be surprised to hear that my position as an ethnic minority immigrant from New Zealand adds to my support for the statement. One thing that I have noticed in New Zealand is that it suffers from “tall poppy syndrome”. That came through at the last election in New Zealand, when very unpleasant, anonymous accusations were made. I suspect that someone with the standing and career of Justice Goddard will have been the subject of such false and probably anonymous accusations. If my right hon. Friend is aware of any such accusations, can she kill them dead now?
Mrs May
I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the appointment of a New Zealand judge. It became apparent during the due diligence process that there is a blog with an accusation against Justice Lowell Goddard relating to a potential cover-up. I have spoken to her and to New Zealand’s Attorney-General about it, and I have been assured that there is absolutely no truth to the allegation. That information was shared with a number of survivors and they were comfortable with the explanation that was given. I am clear not only that Justice Goddard has the necessary experience in this area, but, crucially, that her track record shows—for example, in the work that she did to look at police conduct in these matters—that she is willing to go where the evidence takes her, without fear or favour.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I thank the Home Secretary for the discussion so far. I welcome the widening and deepening of the inquiry, and the renewal of the drive to “expose hard truths”, as she rightly put it. Indeed, some very disturbing truths can be expected.
I welcome the fact that the remit will go back further, but I worry about its not being extended beyond England and Wales, because that might not be enough. The Hart inquiry in Northern Ireland is doing some very good work. However, we have a place called Kincora, which has been a running sore for 40 years. Although some of what is said may be rumour, there are deep suspicions that the security services, the Official Secrets Act and all sorts of things were used to cover up some very nasty practices in that place. Indeed, there are suggestions that it was used to compromise loyalist paramilitaries during the troubles in the ’70s and early ’80s. I plead with the Home Secretary to include the Kincora situation, because the outworkings of Kincora extend beyond the shores of Northern Ireland and involve key organisations and parts of the state.
Mrs May
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the inquiry, and I have considered whether it should cover Kincora. I came to the view that it is appropriate for that issue to be considered by the Hart inquiry, and that process is up and running. We must ensure that clear protocols are in place so that any information or evidence that comes forward that links the two inquiries or relates to people across them both can be shared properly, and so that full and proper consideration is given to those issues. As I said earlier, all parts of the government, including the Security Service, should make available any information that they hold that is relevant to either the Goddard inquiry or to the Hart inquiry into Kincora.
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for her statement. Justice Lowell Goddard is an inspired appointment in the best traditions of Commonwealth appointments to major inquiries in this country, so there is historical precedence for that. Some survivors groups have brought up the issue of a royal commission with the power to compel witnesses. Will the panel that the Home Secretary is setting up have that power?
Mrs May
The panel is not being set up under a royal commission, although we did consider that and a number of people pointed to the Australian experience. A royal commission can be similar to a statutory inquiry under the 2005 Act, but in some aspects it does not have quite the same legal certainty. That is why I decided to go down the route of a statutory inquiry under the 2005 Act, and the chairman of the panel will have power to compel witnesses—it is clear that everybody feels that that power is necessary for the inquiry to be conducted properly.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Home Secretary and I have corresponded on this issue, and I raised it in November in the Chamber although I am still not clear about the answer. In Wales, the Wales Office and North Wales police were suspected of a cover-up. I know that documents went missing in north Wales; there were statements and letters and so on, and we still do not have answers on where those are and who is looking into that. Will the Home Secretary assure me and the people of Wales that somebody in this inquiry will consider what went on in Wales at that time?
Mrs May
The inquiry will cover Wales as well as England, and it will be for the chairman and the panel to determine what issues they wish to consider. I expect that any evidence held by Members of the House, or others, or suggestions for issues that need to be considered by the inquiry, should be forwarded to the inquiry secretariat so that they can be properly considered by the chairman and the panel. It is possible to bring about a prosecution, as we saw in Operation Pallial and as a result of work done by the National Crime Agency when looking into issues in north Wales. The issues in Wales will certainly be covered.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and her determination to see a statutory inquiry set up, as well as her plan to appoint Justice Lowell Goddard and her recognition of the advantages of having such a chair—Justice Goddard is a judge and has a background in inquiring into child abuse, human rights and police complaints. Will the Home Secretary consult the chair—if the appointment is cleared—about how we can strengthen the powers, sanctions and directions issued by the Independent Police Complaints Commission? It is not good enough that our police and the directorate of professional standards can blatantly disregard the IPCC’s rulings and recommendations, and for our police to consider themselves a law unto themselves.
Mrs May
The Government have made a number of changes to the IPCC which mean that fewer investigations of a serious nature will be carried out by the police. Serious and sensitive complaints against the police will be dealt with by the IPCC, and we are looking more generally at the complaints system and disciplinary system within the police. The hon. Lady raises an important point, and I am certainly willing to refer it to the chair of the inquiry for consideration.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for confirming that the Hart inquiry will take place in Northern Ireland. Will that inquiry have the power to request those living on the UK mainland to attend it? If it is discovered that those involved in the inquiries have been in both Belfast and London, will evidence be exchanged between those inquiries?
Mrs May
It is certainly the intention to establish protocols between the inquiries so that evidence can be exchanged between them where appropriate, and evidence held on the mainland that is relevant to the Hart inquiry should be made available to that inquiry. The hon. Gentleman asked a specific point about the powers of the Hart inquiry in relation to individuals resident on the mainland, and if I may I will check the answer and write to him to ensure that I give him an accurate reply.
Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and her commitment to getting this right, particularly in committing to support for survivors. She is right to identify the emotional toll that the inquiry will take. When survivors gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee they were worried that financial barriers would prevent some people from giving evidence. Can the Home Secretary reassure the House that child abuse survivors and organisations that help and support them will get the financial support they need to ensure that they are not excluded from giving evidence to the inquiry?
Mrs May
I can give my hon. Friend a degree of assurance about that. As I said, we are making money available to groups that support survivors who are affected by the child abuse inquiry, especially when the number of requests and calls on their time and resources have increased significantly as a result of the announcement of the inquiry. The inquiry panel and chairman will need to consider how to ensure that arrangements are in place, so that those who wish to give evidence are able to do so and do not feel that there is a barrier to that.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Will thought be given to setting up a system where there is ongoing communication between survivors and the inquiry, so that the survivors maintain their confidence in the inquiry and its processes?
Mrs May
The hon. Lady raises an important point. In a sense, this inquiry is like no other before it in terms of the subject matter it is dealing with, and it must obviously maintain the confidence of survivors. Information and communication will be an important issue for the inquiry panel, and I certainly intend that to be addressed by the chairman at an early stage.
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for her obvious commitment to getting this inquiry right. People are concerned that there has not been enough co-ordination between the different police investigations around the country—that comes up time and again. In her statement she mentioned Simon Bailey’s work in charge of Operation Hydrant. As she said, his job is to follow up any lead that the inquiry uncovers, and to be responsible for recording all referrals from the inquiry that relate to criminal abuse. Will she reassure the House that Simon Bailey’s job will involve ensuring proper co-ordination between those inquiries, and that there is not just a liaison with the inquiry but between the various police outfits that are already up and running?
Mrs May
I can give my hon. Friend that reassurance. At an earlier stage, Chief Constable Simon Bailey raised with me his concern to ensure that investigations are properly joined up between police forces, and that information that might be helpful to an investigation in one force is not held by another force and not passed on. Part of his work in Operation Hydrant will be to co-ordinate all child sexual abuse investigations that concern people of public prominence or institutional settings, and he will also consider the responses from police forces to the inquiry to ensure that they are of suitable quality.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
I welcome the statement and hope it represents a fresh start for victims, whose confidence has been badly shaken in recent months. In particular, I welcome the reassurances given on the Official Secrets Act and the Secretary of State’s letter confirming that those reassurances will also apply to people giving evidence to the Hart inquiry. She is aware of my concerns about Kincora and the allegations that MI5 was involved in a cover-up. When she says she will discuss the inquiry’s jurisdictional limits with the new chairman, can she assure us that she will do so with an open mind? Can she also assure us that those who wish to give evidence who are covered by the Official Secrets Act and require documentation to support their evidence will, along with the inquiry itself, have access to that documentation?
Mrs May
There are arrangements in place to enable former Crown servants to give evidence to such inquiries, notwithstanding the Official Secrets Act. I have been clear with the House about my own view regarding the geographical extent, but of course the chairman will look at this with a fresh mind, so the matter will be discussed with her. I should point out, however, that the Hart inquiry is up and running and that the powers and jurisdictions of the two inquiries—in terms of lessons learned and recommendations—are different.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I welcome the statement and action taken by the Home Secretary. I am sure that the whole House will acknowledge that few crimes are as repugnant as sexual abuse. However, just as we have a responsibility towards victims, so we have a responsibility towards those accused of involvement. Since the process began, there have been two unfounded claims against people, and I have a constituent whose life has been personally and financially ruined because of an unfounded accusation. Will we ensure not only that the guilty are brought to justice but that innocent people named in the inquiry do not experience the same problems as many of the survivors?
Mrs May
It is important that when allegations are made about individuals, they are properly investigated and clarified; that where appropriate, charges and prosecutions are brought; and that it is made clear where individuals named are found not guilty. I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point that great care must be taken in dealing with allegations, and we are at pains to put in place appropriate processes, in relation to the inquiry and the police, to ensure that proper investigations take place.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I hope that this proves a fresh start and leads to a satisfactory outcome. What restrictions, if any, will be applied to members of the now dissolved panel talking about their experiences or sharing information obtained through being panel members?
Mrs May
The panel members were subject to a confidentiality agreement when they signed up. I am conscious that in the listening events they held, some people will have given very personal information and, as was pointed out, some of them might not wish that information to go forward to the new inquiry—which is what I have asked the panel to do for the report. We will work with survivors and others to ensure that if anybody has those concerns, their information will not go forward to the new panel.
Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The secrecy that surrounds child sexual abuse makes it particularly difficult to investigate and prosecute. Does the Home Secretary agree that members of the public could have an important role to play—not just those with personal or direct involvement, but those who might have information—and that such people should come forward to say what they have seen or what they know, to add to the body of evidence and enable this investigation to succeed?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We tend to talk about survivors coming forward to give evidence, but there might be people who are aware of things that took place who are not themselves survivors but who might have seen things happening, perhaps in a children’s home or some other setting. I would encourage all such people to come forward to give evidence, because it will be valuable to the inquiry.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
Will the inquiry look into all inquiries, including Operation Rose in Northumberland, which has become known as a big whitewash?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
I commend the Home Secretary for taking up the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) some months ago of looking to the Commonwealth for an unquestionably independent chair. In particular, I commend the Home Secretary for the close co-ordination she has outlined between the inquiry and Operation Hydrant.
It has been a difficult journey since the Home Secretary first agreed to hold this inquiry. What lessons has she learned for the benefit of other Ministers needing to commission an inquiry?
Mrs May
I have learned the importance of listening to survivors. In the past, these sorts of inquiries often involved authorities doing something to people—if you like—and making the decisions. With this inquiry, we are seeing the importance of victims and survivors being part of the process. It is important that their voices be heard by, and can input into, the inquiry. It should not just be authorities deciding what happens; those with experience of the issue should be taken along and given a voice, so that their feelings and expertise can be considered.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Following on from that last question, last July, the Home Secretary made the decision to set up a non-statutory panel inquiry. Today, she is setting up a statutory inquiry. Why did she make the wrong decision last July?
Mrs May
I have said to the House before that I took the decision to set up the inquiry in the way I did last July because of the very good experience of the Hillsborough panel inquiry, which had done an excellent job and came forward with a hard-hitting report, leading to further action and now inquests into the events at Hillsborough. It was a good model that those involved felt had allowed all the evidence to be taken and appropriate recommendations to be made. In the light of all the discussions and concerns, however, people have said that the inquiry should have statutory powers, and so I took this decision. I could have stood here and carried on with the previous panel inquiry, but I was willing to say, “No, it was wrong to do it that way. I am willing to start again.” That was the right thing to do. I hope all Members agree.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for coming to the House. She has shown us the great courtesy of keeping the House regularly informed on this matter. The difference between an average Minister and a great Minister is that when a great Minister gets something wrong, they correct their mistake, and that is what she has done.
What will happen if a witness is compelled to give evidence but tries to use the defence that they cannot disclose the information because it would break the Official Secrets Act? What is the situation then?
Mrs May
There are arrangements in place for authorities to enable people to give evidence, notwithstanding that it would break the Official Secrets Act. This issue is regularly raised, however, and I will ensure that the strongest possible arrangements are in place to ensure it can happen.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I welcome the statement and the foundations the Home Secretary has laid for the review. One local issue in north Yorkshire concerns the number of responsible bodies. I have spoken to victims, and they have a problem with the lack of co-ordination and the lack of training of the people dealing with the issue. In looking at funding and money, will she consider what help she can give to local organisations to work better and closer and in a more co-ordinated manner on child abuse and child exploitation?
Mrs May
My hon. Friend raises another important issue about how we deal with incidents currently taking place. I have been considering this matter along with a number of my right hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. We have focused particularly on looking at what we can do in response to the Alexis Jay report on Rotherham, and my right hon. Friend is of course about to make his own statement on the Louise Casey inspection. The Government will come forward with a number of proposals that will hit at the very issues my hon. Friend has raised. He is right that we need to look at issues around training and co-ordination in respect of bodies looking at incidents, or potential incidents, of child sexual abuse today.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
I very much welcome this measured statement. Will the Home Secretary confirm that there will be absolutely no hiding place—regardless of time, status or influence—for those involved in these abhorrent acts?
Mrs May
I am very clear that this inquiry should go where the evidence takes it and that there should be no hiding place for anybody. We should be very clear that the aim of this inquiry is to get to the truth—to find out what happened, but crucially also to learn the lessons to make sure that this cannot happen again.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
I, too, welcome the statement. What financial resources will be available to the panel inquiry? Will it have the finances it needs to allow the inquiry to go where it takes it, or will it face any constraints?
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Rotherham council.
Last August, Professor Jay’s report into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham described how vulnerable children have been repeatedly failed by a council paralysed by complacency, institutionalised political correctness and blatant failures of political and officer leadership.
With such serious documented failures, I told the House last September that it was clearly in the public interest to order a statutory inspection of Rotherham council. I appointed Louise Casey to undertake a formal best-value inspection of the council. Today, her inspection report has been laid before the House and published. I would like to thank Louise Casey and her inspection team for their hard work in producing this thorough report.
This report presents a disturbing picture of a council failing in its duty to protect vulnerable children and young people from harm. It reveals the council’s failure, both past and present, to accept, understand or combat the crimes of child sexual exploitation. It concludes that this culture of denial is intrinsic and has resulted in a lack of support for victims and insufficient action taken against known perpetrators.
The report also confirms a complete failure of political and officer leadership in Rotherham. Let me outline some of the report’s conclusions. Poor governance is deeply seated throughout the council. There is a pervading culture of bullying, sexism, suppression and misplaced political correctness that has cemented the council’s failures. Both members and officers lack the confidence to tackle difficult issues for fear of being seen as racist or of upsetting community cohesion. The council is currently incapable of tackling its weakness without substantial intervention.
The council lacks political leadership. It is also directionless, and it is not clear what kind of organisation it wants to be or how it will get there. It is clear that the political leadership of the council is unable to hold officers to account, and there is an inability of all members properly to represent the interests of local people. Some councillors have not lived up to the high standards expected of those in public life or to their positions of responsibility. For example, the council goes to lengths to cover up and silence whistleblowers. It has created an unhealthy climate where people fear to speak out because they have seen the consequences of doing so.
Management is ineffective; there is no coherent senior leadership team and no permanent chief executive. There is a poorly directed tier of middle managers, some of whom do not demonstrate that they have the skills, drive and ability necessary to turn the organisation around. There is a history of poor performance and a tolerance of failure in children’s services. Strategies and action plans sit on the shelf and do not get translated into change.
In short, the report concludes that Rotherham council has failed its citizens, is failing to comply with the statutory best-value duty and it needs a fresh start. As a consequence of this conclusion, and in terms of statute, I am satisfied that the council is failing to comply with its best-value duty. It is failing in its duty to deliver quality local services for all and value for money to local taxpayers. I therefore need to consider exercising my powers of intervention to secure compliance with the duty. To that end and in line with procedures laid down in the Local Government Act 1999, I am today writing to the council to ask if it wishes to make representations both on Louise Casey’s report and on the intervention package I am proposing.
My proposals are designed to give the council the new start it needs, and to put an immediate end to the council’s ongoing service and governance failings. To provide that new start, I am seeking to make an order under the Local Government Act 2000 to move Rotherham council to holding all-out elections in 2016 and every fourth year thereafter. The 2016 elections will be an opportunity for the people of Rotherham to renew the membership of their council, and to elect those in whom they can have confidence.
In the immediate term, I am minded to appoint commissioners who will provide new leadership, taking over the roles of the current wholly dysfunctional cabinet. I propose that these commissioners will initially exercise all the functions currently exercised by the cabinet—namely all the council’s executive functions. Their responsibilities will thus include children and young people’s services and adult social care. I propose that the commissioners will exercise other functions of the council where there can be no confidence in the present council’s ability to act responsibly.
Louise Casey’s report uncovered serious weaknesses in the council’s taxi licensing. Sufficient steps to ensure that only fit and proper persons are permitted to hold a taxi licence were not, and are not being, undertaken. There can be no confidence in the council’s licensing committee. I am minded that the commissioners should take control of all the council’s licensing functions. I also propose that the commissioners should have the functions of appointing the chief executive, chief finance officer and monitoring officer, and of nominating members to other bodies. I expect them, in exercising all their responsibilities, to have appropriate regard to any views that the council’s members may have on these matters.
It is because the council is so seriously failing the people of Rotherham—particularly some of the most vulnerable in the borough—that I propose to take the wholly exceptional step of putting all those responsibilities, for a time, in the hands of commissioners who will be appointed by and accountable to me. My aim will be to return the responsibilities to local democratic control as rapidly as possible. From day one, the commissioners will have the role of considering and reporting to me what functions can be rolled back to the council, but only when they are confident that the functions will be exercised properly. I propose that, at the end of every quarter, they should review and report to me on what functions can be rolled back to ensure that there is a phased roll-back of functions throughout the intervention. My hope and expectation is that the roll-back can begin soon, and that after the 2016 elections major services can be returned, with the council resuming full responsibility for its range of services within four years.
As well as having the role of exercising the council’s functions, the commissioners will oversee and drive forward the service and governance improvements that the council will be required to undertake in order to comply with the statutory best-value duty. I propose to appoint a team of five commissioners who will exercise those functions jointly and severally. The team will consist of a lead commissioner to give overall leadership and direction to the intervention; a commissioner with a “managing director” role to lead the oversight of overall service and governance improvement, driving performance; a children’s commissioner, appointed by my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary, who will be responsible for driving improvements in children’s services; and two further commissioners to support the work of the commission. I also propose to end taxpayer-funded reward for failure by requiring the council to stop special responsibility allowances for cabinet members without functions while commissioners are in post.
The council now has 14 days in which to make representations to me on the report and on my proposed intervention package. I will then carefully consider any representations that are made, and decide how to proceed. If I decide to intervene along these lines, I will make the necessary statutory directions under the Local Government Act 1999, and will appoint commissioners. I will also make the order under the 2000 Act. Any directions that I make will be without prejudice to my making further directions if required. I will update the House on my conclusions in due course.
It is with a heavy heart that I am having to resort to such central intervention. The coalition Government are committed to strengthening local democracy and local accountability, but the voice of the victims must be clearly heard. The crimes committed against children are so appalling, and the council’s remedy is so utterly inadequate, that the Government cannot, in good conscience, turn a blind eye. The exceptional circumstances justify the intervention of Whitehall so that we can make the council address its failings and prevent what has happened from ever happening again. I believe that the public, in Rotherham and throughout the country, would expect nothing less.
The intervention package that I am proposing is broad and wide-ranging, and can be justified only in the most exceptional case. Rotherham is, I believe, such a case—a truly rare case, in which the children of Rotherham have been so badly let down by those who were elected to serve them. Councils throughout England have, on the whole, a good record of service, and are looking after their local communities. They are the heart of localism. That is something to protect and to cherish. The purpose of the action that I have proposed today is to restore good local governance to Rotherham, so that people can have confidence in their council again, and can take great pride in their borough.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and for the way in which he has handled this difficult matter. I also add my thanks to Louise Casey and her inspection team for the work that they have done.
Last September, the Jay report exposed the sheer scale of the sexual exploitation of children in Rotherham. Today, once again, our thoughts are with the victims and the horror to which they were subjected. The report provided evidence that the council, together with other public bodies, had failed in its duty to protect Rotherham’s children. It was therefore right for the Secretary of State to establish the inquiry that has reported today.
Louise Casey’s report is, frankly, damning. It reveals very serious institutional failings, continuing denial of the problem, a damaging culture of sexism, bullying and discomfort about race, a failure to address past weaknesses, a greater interest in protecting the council’s reputation than, apparently, in protecting children, a lack of scrutiny and failure to challenge other agencies, and ineffective leadership. If we are to move forward, everyone involved must accept the truth. It is clear that the council has not yet done so, and, as a result, does not currently have the capacity to heal itself. I agree with the Secretary of State that a fresh start is needed, and I therefore welcome the statement that has been issued by Rotherham council’s cabinet in the last few minutes. It reads as follows:
“As a cabinet…we must take responsibility. We therefore announce our intention to resign our positions as soon as transitional arrangements can be put in place.”
In the light of that, I support the course of action that the Secretary of State has just announced, and, in particular, the sending in of commissioners to take over the functions of the cabinet. As the right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, it is a serious step to take, but the circumstances clearly warrant it, and I welcome the assurance he has given that his aim is to return responsibility to local democratic control when it is right to do so.
I have a number of questions to ask. When does the Secretary of State expect to be in a position to announce the names of the five commissioners, especially given the announcement that has just been made by Rotherham council about the current cabinet? What background and experience will he be looking for in appointing them? Does he intend to consult anyone when making the appointments? What progress reports will he and the House receive on the work that the commissioners undertake? What discussions has he had with the Education Secretary about Ofsted and its role in inspecting Rotherham, given the concerns expressed by the Communities and Local Government Committee?
When he commissioned the report, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he had asked Louise Casey—in addition to her inspection of the council—to explore the links between Rotherham, the police and the justice system. Can he update the House on that part of her work, and when can we expect to see her findings, given that there will undoubtedly be lessons on which all local authorities should act? Sadly, as we know, the problems of child sexual exploitation are not confined to Rotherham.
The people of Rotherham—and all of us—remain angry, above all, with the perpetrators of the shocking abuse that took place over decades, and we are united in our determination both to see justice done and to act to prevent this from ever happening again. In doing so, we must also remain united in the face of those who will seek to use what has happened in Rotherham to divide the community.
Local authorities have great responsibilities, which they have a duty to exercise on behalf of the people they represent. When it comes to our children, there is no greater responsibility than to make sure that they are safe and protected. It is unforgivable that this did not happen here, but our joint task now is to work with the commissioners, the council, other public bodies and the people of Rotherham to put things right.
Mr Pickles
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the tone and the substance of his response. He is bang on the money. By their wilful blindness to address this issue and by their reluctance to tackle issues relating to people of Pakistani heritage, they just made it worse. The problems we are going to face over the next few weeks, with those who will seek to exploit this, were made worse. We want to make it absolutely clear that the House is determined to deal with the question of child sexual exploitation without fear or favour. I very much welcome that.
On looking for commissioners, I consulted the right hon. Gentleman when we faced another situation and I shall be consulting him on this. Of course, we need to make it clear in that consultation that I am not in any way prejudicing the decision on whether to take the necessary action. That has to be clear. The cabinet has now resigned, which I think was the sensible thing to do. I do not think we can take that as the formal response, but I look forward to hearing what Rotherham has to say.
With regard to Ofsted, Louise Casey spoke to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, and arrangements have been made to talk further about the points raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn). The right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to look at the report and will know that there are certain references to and worries with regard to the police force. Louise Casey has also spoken to the Home Secretary and we hope to make progress, but the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there are certain matters it would not be seemly to talk about on the Floor of the House.
I am keen to get democratic control back to Rotherham. It is my intention to try to roll those services back. Initially, I looked at taking limited ones, but having looked through the whole process it was clear that it just simply was not possible. I needed to take the whole lot and then roll them back as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.
I have been involved with local government for the best part of 40 years. This is heartbreaking. This is terrible. I used to lead a large council. I can see the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) on the Opposition Benches—he used to lead a very large council. I used to be the chairman of a social services committee. I just cannot understand how people with responsibility, both officers and members, could ever, ever have allowed this to happen.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I share the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State. For any of us who believe in local government, this is a tragedy. It is also, above all, a tragedy for the victims. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the boldness of his measure. Can he, in taking the matter forward, ensure that the commissioners appointed have particular expertise in their ranks in relation not only to the child care issues that are so critical, but to proper corporate governance, proper employment procedures and proper understanding of electoral administration, all of which will be critical in the period going forward?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend’s advice is very sensible. I actually believe that this is now one of the plum jobs in local government. This is a chance to restore good quality local government. We shall be looking right across the piece for people with enormous experience. Rotherham deserves the absolute best. I can assure the House I am determined to get people of immense quality to bring about that necessary change.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The report was very well researched. It is very robust and I accept it in full. I really welcome the intervention package that is being put in place, because Rotherham does deserve better. It has been let down. This is heartbreaking, but it is also disgusting—every page has a new horror on it. My plea is for the Secretary of State to put resources in place so we can move forward. I have been asking for five months for resources specifically to help the young people move on with their lives. We are not getting that and we need it.
I would like the House to recognise that this came about because of the tenacity of the survivors who kept coming forward and kept highlighting, over years and years and years, how they were being let down. They are the champions now, because they have caused the change that we so dearly needed for our town.
Mr Pickles
I agree with everything the hon. Lady says. It is certainly my intention to involve Members of Parliament from Rotherham to ensure that they are not just fully informed but able to participate in the strengthening. She makes a really good point about the way the report has been put together. It is very clear that this is a report in which the voice of the victim is heard. No one can say that the voice of the victim has been ignored here. We owe it to the victims of Rotherham to put something in place that we can all be very proud of.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
The Secretary of State said that the council went to some lengths to cover up and silence whistleblowers. Will he consider some mechanism whereby councils are formally made aware, maybe through declarations similar to those for Members’ interests, to a council’s monitoring officer and to the Secretary of State, whenever a letter before action or any threat of legal action is issued by a councillor, so that threats against staff, ex-employees, opposition councillors and even MPs are out in the open?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point, but the real tragedy in terms of governance and dealing with victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation is that it is not as though the safeguards were not there. It is not as though the whistleblower process and the protections were not there. The council had all the policies written down, but they were not there in practice. If someone blew a whistle in Rotherham, they were persecuted and bullied. They had a very bad time. We need to apply the same high standard that exists in just about every local authority in the country to Rotherham.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
As I said when the Jay report was released, our whole town was shocked and shamed by its findings. This report is also deeply and comprehensively critical of our council and our police. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has said, Labour accepts Louise Casey’s findings and the actions the Secretary of State now plans to take. Locally, we will all work with the commissioners to put right in full the flaws set out in this report and to put in place in full the recommendations of the Jay report to help victims and bring perpetrators to justice. The Secretary of State has made a welcome promise to play his part. Will he start by releasing £750,000 of troubled families and transformation award funding withheld from Rotherham that the council and its agencies need to help to put right the problems set out in the Casey report?
Mr Pickles
That, clearly, is one of the first things I will look at. If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I really want to address the elephant in the room. He said that Labour would do this. I do not expect anything less. I do not regard this as political at all. I fully understand that we are in a charged political system, but this is about a failure of local government. I could point to lots of Conservative local government where this would never happen. I have to tell the House that I could point to lots of Labour local government where this would not happen. This is almost a complete parody of what local government should look like.
Mr Andrew Robathan (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I think it is true that this awful situation was, to a certain extent, exposed by investigative journalism from The Times, which listened to the victims when the police did not. Today, there is another report, I understand, of two councillors and a police officer in the area who may actually have been personally involved. I know my right hon. Friend is not responsible for the police, but building on what he said to the Labour party spokesman, will he reassure the House that the police will be thoroughly held to account and will now help the victims?
Mr Pickles
I am sure the chief constable of the force will recognise that there are some difficult questions that need answering, and I am sure that, with the help of the Home Secretary and of commissioners, we can work together to ensure those past misdeeds are investigated and the necessary action is taken. From reading through this report, what is especially necessary is an attitudinal approach. We need to address that attitudinal point in the police, the council and society in general.
Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me the opportunity to read the report earlier today in his Department. The inspection found that past and present failures to accept, understand and combat child sexual exploitation resulted in a lack of support for victims and insufficient action against known perpetrators. That is wholly unacceptable, and may I tell the Secretary of State that I wholly support the action he is proposing?
Mr Pickles
The right hon. Gentleman is a very distinguished Member of this House and I am very grateful to have his support. I know he will use his good offices to help rebuild a team of officers and a team of politicians that will be able to take Rotherham forward.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Taxis have been, and almost certainly still are, the trafficking method of choice of abusers and exploiters across the north. I welcome the Secretary of State’s strong words on taxi regulation, and I welcome this very robust statement. May I urge him and his Department to look at every taxi licensing authority across the north and make sure they are doing exactly the right thing?
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend makes a very reasonable point, and I am particularly irked by the way in which taxis were used. A point has been made about putting in place new measures, but the regulations are pretty clear and straightforward. What we wanted was to see these regulations used. I wonder if I might answer my hon. Friend’s question in a slightly different way: I think lots of lessons will come out of this, and I will ensure that they are all learned very quickly by authorities that license taxis.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the fact that as Chair of the Select Committee I had an advance look at the report. I have also spoken to Louise Casey, who is going to come to the Committee so that we can explore some of these issues in more detail. I wholly agree with the Secretary of State that this is not a party political matter just because this is a Conservative Secretary of State and this is a Labour council; this is about putting arrangements in place to help the children of Rotherham, who have been let down in the past. May I press him on one point, however? If he decides to appoint commissioners and they find that they need extra resources, particularly to help the young people who have been exploited and abused in the past and now need counselling and other assistance, will he respond positively to any request they make for such financial assistance?
Mr Pickles
I shall look very carefully at that, and at the way in which victims and survivors are compensated—perhaps outside this particular. I suspect it is possible that the council itself may well be facing some significant law cases, which it will have to defend. But of course I shall look very carefully on this, and I will also look to the hon. Gentleman to offer some advice on the choice of commissioners as well as on the matters he asks about.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
Rotherham, like all local authorities responsible for children, submits a return to the Government on what is happening to the children—the SSDA903 return. Every year, Rotherham is audited on what happens with its finances, so that the finances are not fabricated. In the SSDA903 returns, certain children leave care for “other” reasons; they may be trafficked, they may be abused—we do not know. Would it not be a good idea for the Government to have an independent audit of what happens to these children, and what is happening to the children who leave care officially for “other” reasons?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman will know from many conversations I have had with him since I have held this post and before that I have a lot of sympathy with what he says, and that is one of the reasons why I am very proud to support the foyer movement. I certainly feel that as a nation we need to do a lot more in terms of offering assistance to people who leave the care system, but I go back to the point the hon. Gentleman just made: the returns looked great, but the reality on the ground did not.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I called for this intervention publicly six months ago, so naturally I welcome it, but what about the inspectors? We have an inspection regime for children’s services and for schools, but what is being done to hold them accountable and to ensure that the inspection regime is hearing and seeing what is going on?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I am sure he has not found it possible to read the whole report yet, but it makes it clear that the inspection takes place, the inspectors make recommendations about what should happen, the council says, “You’re absolutely right, and here is our new policy,” and then nothing happens. The issue is the process between “We know we should do it” and “We aren’t going to do it.” That is why I am taking this intervention today—or, rather, why I am thinking about taking this intervention today.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
May I suggest one thing the Secretary of State might like to consider doing immediately about child abuse? When the child victims of human trafficking come into local government care, they are not recorded as victims of human trafficking. If they were, when they disappeared there would be an indication that the council was failing.
Mr Pickles
My hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters so he will know that we are trialling advocates for young people in these kinds of circumstances, and if that proves to be successful I hope we will see it rolled out rapidly. One thing that has been clear from all these cases is that the voice of the victim and voice of the survivor is just not heard, and we need to hear their voice.
Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)
What is really shocking about Louise Casey’s findings is the existing level of denial among officers and councillors about the extent of child sexual exploitation in spite of the recent Jay report, but this is not unique to Rotherham. There is widespread complacency among agencies charged with protecting children and councils in believing CSE happens elsewhere. We need a sea-change in attitudes. What more can the Secretary of State do to ensure that councillors, who are really important, receive adequate training in awareness and identification of CSE in their areas?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Lady’s report on the same problem in Manchester was very illuminating, but we need only look at page 19 of the Rotherham report to see that 70% of current Rotherham councillors spoken to by Louise and her team disputed Professor Jay’s findings, and that was continuous—“The methodology was wrong, things were not right, they didn’t count this.” The figure of 1,400 is probably conservative in terms of the actual numbers involved. What is clear from Jay, Casey and the hon. Lady’s excellent report is that we need to understand that councillors in such circumstances have a special duty, and that is something I am going to look at most carefully, to ensure that people realise they have a role of intervention.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Local authority councillors have a specific role as corporate parents for some of the most vulnerable children in our community. It strikes me from what I have heard of this report that that role is misunderstood by many councillors. What more does the Secretary of State feel needs to be done to instil in councillors an understanding of this important role and the duty they have?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Lady makes a reasonable point, but I think we need to understand that, day in, day out in lots of local authorities, officers carry out that duty extremely carefully and diligently; Rotherham does not speak for the situation. Others may also need investigation but, sadly, Rotherham—this is not about the town but about the councillors and officials—is a peculiar leader in indifference and incompetence.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
When the Home Affairs Committee investigated child sexual abuse in Rochdale and in Rotherham, we did see a difference: there was at least some action in Rochdale, but we found complete denial in Rotherham, so I support the thrust of the intervention.
Even if single-party Labour control may not have caused what happened, it did allow it. Until UKIP broke through there in the local elections last year, there was virtually no party political competition in Rotherham. Pending the 2016 all-out elections, will the May 2015 elections go ahead to allow us to continue to hold the Labour councillors responsible to account at the ballot box?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point about the way Rochdale approached this. The May 2015 elections will take place. However, let me say to him that this is about people’s lives. This is about protecting children; it is not about whether some grubby politician is elected or not. If we seek to turn this into some kind of political football, we will be as bad as the failing councillors of Rotherham, and I am determined that that should not be the case.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his response to Louise Casey’s excellent report. He will know that I led a council whose children’s services had been rated by Ofsted in the bottom 3% nationally at the time of my election, but was rated as the best in the country by the time I left. The key to that improvement was acknowledgement of failure, clear expectations of staff and councillors, high quality training, but above all else voice for the vulnerable children, and that means giving them the power and the mechanisms to force those who do not want to listen to hear what they are saying and act on it. What mechanisms does the Secretary of State envisage councils adopting so that all vulnerable children in this circumstance can be heard?
Mr Pickles
I am not sure whether that was a job application. The hon. Gentleman is right, and the point is that we do not need to invent something to empower young people and the service; it is all there in plain sight, day in, day out in local authorities. The quality and emotional intelligence might vary, but it is there. That is why I am hopeful: I think we can turn Rotherham around relatively quickly, and I look forward to the day when the commissioners are a distant memory. I regret that the hon. Gentleman rules himself out for the post, but he may have views.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, recognise the work of Louise Casey in this excellent report, and I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. When I visited Rotherham earlier this week with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), we held a girls’ safety summit. The young women we talked to said that they felt that, in dealing with the issues Rotheram is facing, people were talking about them, not to them, and all that they heard was coming through the media. They felt hugely vulnerable, but nobody was actually speaking to them as young people. Has the Secretary of State considered as part of his plans what message of reassurance can be given to young people across Rotherham about how they will be protected in future?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Lady makes a very reasonable point, and I would expect the commissioners to start that process. There are, after all, five commissioners, and although we cannot expect them to do everything we will be asking them to offer leadership, to give courage to officials and to get them running in some kind of proper order. Everything the hon. Lady referred to is available in other local authorities, although not necessarily all, but I am absolutely determined that the fundamental, systemic failure of local government we have seen in Rotherham will not be allowed to spread like a cancer elsewhere. In truth—forgive me for saying this—this is a wake-up call for all local authorities: the Government will not stand idly by and watch them fritter away good resources and let down their populations.
Points of Order
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wrote to the Prime Minister just a few days before Christmas seeking his support for those who have gone voluntarily to dangerous locations in Africa where people are suffering from and dying from Ebola. I felt that their unstinting and selfless work should be recognised and acknowledged in some formal way, and I received an acknowledgement of that letter, but have heard nothing further.
I was somewhat surprised that earlier today, in response to a question from the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), the Prime Minister said that he was looking to recognise such volunteers and was taking that forward. Is it not somewhat discourteous to announce that in this place when he has not even replied to my initial letter?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and I do understand why he feels aggrieved at not having received a reply to his letter. It is not a matter of order for the Chair and although all letters should of course be answered, it is not for me to say quite where the letter is in the system. I am sure that the Prime Minister, as a matter of course, responds to many thousands of letters and does his best to do so in a timely and courteous way. Whilst understanding the hon. Gentleman’s irritation—and I do—perhaps we can just take pride in the fact that there is to be such recognition. He has got his point on the record, but if it is understood by him and by the House, I think it best to leave it there.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As we approached midday today, the noise in the Chamber went up, as so often happens just before and during Prime Minister’s questions, and I and others, and yourself too, found it even more difficult than usual to hear colleagues asking and Ministers answering International Development questions. Although it is natural that the noise level goes up and it is right and proper that you try to control it, I do wonder whether the microphone levels may be lower than they used to be, or whether the loudspeakers at the back of the seats are perhaps turned down a bit too much because of fear of feedback. May I ask that the technicians investigate this, so that we can better hear not just you, Mr Speaker, but Ministers and questioners?
Mr Speaker
I am sure that these matters can be looked into, and I think I can say without fear of contradiction to the hon. Gentleman that we will always profit by his counsels. We will leave it there for now.
Mr Speaker
I will come to the hon. Gentleman; I am saving him up. I saved up the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) momentarily, and we have now dealt with him. Let us first hear a point of order from Mr Reckless.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was shouting in my ear, so I did not hear the Secretary of State’s answer to my question—will councillors elected in Rotherham in 2011 be held to account at the ballot box in May, or is the Secretary of State extending their term by a year?
Mr Speaker
I appreciate that. I think the Secretary of State did give a clear answer, although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is a perfectly reasonable question and I am sure the Secretary of State is happy to repeat his answer.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
The 2015 elections continue as normal.
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State. A last point of order, I think, for now, from Mr Peter Bone.
Mr Bone
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have had two exceptionally important statements today, and with your great courtesy, as usual, you have got every Back Bencher in. However, it is a little unfair on the Opposition, on a day when they have two official Opposition day debates. We do have the Leader of the House here. Is there any mechanism whereby we can extend today to make up for the two hours the Opposition have lost?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is nothing if not fair-minded, and a champion of the rights of all parliamentarians. As he knows, I would be perfectly happy to sit here for an indefinite number of hours because I enjoy nothing more than listening to all hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the House expressing their views. There may be people attending to our proceedings who think, “What a strange chap”, but the fact is that I like listening to hon. and right hon. Members. I do not sense any great desire on the part of the Leader of the House urgently to accommodate the hon. Gentleman’s fair-mindedness, but he is a very fit and lithe fellow and if he wishes to leap from his seat to offer comfort and encouragement to the hon. Gentleman, there would be no happier Member of the House than I.
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Of course we try to avoid having a large number of statements on Opposition days, but sometimes it is unavoidable and there were good reasons for having both those statements today. I am sure that that is understood across the House. To extend the ensuing debate would have required a motion to be placed on the Order Paper earlier, and that has not been done.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Leader of the House. I shall take this opportunity to mention that nine Back Benchers are seeking to contribute to the first debate, on apprenticeships, and 11 to the second debate, on electoral registration. In conformity with our normal procedures, there can be no time limit on Front-Bench speeches, but I feel sure that in each case the Minister and shadow Minister will tailor their contributions accordingly in order to facilitate their Back-Bench colleagues, which is a way of saying, “Get it out pretty pithily”. We will leave it there.
Bills presented
House of Commons Commission Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr William Hague, supported by Tom Brake and Mr Sam Gyimah, presented a Bill to amend the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978 so as to make provision about the membership of the House of Commons Commission, so as to confer a new strategic function on the Commission, and so as to make provision about the exercise of functions on behalf of the Commission or its members.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 169) with explanatory notes (Bill 169-EN).
Right to Buy and Right to Acquire Schemes (Research) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Tim Farron, supported by Dr Julian Huppert, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to undertake a programme of research into the costs and benefits of extending control of all aspects of Right to Buy and Right to Acquire schemes entirely to Local Authorities, including the operation and consequences of such schemes and the introduction of the right of Local Authorities to suspend them; to report to Parliament within six months of the research being completed; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March, and to be printed (Bill 167).
Public Sector Efficiency (Employee Participation)
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require public sector bodies to include in their annual reports and similar documents their responses to suggestions and proposals made by public sector employees for the efficiency and improvement of their service.
I hope that you will enjoy this, Mr Speaker. The introduction of this Bill is almost an act of atonement in itself. Over the past few decades, the House has been much occupied by what we like to refer to as public sector reform. In any word association test involving a member of the governing classes, the term “public service” would immediately elicit the word “reform”. In fact, we could mischievously define a public service as something that a politician feels the need to reform.
The words “public sector reform” in the mouth of a politician inspire dread and despair in equal measure in the hearts of those who work in the public sector. We in this place have happily burdened those people with restructuring, targets, changes in governance, commissioning, reorganisation, monitoring and so on, all in the laudable pursuit of greater efficiency, better performance and better value for the taxpayer’s pound. In the process, however, many of those changes have distorted practice in predictable and unhelpful ways and burdened public servants in frustrating ways. They have not always been aligned with professional judgment and they have rarely if ever boosted productivity and real efficiency.
My predecessor as MP for Southport back in 1906 was John Astbury QC. He is memorable for the following sentiment, which has found its way into several books of quotations. He is reported to have said indignantly:
“Reform? Reform? Are not things bad enough already?”
In truth, there has been quite a difference between reform and genuine improvement. Reforms are largely suggested by bright young things in think-tanks or consultancies who have little real-time experience of the institutions they wish to reform. Improvements usually come from incremental changes and from the example of those who toil day to day in a service. Initiatives cooked up here in the Commons have generally had little positive impact on productivity or the lived experience and daily work of those who actually do the work. We do not improve schools by calling them academies, and we do not improve hospitals by calling them foundation trusts. On a wet Thursday afternoon in the classroom or a busy Friday night in an accident and emergency department, the title on the board outside or the exact style of governance will make scant difference to how things actually turn out.
There is a negative view of public sector workers that sees them as a bunch of unionised time servers who need constantly to be checked on or coerced lest they traduce the public interest and squander public resources. In my experience, however, that is not how teachers, nurses, policemen and local government workers are. They are really very different from that. It is not naive to think that most public sector workers are happier serving the public interest, that they want to do it well, that they would sooner act with real purpose than to little effect and that, like all of us, they reflect on what they do. They pick out waste and spot inefficiency, and they get frustrated and downhearted when well-intentioned Governments misdirect or burden them or when service heads who are trying to please their masters ignore their reasonable representations. They do not necessarily need or benefit from ministerial decrees laying out in fine detail how they must pursue their craft. Nor does it help to follow up such decrees with heavy-handed inspection regimes that are more about bureaucratic compliance than genuine effectiveness.
The public sector ethos is not dead, but it must be cultivated and revived and not confused with commercial or personal self-interest. It is not unrealistic to think of the mass of people working on the front line as a huge untapped resource. My fear is that their advice will too often be ignored or drowned out by a plethora of desperate initiatives imposed from on high. I am therefore suggesting that a duty should be laid on public sector organisations of more than 50 people—this would not apply to smaller organisations—to include in their annual report or similar document their front-line workers’ suggestions for the improvement of the organisation or the efficiency of its services, along with the responses to those suggestions.
I am not denying the management’s right to manage; nor am I promoting some kind of Maoist upheaval. I am opposing the consistent turning of a deaf ear towards those on the front line. I believe a small step such as this would provoke a culture change, just as the introduction of diversity checks, health and safety checks and sustainability checks has done. The burden of dealing with a constrained budget would be a shared burden. The work force and their experience could be co-opted into plans for recovery, development and efficiency.
This approach is not unknown in the commercial sector, where good management walks the shop floor not in pursuit of grievances but in pursuit of good ideas. Under the Bill, organisations would be forced to respond to what staff had to say, or to ask themselves why their staff had so little to say. This would not be the same as assessments of staff satisfaction, although I would argue that a consulted, creative, involved staff is most likely to be a happy staff, and that staff are unavoidably involved in the pursuit of efficiency because they, like us, know the huge financial challenges that the country is facing.
The National Audit Office reliably tells us that local government is near to bankruptcy, that NHS finances are on a dangerous trajectory and that the thin blue line of the police force is becoming ever less visible, while the demands of the public show no sign of abating. Most of the economies that we have succeeded in making so far have been achieved through wage controls or manpower reductions. We are essentially doing less or paying less, but that does not equate to genuine efficiency improvements. We need to get much smarter.
We cannot revert to the polarisation that sometimes occurs in times of social stress whereby the public sector is set against the private sector and one is seen as a negative cost to the other. A good public sector and a vibrant private sector are the two pillars of a thriving society. Successful industry—we can learn from that—has learned the futility of micro-managing from the top, and learned to use properly those it employs.
Given the scale of the financial challenge that confronts the public sector, it could be said that what I am suggesting is mere tinkering, but incremental change mounts up. Incremental change is good change, and good cultural changes, if they are to occur at all, require buy-in at all levels. Good practice can be spread only by those who are involved in the practice. As hon. Members will recall, right at the start of the coalition the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister called for mass consultation within the public sector because of the colossal challenge we all face, but Governments are impatient, Ministers often do not want to manage, and in a flash we had restructurings galore, most notably the Health and Social Care Act 2012. That is not the way to go.
Incorporating our public sector workers in the pursuit of genuine efficiency is not cosmetic. It is not simply a way of affording them the necessary dignity that they deserve, but is a genuine attempt to prompt and provoke cultural change and a practical way of boosting the productivity that we badly need. There is a place, I admit, for consultants, for think-tanks, even for political intervention, and for testing against external and internal standards, but there is no case for ignoring the daily experience of well motivated staff or under-estimating their desire to work well to high professional standards. What I am trying to do is to amplify their voice and hard-wire it into the system. That is what this Bill endeavours to do.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That John Pugh, John McDonnell, Meg Hillier, Mr John Leech, Andrew George, Mike Thornton, Greg Mulholland and Jeremy Lefroy present the Bill.
John Pugh accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March and to be printed (Bill 168).
Opposition Day
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Apprenticeships
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 294 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
I advise hon. Members, both Front Benchers and Back Benchers, that there are under two hours for this entire debate. I will do my best to make sure that everybody gets in. Depending on the length of the opening speeches, there will be a time limit, which I will let the House know as soon as I can.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that more high-quality apprenticeships are essential to the future prospects of young people and future success of the economy; notes with concern that the number of 19 to 24-year-olds starting an apprenticeship has fallen by 6,270 in the last year, that 24 per cent of these apprentices are receiving no formal training, and around one in five are not receiving the appropriate minimum wage; calls on the Government to institute a ten-year national goal to grow the number of apprenticeships for young people and boost the standing and value of technical and vocational education so that the same number of young people that go to university undertake a high-quality apprenticeship; and further calls on the Government to use the money it already spends on procurement to require suppliers for large Government contracts to offer new apprenticeship opportunities, safeguard apprenticeship quality with new standards so that all apprenticeships are at at least level three and last a minimum of two years, ensure Government plays its part by creating thousands more apprenticeships in the civil service, give city and country regions a role by devolving money for adult skills and give a central role to business through sector bodies to drive up standards and increase apprenticeship places.
I note what you have said about time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try not to drone on for too long.
I want to put this debate in context. It is not simply a debate on apprenticeships. The issue of apprenticeships is central to a wider debate about our economy and whether it is fit for purpose. The changing nature of the world is full of opportunity for Britain. Technology is transforming the way we live. New emerging economies with ballooning middle classes are providing a mass of opportunity for our businesses, but these forces of change are also bringing challenges: how do we deliver the goods for our people when the uncertainty which follows from all this creates insecurity for many?
As I have said before, the answer is to shape these forces of change and do all we can to ensure that everyone can access the opportunities available—in short, to ensure that everyone is connected to the new global economy and has a stake in the future. That requires an economy producing good, decent jobs that are fulfilling, afford a level of dignity, respect and security, and, above all, pay a wage that people can live off. Sadly, that vision is but a dream for too many in Britain today. Under the current Government, average wages have fallen by £1,600 a year on average. They have fallen by more than £3,200 in my constituency. Almost 5 million people are not earning a wage that they can live off. We are seeing rising insecurity, with 1.4 million zero-hour contracts. There are 3.5 million people in work who say they want extra hours.
As a result of all this, our fiscal deficit remains stubbornly high at £91 billion. The Office for Budget Responsibility was clear in its autumn outlook published with the autumn statement that the Government have failed to meet their two fiscal mandates in this Parliament because stagnating wages have led to a fall in national insurance and income tax receipts. However, the living standards crisis that I refer to and the persistence of the deficit are symptoms of a bigger problem: the failure of Government to help raise productivity across our economy.
Sure, Britain leads in aerospace, the automotive industry, business services, chemicals, the creative and digital industries, food, green tech and pharmaceuticals, among other industries. We should celebrate the success in these sectors, but across the economy overall, the gap between UK productivity per hour worked and the rest of the G7 grew to 17% in 2013, the largest difference since 1992. So on average it now takes a British worker until the end of Friday to produce what a German or French worker has finished before they clock off on Thursday.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to remark on the success in my constituency under this Government, with apprenticeships doubling to 1,500 a year. It is not just a matter of problems; it is also a matter of dealing with success. In many parts of the country where there is high growth and unemployment is falling—in Huntingdon it has fallen to 1%— we need better training so that employers can invest in their staff to deal with the lack of skills that exists as our economy improves.
Mr Umunna
I agree that quality is important, but apprenticeships in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency have fallen by 11%. Many apprenticeships are not the high-quality apprenticeships that I think he refers to. Many of them are level 2.
There has been much debate in economic circles as to why we have gone backwards on productivity so fast under this Government. People have pointed to the lack of business investment, which is compounded by the problems that businesses have faced in getting access to finance, but skills shortages in our economy are also holding Britain back. Too many young people in particular do not have the skills our businesses require when they leave secondary education, and even among those who do have skills and qualifications, there is a mismatch between their skills and the demand for technician-level competency, particularly for jobs requiring people with science, technology, engineering and maths skills—the STEM skills.
To address this we need a major expansion of high-quality vocational and technical education, in particular apprenticeships for young people, offering more and better work-and-train opportunities in all sectors of the economy, giving them those skills which employers say are lacking.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
On the number of apprenticeship starts in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, will he comment on the fact that in 2010 340 people started apprenticeships and last year 880 people started them. Why does he think the number of apprenticeships has doubled in his constituency?
Mr Djanogly
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that the number of apprenticeships in my constituency had fallen, but I am looking at the House of Commons published figures—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Mr Djanogly, you are continuing the debate; that is not a point of order for the Chair. We are pressed for time, and we need to make sure we hear the opening speeches from both sides and have the debate. You have not indicated that you want to speak, whereas others have. We need to get on to the debate, so I call Chuka Umunna.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Sit down please, Mr Graham. This is not the opportunity to make three quick points—it is an intervention. [Interruption.] No, I am going to be really strict on this. You wish to speak in this debate as well, and I am doing my best to protect time for Back Benchers. The convention of an intervention is: one point relevant to the point being made. So not three points, but one, thank you.
Richard Graham
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My one point is simply to ask the shadow Business Secretary whether he has considered what the impact of 2 million apprentices is on the wages of the lower earners, and whether it is not natural that a substantial increase in the number of apprenticeships will lead to more people not earning quite as much as they will in the future when they are better trained.
Andrew Gwynne
May I thank my hon. Friend for the support that he and the Labour Front-Bench team gave to my private Member’s Bill in the previous Session? The Government talked it out, and does he not think that that was a wasted opportunity, because for every £1 million of capital investment in public procurement, we could have secured an additional apprenticeship?
Mr Umunna
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. I congratulated him at the time on his Bill, and we should continue to remind this House of the efforts that were made then and the wasted opportunity to which he refers. The reason he introduced that Bill was clearly because he read the OECD’s review of vocational education and training, which found that few countries achieve strong engagement in vocational education and training without a strong apprenticeship system. Now, that will not automatically happen on its own. Government must play an active role, not in a top-down, command-control fashion, but by using their convening power in an enterprising, entrepreneurial way, working in partnership with business to address the problem and to increase productivity. Before I explain how we aim to achieve that and consider what the Government have done during this Parliament, when I will touch on that 2 million figure, I want to say something about our record, because I am sure it will be referred to.
I accept that when Labour left office there was an outstanding need to increase the number and improve the quality of apprenticeships in our country, but before Government Members get too excited, I should say that it would be wrong to claim we did not make any progress. In government, we more than quadrupled the number of apprenticeship starts from a woeful 65,000 under the previous Major Government in 1996-1997 to 280,000 starts in our final year in office. Apprenticeships were simply not on the radar when we entered office; they were very much on the radar when we left office. We used the weight of government to begin the culture change we need. So from the 2012 Olympics to Building Schools for the Future projects up and down the country, we linked the creation of apprenticeships to public procurement across a number of Departments. We set up a dedicated National Apprenticeship Service to support and expand apprenticeships. I speak to many young people who tell me that they were signposted to the apprenticeship they are now doing by visiting the service’s website. Of course, it was also Labour in government that established national apprenticeship week in 2008, and the week is now an annual event in the national calendar. I am proud of our record. I am proud that this Labour party rescued apprenticeships from the scrapheap.
The current Government have sought to build on the foundations we put in place. They say that since we left office they have overseen the creation of 2 million new apprenticeship starts, and the hon. Member for Gloucester referred to those. I do not think there is any point boasting about numbers if the apprenticeships are not of sufficient quality. I will come to that in a moment, but first let us look at their claimed numbers. How many of the 2 million apprenticeships are really new apprenticeships and how many have emerged as a result of rebadging—in other words, re-labelling existing work a person is already doing in the workplace as an apprenticeship? A very large proportion of additional apprenticeship places created by this Government have come in the post-25 age brackets. The largest percentage rise in apprenticeships under this Government has actually been among the over-60s, where the increase has been 520%. According to the 2014 apprenticeship pay survey, 93% of adult apprentices already worked for their existing employer before starting their apprenticeship. That would suggest that many existing training schemes, such as those delivered under the old Train to Gain programme, have simply been rebadged and re-labelled as apprenticeships.
That is the situation on apprenticeships for adults. The shortage is perhaps most acute among young people, so what is happening to apprenticeship starts there? The number of 19 to 24-year-olds starting an apprenticeship has fallen by more than 6,000 in the past year. In fact, the number of 19 to 24 apprenticeship starts is currently falling in every single region outside London. Overall, the share of apprentices who are under 25 has fallen from 84% in 2009-10 to 64%, and the share of apprentices who are under 19 has fallen from 43% in the last year of the Labour Government to 28% under this one. So the simple fact is this: for all the boasts, there has been some jiggery-pokery with the numbers. The bottom line is that we need many more apprenticeships and we need to raise employer demand for them. Half our large employers do not offer any apprenticeships at all in Britain today—that is totally unacceptable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), the shadow skills Minister, has said previously, when it is harder to get an apprenticeship with Jaguar Land Rover than it is to get into an Oxford college, it is pretty obvious that more needs to be done.
The numbers are one thing, but I said that I would say something about quality. In most other northern European countries apprenticeships are level 3 qualifications lasting between two and five years, and they include at least one day a week of off-the-job learning, as well as significant on-the-job training. In England, most of the growth of apprenticeships in recent years has been at a level that would simply not be recognised in those countries. Just 35% of our apprenticeships are at level 3 or above, and just 2% are at level 4. In fact, according to the Department’s own figures, published in its apprenticeship pay survey, one in five apprentices does not even receive any formal training at the moment. The figure increases to almost a quarter of those in the 19 to 24 age bracket, who are not being properly trained. If we truly want to ensure more parity of esteem between the academic and the non-academic—between the way people view university degrees and the way they view these types of vocational and technical qualifications—how can we hope to do that when they are not of sufficiently good quality? We have got to raise standards. Even where apprentices are receiving training, far too many of them are still not receiving the appropriate minimum wage—15% are paid below the appropriate national minimum wage, with the figure rising to 20% for 19 to 20-year-olds.
I will come on to address how we intend to encourage more private sector employers to provide more and better quality apprenticeships appropriate to their needs, but surely government, as one of the biggest employers in the country, should be setting an example, both in recruiting as many apprentices as possible and in providing good-quality apprenticeships. The civil service apprenticeship scheme hired just 200 apprentices in 2014. That is 200 out of more than 400,000 civil servants, which is just not good enough. Never mind the Departments themselves, Government should be doing more in this area. They should use their clout as a procurer of goods and services to get more employers in the private sector to provide apprenticeships.
Our Labour colleagues in local government have already been leading the way in utilising procurement to boost apprenticeship numbers. Newham, Knowsley, Sheffield and Manchester have all developed strategies to use procurement contracts to create apprenticeship opportunities for young people locally. Central Government should do the same, as those opportunities are simply not happening to the degree and on the scale required.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes the point about the importance of using the procurement system and Government money to drive improvement in apprenticeships. Does he agree that we need do that all the way through the supply chain so that smaller businesses, and not just larger ones, can and do take on apprentices?
Mr Umunna
We should do everything that we can to encourage all businesses to take on apprenticeships. We need to be mindful of the fact that sometimes that can be a bit more challenging for smaller businesses, and we should think how we can better support them to take on apprentices. It seems to me that, if there were fewer frameworks and more sector-driven apprenticeship frameworks, we could make the system less bureaucratic. But, absolutely, we should do as much as we can to make it easy for businesses to take on apprentices.
Jake Berry
On a point of interest, I have recruited an apprentice to work for me in my parliamentary office. When the hon. Gentleman says that we should do all that we can to recruit apprentices, I just wondered whether he has done so himself.
Mr Umunna
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) says that he has. I have not been able to because I am right up to my limit on my staff allowance, but I would very much like to. One challenge in representing an inner-London seat is the amount of casework that is involved, but I would love to take on an apprentice if we could all convince the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to provide us with more money to do so.
I have talked about what our record was and what this Government are doing, but what do we plan to do in the future? At the Labour party conference in 2014, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition outlined our ambitious six national goals for Britain in 2025, which included ensuring that as many school leavers go on to apprenticeships as go to university. That will require a dramatic increase in numbers. To achieve that, we will work in partnership with employers to ensure that apprenticeships are appropriate to their needs, which in turn will boost employer demand for them.
We will give employers, through sector and industry bodies, a greater role, ensuring that courses reflect their skills needs and that rigorous standards are set. The aim is for a skills system that is better aligned to the needs of employers and that delivers a pipeline of talented employees. We will also look to boost take-up by employers locally, which is best done by colleagues in local government working with their businesses locally and by those coming together to form combined authorities. We need to see more of such practice. Just look at the incredible progress that has been made by the Labour-run authority in Leeds under the leadership of Sir Keith Wakefield. The city’s new apprenticeship hub has doubled the number of apprentices in the city, especially among small and medium-sized businesses. Labour colleagues in Plymouth, Bury and Reading are actively engaging with local employers to boost apprenticeship opportunities, too, and we want to see lots more of that.
Alongside such practice, we would use the money that the Government already spend on procurement to require major suppliers on Government contracts to offer new apprenticeships. In that way, we can create thousands of new apprenticeship opportunities. That builds on the successful approach of the previous Labour Government. It is an approach that has been backed by the cross-party Business Innovation and Skills Committee, which has suggested that a minimum of one new apprenticeship place could be created for each £l million spent on public procurement. So a major project such as HS2 could, under Labour’s plans, lead to the creation of as many as 33,000 new apprenticeships.
As I said earlier, quality matters. Under Labour’s plans, all apprenticeships would last a minimum of two years and be level 3 qualifications to safeguard the trusted and historic apprenticeship brand, which has been tarnished in recent years. Those new rigorous standards would ensure that apprenticeships are, once again, a trusted gold standard and address the way they have been downgraded under this Government.
We were attacked for setting high standards by the Deputy Prime Minister in a frankly embarrassing and cack-handed response by him at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions last March. He lambasted us for apparently wanting to halve the numbers of apprenticeships by requiring that all apprenticeships be set at level 3 and last for at least two years. The truth is that we want to rename intermediate apprenticeships to protect the “apprenticeship” brand. Apprenticeships that do not currently meet the criteria will continue but under a different name.
The Deputy Prime Minister also got very excited about the use of the word “deadweight” in the independent report into apprenticeships that was produced for us. Chaired by the Institute of Education’s Professor Chris Husbands, the report recommended that we adopt those criteria. What the Deputy Prime Minister failed to notice when he got himself so excited about the use of the word “deadweight” is that the Business Secretary had published a report in 2012 with the title “Assessing the Deadweight Loss Associated with Public Investment in Further Education and Skills.” Clearly, the sooner the Business Secretary successfully carries out his coup of his party, the better.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a key reason for retaining level 1 as an entry for apprenticeships, is that apprenticeships offer an opportunity for lots of young people who do not have the education or the academic skills? If we do not let them in through a level 1, they will not have the opportunity to go up the apprenticeship ladder. That is a profoundly important point.
Mr Umunna
I am talking about not doing away with the qualifications of levels 1 and 2, but calling those levels something different and maintaining the badge of quality for apprenticeships by having them at level 3 and above. That will bring us in line with many other European countries.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about protecting the apprenticeship brand. Level 1 is a pre-apprenticeship entry qualification. Levels 2 and 3 are recognised by the industry. A person cannot go on to a building site with a level 1, but they can with levels 2 and 3.
Mr Umunna
I agree with my hon. Friend.
I have already talked about compliance with the national minimum wage. To tackle non-compliance and non-payment, Labour would give local authorities new powers to investigate and enforce the minimum wage. Hopefully, that will reduce the 15% of apprentices—[Interruption.] There will be headlines about how I cannot pronounce the word “apprenticeship”. Perhaps I should go back to school myself, but, to be honest, people mess up my name all the time. But, yes, we should be giving local authorities more of a role in identifying companies that are not complying with the requirements under the national minimum wage regulations.
Finally, we will make it very clear that we expect Departments across Government to provide apprenticeship opportunities. If we are elected in 91 days’ time and I am given a job by Prime Minister Miliband, I will be working with colleagues in the Labour Cabinet to ensure that we increase the number of apprenticeship opportunities across Whitehall.
I am mindful of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude. I do not think that there is a huge difference in views across the House, but it all comes down to competent, determined delivery of policy across Government. We are determined, across all Government Departments, to do all we can to reform and grow our economy. The provision of more and better quality apprenticeship is a key part of that and will help us to ensure that more people can achieve their aspirations and dreams. It is for that reason that I commend this motion to the House. I am clear that there is only one thing to do this May and that is to vote Labour.
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)
I am delighted that the Opposition have chosen apprenticeships as the topic for this debate. The motion’s opening line is an admirable statement of what we are trying to do:
“That this House believes that more high-quality apprenticeships are essential to the future prospects of young people and future success of the economy”.
“Hear, hear” to that. It offers a good definition of what the Government have been doing: the number of apprenticeships has doubled from just over 1 million to 2 million over this Parliament, and as the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) has emphasised quality, I should say that the proportion of advanced and higher apprenticeships and longer apprenticeships has risen systematically as a result of our reforms.
We are therefore very comfortable debating apprenticeships. Indeed, the only subject that we would be more comfortable debating is job creation, which I think the Opposition have chosen for next week—the hon. Member for Streatham is very brave. I was trying to understand their thought processes in approaching the question. I suspect that they said to themselves, “Well, the Government actually have a pretty good record on all this stuff, so let’s try to find a negative number to debate. It doesn’t matter what it is, so long as it’s negative.” They did find a negative number. In 2013-14, for one year, and for one age group, there was a slight reduction—4%—in the number of apprenticeship starts. That fact is quite correct, but the argument built around it is utterly specious.
Let us look at that age group—19 to 24-year-olds—because it tells a good story about what has actually happened. I do not want to dismiss older apprenticeships, as the hon. Gentleman did, because many of them are extremely valuable in raising the productivity of the labour force. The time series gives us a good analysis of what has happened during our time in office. In the year before we came into government there were 114,000 apprenticeship starts for that age group, and in the last year for which we have records, 2013-14, the figure was 159,000, which means there was a 40% increase in the age group he defines as the most important. As has already been pointed out to him, there has been a 60% increase in Streatham, and a 75% increase in Hodge Hill.
The number of starts is one way of measuring apprenticeships, but in some ways participation is a better measure, because it captures the benefits of longer apprenticeships and fewer drop-outs. The situation with participation is even stronger. It suggests that over that period the numbers grew from 210,000 to 309,000, which is a 46% increase. Overall, participation in apprenticeships grew by 73%, and for advanced apprenticeships—level 3 and above—participation has grown by 90% under this Government.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being characteristically generous. I am glad that he has focused on the fall in the number of apprentices under the age of 25. Does he think that that trend can be reversed with the budget that the Chancellor has set out for his Department, as implied by the fiscal path for the years ahead? He knows as well as I do that if the science budget is protected, that implies a 44% cut for the Department. Does he think that it will be possible to reverse the fall in the number of apprentices with that kind of settlement?
Vince Cable
It is certainly possible, as I think we shall see when we get the 2014-15 figures. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should be investing more in apprenticeships, not less. That is certainly my clear objective. He might not have noticed, but the autumn statement included a commitment to £40 million extra for higher and advanced apprenticeships over the next two financial years, so we have every reason to be optimistic about achieving continued growth.
The figures I have cited, which I do not think are disputed, actually understate the improvement achieved, and for precisely the reason that the shadow Secretary of State emphasised: the necessary shift to longer apprenticeships and higher level apprenticeships. When we came into government, the share of level 1 was above 40% for that age group, and it is now only 10%. We decided in 2012 not to include level 1 within the definition of an apprenticeship. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) pointed out, that was entry level. We now call those traineeships, so there is progression. It is valuable to have level 1, but we no longer describe it as an apprenticeship. If we take out the very short courses, in particular, which tended to dominate in the earlier period, we see that the number of people in the 19-to-24 age group has actually doubled, because of the preponderance of very short courses in the apprenticeship programmes we inherited.
Let us look at the higher level apprenticeships. For level 3 the number of starts has doubled. For higher—level 4, foundation degree and above—we have seen a tenfold increase since we came into government, from 1,700, which was negligible, to 18,000. There is an important point to make about levels. I think that the hon. Member for Streatham dismissed too easily the value of level 2 apprenticeships.
Vince Cable
Well, he seemed to imply that they were not quite apprenticeships. Actually, there is a lot of statistical evidence that people who do a level 2 apprenticeship and no more have significantly higher earnings than those who do not—about 11% or 12% over a three to five-year period. There are many important trades, such as bricklaying, in which a level 2 qualification offers valuable progression into a badly needed occupation. The hon. Gentleman is right that we should be moving up the level chain, which we are doing, but I do not want him or anybody else to devalue level 2 qualifications or to seek to eliminate them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Mr Graham is not taking part in this exchange. Just make your intervention, Mr Umunna.
Vince Cable
I hope that is a clarification that level 2 will not be removed from the hon. Gentleman’s definition of an apprenticeship, should he find himself in government. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister is not right that this is some kind of ploy to reduce the numbers and save money.
Richard Graham
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. It is quite extraordinary that the shadow Secretary of State has not read his own motion, which states very clearly
“so that all apprenticeships are at least level three”.
What is the role for level 2? My right hon. Friend is right to question that.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the message that the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) is sending to young people in my constituency who are studying hard right now for level 2 qualifications, and about the message he is sending to the colleges and staff who are working hard to ensure that they have the sorts of relationships with employers that can make that happen? Should he not think more carefully about what he says?
Vince Cable
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. Level 2 qualifications are valuable in themselves, as she rightly emphasises, but they are also part of a progression route. Many people who do a level 2 qualification take a break before going back and doing a level 3. I hope that we have now clarified that level 2 is a part of apprenticeships.
Steve Rotheram
With regard to proper apprenticeships, it depends on what a person’s qualification is on entry. With a lower qualification threshold, they would do a national vocational qualification level 2, on the way to doing an NVQ level 3. It is not either/or; it is part of an apprenticeship.
Vince Cable
That is very helpful. The hon. Gentleman clearly speaks from experience and knowledge, and we respect that.
The figures are very clear: we have seen a big increase in volume and a big increase in quality. That did not happen by accident. It is important to talk through the constraints on the public finances that I inherited, and on which the hon. Member for Streatham elaborated with regard to the problems that will face the next Government. When I came into office, I was told that the previous Government had planned to cut the Department’s budget by 25% had they returned to office. That was clear and explicit. Indeed, we have had to confront that in office. Let us be clear that it would have been no different had he been doing my job.
The Department’s budget is dominated by two items: higher education, including teaching and student support, and adult skills. There are other, smaller items such as industrial support and science. We were therefore faced, in office, with some very painful and difficult decisions. The advice I got from the Opposition, in a particularly shrill and angry way, was that we must give priority to university undergraduates—future graduates. We did the calculations and found that had we followed the advice from the Opposition, and had we introduced the policy that I think—it is not totally clear—they are now considering introducing on tuition fees, we would have had to cut the adult skills budget by about 40%. Within that, we would have had to cut apprenticeships by even more, because, being of higher quality, they are more expensive than other forms of training. Apprenticeships, which the hon. Gentleman described as growing steadily throughout the time of the Labour Government, as they did, would have been emasculated as a result of the public spending cuts that I think his party would have made had it been in government, and that I was being advised to make.
I then made a decision, which I think was one of my better ones, to listen to the advice, to reject it, and to do the exact opposite. We took a serious political hit on higher education, but we did the right thing in ensuring that universities were properly funded and that we got a fair repayment system. We also made the decision to invest more, not less, in apprenticeships. That is how we have got to where we are, with not only the volume but the quality. That is because we followed up getting the volume by taking short apprenticeships of below one year out of the system; by significantly supporting advanced and higher level apprenticeships; and, perhaps most importantly—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this at all—by introducing employer ownership through giving business a greater say in how these funds are allocated. In all those ways, we have improved quality.
Let me deal with some of the other critical comments in the hon. Gentleman’s speech and motion. First, he quoted the figure, as he did when he was on television with me the other day, regarding what he calls the lack of formal training—[Interruption.] Indeed, there was a survey that suggested that some apprentices—
Vince Cable
There were a substantial number of surveys; I am quoting the one that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted.
Vince Cable
We have published a survey in which 24% of apprentices said that they had not received formal training. The hon. Gentleman has built his criticism around that.
Vince Cable
I am not disowning the report; it clearly exists. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Opposition could be a little less silly and just try to follow the argument. The key is in the word “formal”. Many people do good apprenticeships in business that involve informal work in the workplace, and many people define good training in that way. The survey that we conducted, which the hon. Gentleman is having a little giggle about, tells us very clearly that 90% of those trainees are satisfied with their apprenticeships, while 72% are very satisfied. Ninety-seven per cent. said that they had been trained—sometimes informally, sometimes formally—and 90% got a job. Perhaps most crucially, there is a very high earnings premium. I have quoted the figure for level 2, and for level 3 it is significantly higher—about 16% three to five years after graduation. The proof of the pudding in is in the eating: these apprenticeships do provide satisfaction, jobs and higher salaries for the people who do them.
Let me address the minimum wage. The survey shows that 15% of people are not being paid the minimum wage. That figure is clearly too high, and unacceptable. The motion says that it is “one in five”. I am not sure who did the maths on this, but one in five is not 15%. Perhaps we need compulsory maths for Opposition Front Benchers as well as apprentices. The key point is that 15% is way down on the 30% figure that we inherited. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because he has been part of these debates during the past year, we have significantly improved enforcement measures. We have increased penalties from £5,000 per firm to £20,000 per person, we have introduced naming and shaming, and we have increased the enforcement budget by 30%. We do take the minimum wage seriously. We believe that it must be enforced and that it should apply to apprentices as it should to anyone else.
The hon. Gentleman is right that procurement is a lever for the public sector to employ. We already have many examples of good practice in public sector procurement. Crossrail is a company that has really committed itself to high levels of apprenticeships. There are a couple of practical problems, as I hope he recognises; I think he hinted at one of them. First, for small and medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises, where we are trying to increase the share of public procurement, there is a conflict of objectives. Do we regard getting SMEs into procurement as more important than increasing their number of apprenticeships? There is no clear answer to that. Secondly, companies that are required to introduce apprenticeships would simply add that to the cost and it would be passed on to the public sector, so instead of a direct subsidy through our 50:50 payment system we would be providing indirect subsidies. These are not crippling objections. We need to reflect on how we can better use public procurement, but crude legislation and compulsion is probably not the best way. I accept that public procurement is a good vehicle, and we have to work on this.
Bill Esterson
I agree that it is a real challenge, given the current situation, to enable more SMEs, particularly the smallest businesses, to take on apprentices. Does the Secretary of State agree that countries such as Germany have cracked this problem over many years, and that there are things we can apply from Germany and elsewhere to achieve the goal of getting more small businesses to take on apprentices?
Vince Cable
The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a German model that seems to work for that country, and Austria is another example. Their approach is different from ours, but it has given them consistently high levels of skills in manufacturing industries, in particular. We should learn from that. There is an element of compulsion and levying that we have moved away from in the UK. However, I am certainly happy to learn from Germany on this and other things.
Andrew Gwynne
There are also some very good examples here in England. May I commend to the Secretary of State the work of Labour-controlled Tameside council, which covers part of my constituency and which has established a local apprenticeship company from which SMEs can draw down apprentices, even though the local authority is running the company?
Vince Cable
Yes, I believe there are lot of good models of that kind, and I commend the one that the hon. Gentleman mentions.
That leads on to another issue that the shadow Business Secretary raised—devolution and how we capture decision making to a local level. He is right that we should have as much devolution as possible. That is what we are trying to do through the city deals and the local deals. There are many good models. Leeds is one, and Manchester is also getting off the ground. Sheffield is pioneering a lot of the local-level commissioning of apprenticeships that is particularly good for getting through to SMEs.
Devolution is not simply about local government or LEPs. One thing we had to do when I came into office was strip away some of the bureaucracy governing further education colleges as leading providers. We had to simplify greatly a very bureaucratic top-down system. Devolution is also about devolving to companies, and one of our major initiatives—employer ownership schemes and the trailblazers, which set industry-level standards—has reduced bureaucracy for small companies and helped them at industry level to formulate standards that they can use. Devolution is not just about local government.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that LEPs can be great champions of apprenticeships when they are given the power to do so? Today, the Worcestershire LEP announced that the ambitious target it set itself of having 10,000 people participating in apprenticeships in the county by 2015 has already been achieved. Is that not an example of how by using the existing structures in our existing counties, rather than creating artificial regions, we can drive forward apprenticeships and skills?
Vince Cable
That is one of the examples. The LEPs have demonstrated the success of devolution and there are many other models. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) has done brilliant work locally by simply working with local colleges and local authorities. There are many local examples and that is what we should be trying to achieve.
I know that you want to bring more people into the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, so let me make two points in conclusion.
Mr Byrne
Before the Secretary of State concludes, will he update the House on the potentially quite sweeping changes to how we fund apprenticeships in this country? The Minister for Skills and Equalities’ predecessor launched a wide-ranging consultation on direct payment through the PAYE system, but on 13 January the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), told the House that the process was in a state of suspended animation and that no further reform would be made. Will the Secretary of State tell the House this afternoon what on earth is going on?
Vince Cable
Our objective is to try to make the system of employer ownership much more extensive. We have had great success with our pilots and are anxious to extend the system. Different models have been canvassed and there has been a ministerial statement describing very clearly where we are. We are keen to do this in a way that creates incentives rather than disincentives for small businesses. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that we are not rushing into a scheme prematurely, but are consulting. That is exactly what Governments do, and when the Government are returned, if I am still in this post, I am sure that we will see a lot of action in that area.
Let me make my two concluding points. First, the shadow Business Secretary mentioned the importance of the status of apprenticeships. That is absolutely right. For far too long we have had a two-tier system under which supposedly clever people went to university and those who failed went on to vocational courses. We need to break that down. It is being broken down and there is a change in perception. A recent survey suggested that 57% of parents are willing to recommend an apprenticeship course to their children. Many of them can see the economic advantages of such a course and the status is changing.
The big issue is the one the shadow Business Secretary started with. I agree that for the sake of the economy we need significantly increased investment in people and skills. The figure we have in the Department is that every £1 million invested in apprenticeships yields an £18 million return to the economy. It is essential that we extend rather than contract the number of apprenticeships. We have a proud record of doing that and I want to see it continue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. It will be obvious to Members that there is little time left in the debate and that many people wish to speak. We will therefore have a five-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
Although I am speaking in part about an inquiry by the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills that took nine months and made many recommendations, I shall try to keep my comments within the time limit.
I welcome the debate and the cross-party agreement on the importance of apprenticeships and the skills agenda. I find the concentration on figures and party-political point scoring, shall we say, about the number of apprenticeships supremely unhelpful in determining our skills needs and how we will meet them. The Government, to their credit, have been prepared to invest £1.6 billion in apprenticeships in the past financial year, but we have seen a fall in the number of starters. Notwithstanding the substantial increase in the number of apprenticeships overall, we know that the increase has been much lower in construction and engineering apprenticeships, which are incredibly important in the development of our economy.
If we take the education system as a whole and add in the money we put into the apprenticeships programme, we see that we are investing a huge amount of money but are not addressing the skills imbalance in the economy. I will single out two crucial areas in which we need to improve our performance if we are to address the problem. The first area is the education system, particularly the careers service in schools. Much has been said about parity of esteem, and I welcome the concentration by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on reinforcing the status of apprenticeships, which is absolutely vital if we are ever to change the mindset in schools. If I have time, the second area on which I will comment is engagement with small businesses, but I will first talk about schools and the culture in the education system.
When the Committee visited Sheffield, it came across a very bright apprentice who had been offered a university place at school, but was virtually ostracised when he told the school that he would take an apprenticeship; he was not even invited to the school’s end-of-term event. That experience is reflected more widely. The Edge Foundation has said that 26% of those surveyed had been actively discouraged from becoming apprentices. I do not blame schools or teachers, because they are delivering on an agenda set by the Government. If the Government want to change the situation, they must set the agenda on Ofsted and monitoring to ensure that vocational training receives the same support and promotion in the education system as universities and A-levels.
Mr Walker
I agree completely with the Chair of the Select Committee. I recently held an event in my constituency for apprentices to talk to school careers advisers. One thing that came across very strongly was that apprentices and their employers told careers advisers that people expected to increase their earnings in the long run by going for an apprenticeship. Careers advisers seem to start from a natural assumption that apprentices are paid less. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is one of the myths we need to take on? The long-term earning potential of apprentices is often much higher.
Mr Bailey
I entirely agree. For too long the careers service has been seen as a bolt-on to the educational process, as reflected in criticisms by the Education Committee and Ofsted. I am not satisfied that the guidance issued to schools in April fully addresses that issue. The ability to understand a student’s potential and to place them in the most appropriate skills setting is absolutely essential both to the individual involved and to the economy as a whole. That area of education is grossly neglected.
I want to move on briefly to small businesses. In my experience, blue-chip companies understand apprenticeships, deliver on them and play a vital role. However, our economy is dominated by small businesses—more than 90% of businesses are small ones—and it is generally recognised that that sector has the potential to increase employment. It is essential to get more small businesses to take on apprentices, but all too often they do not have the capacity, time or finances to train them in skills.
I accept that the Government have recognised the need for more employer involvement, but the latest statement on 13 January fell short of what small businesses need both in relation to the funding regime and the guidelines necessary for them to have the confidence to take on apprentices. There is a lack of clarity and too much bureaucracy, and the Government need to take a consistent approach to small businesses if we are to overcome the problem.
Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
In my constituency of Basingstoke, the number of apprenticeships this year is double the number in 2009 under the last Government. Over the past four years, there have been more than 6,000 apprenticeships—1,600 in the last year alone.
I thank all the businesses who take on apprentices and the colleges that work so hard to make apprenticeships such a success. I am sure that the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), did not want to suggest that those businesses were simply rebadging existing training programmes, because that would belittle the incredible work that the many hundreds of businesses in my constituency that take part in the schemes put into making them a success.
I welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that a future Conservative Government will make a £1 billion commitment to delivering 3 million more apprenticeships by 2020. That is the sort of commitment that businesses in my constituency want to see.
Why do I think that apprenticeships are so successful in my part of Hampshire? It is for three reasons. First, apprenticeships are part of the culture. We have one of the longest-running apprenticeship schemes in Basingstoke at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Employers believe in apprenticeships because they have seen how they work, whether it is Fujitsu or MiniTec. Whether they are large or small, businesses have seen how apprenticeships deliver quality staff.
Secondly, businesses in Basingstoke believe in apprenticeships because we have one of the top-performing colleges in Basingstoke college of technology, which delivers hundreds of apprenticeship schemes every year in subjects as diverse as IT, web design and child care. Such organisations are leading the way, and we should be celebrating them today.
The third element, which was picked up on by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) in his intervention, is the role of local enterprise partnerships. My local LEP, Enterprise M3, put apprenticeships at the heart of its skills and employability strategy that was published two years ago. It is that leadership and commitment, which has come right from the top, that has helped us to secure so much support, particularly through growth deal funding, which has supported the establishment of key skills centres right across the LEP. That is just the sort of support that we need for this programme.
I want to make three further points in the time that is available to me. First, the hon. Member for Streatham made it clear in his opening statement for the Opposition that the motion focuses on young people, and rightly so. However, he seemed very dismissive of the role of apprenticeships for older people who have been established in the work force for a number of years. He needs to consider that position more carefully. My local college delivers three quarters of its apprenticeships to people who are over the age of 18.
Mr Umunna
It is entirely wrong of the right hon. Lady to describe me as dismissing apprenticeships for older people. My point is that we need to increase the numbers dramatically, particularly in respect of young people. It is totally wrong of her to misconstrue my comments in that way.
Maria Miller
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his position clear. It was a little less clear in his speech. The teaching staff at my local college will want to hear what he has just said, because it is important that we have a lifetime approach to training for people in our work force. Training does not stop when we leave college, school or university; it goes on through our lives. Apprenticeships offer an incredibly strong way for people to increase their skills and ensure that they have a high level of employability, particularly in areas such as mine, where we estimate that 50% of the job opportunities will require a higher education qualification in the future.
Secondly, I want to focus on the quality of apprenticeships. I commend the Government for driving up the standards of apprenticeships in recent years. However, I do not think that we should devalue the importance of level 2 apprenticeships. They are an immensely valuable way of making up for lost time at school or college for youngsters—or, indeed, older people—who do not have basic qualifications. I hope that the Opposition would want to rephrase the motion, because it tends to suggest that they are devaluing level 2 apprenticeships or writing them off altogether. I would not endorse that at all.
Finally, I know that the Minister is looking at funding routes that enable employers to get involved in apprenticeships, and I would like to talk to him about the process used by the Skills Funding Agency to allocate growth funding—perhaps he will meet me separately to discuss that. Currently, the SFA requires providers to recruit additional apprenticeships and then bid for funding. Opportunities to bid for funding are every three months, but the agency does not guarantee that extra funding will be allocated in that process. Colleges and employers should work together to maximise the opportunities for apprenticeships, and we must ensure that we do not lose opportunities simply because of the slowness of the process.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am afraid I was rather optimistic with the five-minute time limit, because five minutes plus interventions becomes seven minutes. I must now reduce the time limit to three minutes, although I will be kind to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) as he had no warning about that.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Like many hon. Members, in just 92 days I will have reached the end of my first term as an MP. In my mind, it is still inconceivable that I have made it from being an apprentice on a massive building site to being, well, an apprentice on a massive building site, and although my political apprenticeship is about to be completed, the Palace of Westminster is not a bad site to work on. When I walked through the gothic archway that leads to the Chamber for the first time, flanked on either side by the familiar green Benches that I had only ever seen on the telly, I thought that I would be the only brickie in Parliament. But no—not only is my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) a former bricklayer, but no less than the Deputy Speaker himself is a time-served, trowel-carrying member of the building fraternity.
The Prime Minister was challenged by young people on the programme “Stand Up Be Counted”, and he said that although the apprenticeship wage is not that high, the training and experience that someone gets should lead to a good job. However, he did not say what he is doing to address the problem of wage rates. My party is right to advocate equality between an apprenticeship and an undergraduate degree, but there must be greater focus on training people for specific sectors where there is real employment growth.
The Construction Industry Training Board construction skills forecast predicts that the construction industry will need more than 200,000 entrants over the life of this Parliament. That is in part to cope with political priorities such as house building and road improvements, but also to deal with an ageing population in the work force, with many workers reaching retirement age. That means that an average of 40,000 construction workers will need to be trained each and every year. To put that in context, in the last financial year just over 1,000 apprentices completed construction apprenticeships.
Construction was hit hard by the global financial crisis and the Government’s austerity measures, and thousands of workers lost their jobs or were replaced by cheaper migrant workers. We have seen the continued casualisation of the industry, and the latest practice of umbrella companies top-slicing workers’ wages. That is why I am proud of the campaign led by my union—the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians—to stop quick-buck merchants and unscrupulous employers damaging the reputation of the whole industry in a way that puts off many young people from considering construction apprenticeships as an attractive employment option.
The situation is stark and a number of factors require addressing immediately. Careers advice is patchy at best, and we must get away from the perception that construction is just for low achievers. The gender imbalance is still acute. Out of the 13,500 apprenticeship starts last year, only 250 were female, and for the best part of a decade construction has not been an industry that guarantees secure employment.
Liverpool city council has a great apprenticeship model, should others be looking to replicate its success. However, unless the Government are serious about filling the considerable skills shortages that exist in the construction sector, it will be extremely difficult to deliver those infrastructure priorities and we will need to import increasing numbers of skilled workers from abroad.
I firmly believe that the Government can change the circumstances of ordinary people for the better, and if I am re-elected in a few months’ time and come back here, the Labour Government that we will form will give hope to a new generation that is looking for high-quality skills, training and employment in our costed apprenticeship programme. I hope I am returned to see it.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
I am sorry we have only a short time to discuss apprenticeships, which have changed my constituency massively over the last five years of this Government. In 2010, 630 under-24s were claiming jobseeker’s allowance, and in the year before the election, there were 600 apprenticeship starts. During that time of high youth unemployment in my constituency, we saw something really bizarre: both the vacancy rate and, in certain sectors, the number of unemployed people rose. It was completely counterintuitive. The reason was that young people were leaving school without the menu of skills that our local high-tech, high-quality engineering and manufacturing businesses wanted.
We have heard about the importance of encouraging smaller businesses to take on apprenticeships. I took it upon myself to visit all the small businesses in my constituency and say, “Why are you not embedding apprenticeships in your business?” In 2010-11, I found that lots of those businesses, for myriad reasons, had simply given up on apprenticeships. I visited a weaving mill in Darwen and said to the owner, “It’s fantastic to see all your looms still going”—people think we have lost our textile industry in Lancashire, but it is still going strong—“but every single person working them has white hair.” I do not mean to criticise anyone with white hair, but in 10 years, if he has not got apprentices back into his business, his highly skilled British manufacturing business will shut.
The mill owner, along with other great employers in my constituency, such as JJO plc and WEC Engineering, came together to launch apprenticeships campaigns with the simple aim of recruiting 100 apprentices in 100 days. We have now had three of these campaigns. In the first one, we recruited 160 apprentices in 100 days; in the second, we recruited more than 200; and in last year’s, we recruited more than 300. In fact, the tie I am wearing for this debate was woven by a young apprentice who benefited from one of those campaigns. It is three campaigns old and is beginning to look its age—and it gives evidence of the number of lunches I have worn it for as well.
Businesses in my area embraced apprenticeships, so we have cut by half—to just 320—the number of unemployed young people and doubled the number of apprenticeships to more than 1,100. I am grateful for the support of businesses in my area in doing this.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I congratulate my Front-Bench colleagues on tabling the motion and focusing on 19 to 24-year-olds. When I had the honour to serve on the Front Bench, one of the things I took to it from my experience in Blackpool was that 19 to 24-year-olds were a key group that must not be left out of the process. Many in that age group have missed out on chances, perhaps because of disability, caring responsibilities, lifestyle or family disruption, but theirs is a key group for progression. There is certainly good practice in respect of that age range. I think of the “build up” programme in Blackpool college, which brings many apprentices into construction; the Lancashire apprenticeships scheme; and the skills and jobs fair I held last year involving 300 young people and 40 to 50 business participants.
As we have seen today, however, the Government were slow to match their rhetoric on 19 to 24-year-olds with the statistics. Why are they failing? In part, they are failing because they made such a disastrous mistake on traineeships. Traineeships were first mooted in 2012 by the Deputy Prime Minister. The idea was dawdled over for 18 months, and then became part of a long wrangle between the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills over the definition of benefits. It had no marketing budget and no proper sell to colleges, and there was a continued failure to consult employers, as we see even today in comments in FE Week. The 19 to 24 age group needs to be encouraged.
This is a Government who, while lauding apprenticeships in the round, have hindered the potential to access them in detail. This perspective has constantly been undermined, as we have heard, by the lack of co-operation from the Department for Education, not least in relation to the shambles of careers advice. This Government have commissioned good reports from business people such as Doug Richard and Jason Holt, but then failed to act quickly or effectively on them. They have not listened to what businesses and business organisations have said—and none more so than on the policies of procurement, which we introduced in government with some wonderful examples such as Crossrail.
We have commissioned a trio of reports on FE, skills and apprenticeships, and we have recognised the need for mechanisms to secure a critical step change in the take-up of apprenticeships by small and medium-sized enterprises. As I pointed out when I spoke at Training 2000 at Bolton in 2012, greater connections with the supply chain about training and other things are all key mechanisms to getting things across to benefit 19 to 24-year-olds.
That is why in our devolution proposals we talk specifically about skills and apprenticeships. They offer a key role not just for local councils, but for unions and union learning fund people. In that process there must be a key role for apprenticeships in the service and creative sectors, as well as in logistics and transport. We are going to have infrastructure projects that will produce £50 billion of spend over the next few years. We need to make sure that significant numbers of apprenticeships come from that, rather than having the record of hype and disconnect between BIS and DFE, which has too often blotted out this Government’s copybook on skills, training and apprenticeships. We need a strategy of progression, which the Opposition Front-Bench team are taking forward.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. The limited time available means that I shall have to circumscribe what I was going to say. First of all, I appreciate that this is an Opposition day debate, so I appreciate that the Opposition will find things that they think we have done badly, and vice-versa. However, I want to rise above that, because the most positive aspect for me is that both sides recognise that apprenticeships have gone through—possibly started by the Opposition—a transformational process. I believe that the coalition has broadly carried that on successfully, so I am hopeful that whoever are in government after the general election will keep their feet flattened down on this whole apprenticeship agenda. It has been absolutely transformational for many hundreds of thousands of people across the nation.
I was the first MP after the general election to launch 100:100. It is not just that I was optimistic about defeating my coalition colleagues in Eastbourne, but that with a business background I had a clear understanding and appreciation that when good apprenticeships are put in place, they are both tremendously successful in securing employment for those who have been apprentices and beneficial to the companies involved. We achieved 181 rather than 100; since then, more than 3,500 apprenticeships have started in Eastbourne. It has helped to lift the confidence and mood of the constituency considerably. I am sure that it is also likely to be one reason why we have come through the recession so successfully.
I pay particular tribute to Sussex Downs college, whose apprenticeship unit has been outstanding. I have worked closely with the college right from the very beginning, and continue to do so. It is running at a conversion rate, for a number of different apprenticeship sectors, of 92%. I want that in Hansard, so I refer again to a 92% conversation rate of apprenticeships into jobs. Colleagues will know that very few Government employment schemes ever run at that rate of conversation. I congratulate Sussex Downs on its apprenticeship scheme.
Finally, on the status issue, I have been working closely with a number of different groups to try to set up something called “the Royal Association of Apprenticeships”. Depending on what happens after the general election, I hope to continue to make progress on that project. I am keen to work with leading Opposition figures as well, because the status aspect of apprenticeships is crucial, and if we could put together something like a royal association and make it work, it would enhance the status and gravitas of the whole concept of apprenticeships. I think this is necessary and will provide an important part of the jigsaw to improve apprenticeships generally for long into the future.
It has been a privilege to speak. Apprenticeships have been a game changer, and I look forward to that continuing for the next 20 years.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I am glad that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) mentioned the important role played by training providers in supplying the off-the-job learning that is such a crucial factor in apprenticeships. Hugh Baird college in Sefton does a fantastic job in partnership with the employers who look after the apprentices, across a range of sectors.
When I visited Michelin Tyre in Stoke a couple of years ago, I met engineers who were in their late 40s or early 50s. They were the youngest engineers in the company until a year or two ago, when the company suddenly realised that it had no way of replacing its engineers. We heard the same story from the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry). Michelin now employs a number of young, high-quality apprentices, who are doing fantastic work and developing the skills that the company needs. As we have heard, that is a familiar story.
The construction industry in the north-west needs 1,500 new bricklayers and 1,500 new roofers each year. Where are those skilled jobs to come from unless we get the apprenticeship agenda right? I hear from schools in my constituency that fewer pupils are studying vocational subjects such as design and technology. Of course we need to encourage young people to go to university, but all too often we value academic learning and qualifications at the expense of vocational learning and qualifications. The culture needs to change, but I fear that we are far from reaching that point. Whether deliberately or not, we distinguish between the two, and that absolutely has to change. As I said in an intervention, it is simply not an issue in Germany, where the vocational and academic paths run alongside each other. As is implied in the motion, the technical baccalaureate is important in enhancing the status of technical education and qualifications, as well as addressing the shortage of skills in the STEM subjects.
Concern was expressed to the Education Committee about the damage caused by the reduction in the number of professional careers advisers, and the removal of work experience as an option for many young people. Businesses have told me in my constituency, as well as in evidence given to our Committee, about the difficulties that that causes in preventing young people from being exposed to the fantastic opportunity that is presented by apprenticeships.
We must increase the number of apprentices. We need to make it far easier for businesses to take them on. We also need to make apprenticeships far more attractive to young people, and to ensure that vocational qualifications and learning in this country are regarded as being of the highest standard and value. That is why the motion is so important. I hope that it is passed, so that both our young people and the country as a whole can benefit.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
I will set my remarks in the context of the successful Government industrial strategy, because it has driven the need for 83,000 additional engineers every year. I think it important to concentrate on our apprenticeship programme, which must start to fill that huge gap. The need is obvious. For example, £100 million has been invested in Airbus, in my constituency and elsewhere, to push forward the frontiers of technology, and firms in my constituency such as Renishaw, ABB, Delphi and Lister Shearing all want more engineers, because their order books are full and their export opportunities significant.
I want to make three points. First, we must ensure that the relationship between business and education improves by making it possible for business to tell education what it needs, and for education to appreciate the sheer numbers that are required in certain areas. That, of course, must include a focus on STEM subjects. Secondly, I think that further education colleges are the unsung heroes of this story. It might be worth while for us to start thinking about a kind of Russell group to include the very best FE colleges, so that they can lift themselves up, celebrate their success, and become the key deliverers of some of the apprenticeships to which I have referred.
Thirdly, we need to talk about apprenticeships in much more glowing terms than we often do, and one way to do that is to have a proper award. It is not enough just to give apprentices something from the business. There should be an award that says, “Wherever you are and whoever you are, you’ve done it and you should be proud. Here’s a certificate to salute that fact.”
Those three ideas are designed to improve what we understand an apprentice to be and to show why we value them so much. In my constituency, I try to do all these things in different ways. I established a festival of manufacturing and engineering, which is geared to ensuring that schools and business have an ongoing relationship. I salute the successful apprentices and firms who drive up standards and ensure that our real and growing economy is equipped with the skills to deliver the output and productivity we need. They are being created by various measures and by the long-term economic plan.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It falls on me to be tail-end Charlie in this debate on which so much consensus could and should have been reached, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) pointed out. We all, across the House, share enthusiasm for apprenticeships: their improvement, their widening and their breadth. Unfortunately, today that opportunity was lost in what was, frankly, a disgraceful speech by the shadow Business Secretary. His dire, tribal attempt to rubbish this Government’s—and, above all, the country’s —remarkable achievements in growing apprenticeships and shrinking youth unemployment led to a string of inaccurate and, frankly, almost offensive claims. Let me try to deal, very briefly, with some of them.
The shadow Business Secretary said that the numbers of young apprenticeships were down. The Secretary of State pointed out that they are slightly down for 19 to 24-year-olds in 2013-14. In Gloucester, however, they are still more than 80% higher than the comparable figure when the previous Government were in power, and were more than double that figure in 2012-13. Overall, apprenticeships for 19 to 24-year-olds in Gloucester are at 1,730 in the past three years, compared with 740 in the last three years of the Labour Government. The figures, however one tries to twist them, are remarkable.
The shadow Business Secretary said that many of the apprenticeships were not worth the paper they are written on. How insulting to the 5,000 new apprentices in Gloucester. He said, and it is in the motion, that level 2 apprenticeships are not worth anything at all. Let me tell the House that that is completely wrong. The evidence shows that many apprentices do a level 2 apprenticeship—for example, in business administration—for a year and then go on to do a level 3 apprenticeship in the second year. I know this to be true as the second MP to hire his own apprentice. The shadow Secretary of State admitted that he himself does not have an apprentice and I do not believe that any others on the Opposition Front Bench do. I am happy to take an intervention. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) is saying that he does have one, which is encouraging, but it is disappointing that the shadow Business Secretary does not and does not have that first-hand experience.
Jake Berry
Very briefly, because I know we are pushed for time. On the point of MPs having apprentices—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has already made many interventions. I am sorry, but we are at the end of this debate.
Richard Graham
I think my hon. Friend was going to make the point that it is important that we lead by example and employ our own apprentices wherever possible.
The shadow Business Secretary went on to talk, with an element of derision, about the number of apprentices over 60 who have started since this Government came into power. I hope that my older constituents, Age UK and others will have noted that point carefully. In fact, he offended almost everybody I can imagine, including all the businesses, training colleges, councils and the NHS in Gloucester that have taken on apprenticeships in the past five years and have done so much to give the opportunities to young people that all of us across this House surely agree is incredibly important. In a sense, his final words rather summed up his speech. He finished by saying that he will be voting Labour. Well, I am delighted for the Leader of the Opposition that he has the vote of his shadow Business Secretary, but if that is the summary of his party’s strategy, it is pretty disappointing. We heard nothing about the opportunities to widen apprenticeships into more sectors, including nursing; the opportunities from the pilot scheme the Government have run to let employers take control of their training funds; and the ways in which the guilds can offer apprenticeships. There were many things that could and should have been covered today, and it is a great disappointment that they were not. I will certainly not be voting for this motion, but I do agree wholeheartedly with all the Members of this House who support apprenticeships and want to see more of them.
Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I am not sure which debate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) was in, but he certainly constructed a few windmills of his own to tilt at. No doubt, that will be of interest to his local press in what I know will be a tight contest.
This in general has been a very good debate. It has been especially heartening to see interest across the House in driving behind a shared ambition to boost the number of apprenticeships, to close the skills shortages and gaps that bedevil so much of our economy and to close the looming large productivity gap that my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) alluded to in his opening remarks. The fact that there is now a 20% productivity gap between this country and the rest of the G7 is shocking, and it is going to make it very difficult for us as a country to earn our way out of the cost of living crisis in which this coalition Government have landed us.
It is simply impossible for us to raise wages in the way we want to unless we raise productivity rates and that, in turn, is going to require us to raise the level of skills in this country. As my hon. Friend said, we are very proud of our record in government in rescuing the apprenticeship programme from the Conservative Administration back in 1997. I think the grand total then was 65,000 apprentices, and we are very proud that we were able to raise that number to nearly 300,000 by the time we left office. We achieved that through some concerted policy measures, not least the creation of a National Apprenticeship Service, which was extremely successful in its short life. I am glad the current Government kept it on, although I am afraid it is now a somewhat eviscerated version of its former self.
We were the first Government to introduce a national apprenticeship week back in 2008, but crucially we learned the hard way—and it is a shame these lessons were not taken up in the way they could have been—that public procurement could be used to drive up apprenticeship numbers, and I was very pleased to see on Monday deep below Tottenham Court road the extraordinary work that Terry Morgan and the Crossrail team are undertaking there. That public procurement project has now driven about 440 new apprenticeship numbers into the system. That is a very good example of public procurement being used to increase the number of apprenticeship opportunities for our young people.
A number of hon. Members have noted with appreciation that there is a degree of consensus in this debate, and the Government did do some things that sought to build on the firm foundations left by the last Labour Government. The skills strategy published in 2010 committed to improving apprenticeship standards, and the higher apprenticeship fund was a welcome innovation, as was the money for higher apprenticeship numbers that the Secretary of State referred to in response to an intervention from me.
The question, however, is whether the scale of this Government’s ambition is anywhere near the level that is needed to get this country out of the hole into which they have put us. It has been argued this afternoon that there are four or five important areas where the Government’s apprenticeship reforms have fallen short. First, there is the question of whether there is enough training in the apprenticeships that are available today. The Secretary of State did an heroic job of defending the data his Department published, but the truth is that nearly a quarter of the 19 to 24-year-old age group do not receive any formal training, which means an apprentice in England gets under seven hours of training a week. We do not think that is good enough, and neither do the Secretary of State’s own advisers. In fact, the Doug Richard review set the target at 20% for off-the-job training each week so, on the Secretary of State’s own data and by his own measures, his Department is failing to deliver the right level of training for apprentices. That obviously has a knock-on consequence for pay. I am glad the Secretary of State acknowledged that 15% of apprentices not receiving the minimum wage was a scandal and was not good enough and more action needed to be taken to end that abuse. If young people know that an apprenticeship is something that is not properly paid and where the Government are content to look the other way when they are abused by employers, it is going to be harder, not easier, to draw young people into apprenticeships. The level of ambition in driving out low pay from apprenticeships is not good enough, and I am afraid we did not hear enough on that front from the Secretary of State this afternoon. I hope the Minister will correct that deficit when he winds up.
It is pretty clear to us that apprenticeships are currently too short. Approximately a third of English apprenticeships last under 18 months—a shortcoming compared not simply with international standards but with other parts of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland only 12% of apprenticeships are that short, and only 17% are in Scotland. So the Government have much further to go in increasing the length of apprenticeships just to match other parts of the United Kingdom.
The measures undertaken to increase the number of higher apprenticeships are welcome, but the truth is that only 2% of apprentices go on to degree-level skills. There is no vocational, professional and technical path to a degree-level skill worth its name in this country, and we are absolutely determined to change that.
A number of Members rightly pointed out that underlying many of these shortcomings are problems in not just the apprenticeship system but the education system. The fact that we do not require everyone in our country to do English and maths up to the age of 18, as we recommend, is a problem. The fact that there is no gold-standard technical baccalaureate at the age of 18 is a problem. The fact that this Government have undertaken the wholesale destruction of our careers service is a problem, and the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), and my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), were absolutely right to point the finger at that problem, which we will be determined to fix.
Our young people face the challenge of a world in which one in six of their peers is still out of work. If they want to go to university, they will graduate with a bill of £44,000—a debt that, on average, they will not pay off until they are in their 50s. Not enough apprenticeships are available to them because the numbers are going down, and neither are there a meaningful number of opportunities to take them on to degree-level skills. The fact that only 2% of apprentices go on to acquire degree-level skills is a major problem that employers, particularly in engineering and science, argue is holding our country back. Many companies are not re-shoring jobs because of the skills shortage. Mike Wright, chief executive of Jaguar Land Rover, said in an independent review commissioned by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor that we are graduating only approximately half the number of engineers we need to make good the skills gap. That means that we have to transform the number of technicians coming on line each year through the apprenticeship system. Right now, the Government simply do not have plans in place to fix that imbalance.
The Secretary of State was sanguine about the fiscal outlook for his Department, but the truth is that if the Chancellor gets his way and the science budget is protected, the BIS budget will be cut by some 44%. The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that that is not deliverable—certainly, his civil servants do; it is not a fiscal settlement that will allow him to build the bigger, better apprenticeship system that we need.
A different level of ambition is needed. We should set a goal of sending over the next 10 years as many young people into a high-quality apprenticeship as head on to university. That is the level of ambition we need in this country, and if we are to deliver on it, we need to get several things right. First, we need to ensure that our apprentices can compete with the best in the world, which is why level 3 is the right level of ambition. Level 2 is an important step on the road to that qualification, but if we want to compete with the best in the world and close the productivity gap, we need to set our standards high, not low. We therefore need radically to expand the number of higher-level apprenticeships. That is why the Leader of the Opposition has said clearly that our priority in expanding the university system is to create thousands of new technical degrees that would allow apprentices to go on and study up to degree-level skills. Those are the kind of skills that our science-based businesses are asking for.
We need to accompany these changes with radical measures to devolve spending to city regions, which will often know their local labour market best, but above all we must harness public procurement on a completely different scale compared with the ambitions set out by this Government. That point was wisely made by the Chair of the Select Committee. I am glad that there is a shared ambition across the House on the aspiration but there needs to be a practical policy in place to deliver that aspiration, and Labour Members are determined to practise what we preach.
The Minister for Skills and Equalities (Nick Boles)
It came as a bit of a surprise to learn that the Opposition were proposing a debate on apprenticeships, because as we have heard during this excellent debate, the Government can point to a remarkable record of success in their apprenticeship programme. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) that the number of apprenticeships in his constituency was 80% higher in the past year than in the last year of the previous Government, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) told the House that, through his efforts to create jobs fairs and no fewer than three apprenticeship fairs, unemployment in his constituency was now 50% lower than it was when he was elected to Parliament. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) that her local college, Basingstoke college, was keen to invest more money every year to create more apprenticeships, and I will of course be delighted to meet her and the college principal to discuss ways in which the college can bid more effectively for money in-year when it can identify ways to grow its programme.
I was particularly pleased to hear from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram), who brought to the debate the enormous advantage of having completed an apprenticeship himself. I have no idea why he chose to give up that honourable trade for the one that he is now pursuing, but I am nevertheless full of admiration for him. He made an important contribution —compared with the woolly and glib thinking of those on his Front Bench—in pointing out the crucial importance of level 2 apprenticeships, particularly in construction. It would simply be wrong to tell the young men and women who are doing a level 2 apprenticeship in bricklaying that it was no longer going to be called an apprenticeship, even though they were employed, working hard, going to college and training, and even though they were securing valuable qualifications, of which many more are needed.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who made the particularly important point that there was a key link between apprenticeships and the industrial strategies that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has brought in. He also said that we needed to work with local economic partnerships to create apprenticeships that support the local growing sectors in his constituency and elsewhere. I am sorry that I have not yet been invited to his festival of manufacturing and engineering, but I look forward to receiving an invitation to the next one when he is re-elected in May.
We have heard from my right hon. and hon. Friends about the good record of this Government. We have our record to be proud of, but Conservative Members also have a clear plan for the future. Unlike the Opposition’s proposals in the motion, our plan is fully costed and fully resourced.
Nick Boles
We will continue to improve the quality of apprenticeships through our Trailblazers programme by getting groups of employers to develop apprenticeship standards that deliver the skills that they need. We will also offer young people a clear choice: to earn or learn—to get a job or to go to university—or to combine earning and learning through an apprenticeship. It does young people no favours to let them start their lives in subsidised inactivity, neither earning nor learning, so we will restrict the benefits that young people receive and use the money saved from that and from the proceeds of a reduction in the benefits cap from £26,000 to £23,000 to fund 3 million high-quality apprenticeships between 2015 and 2020.
By contrast, what we have heard from the Opposition has been hopelessly vague. After the comprehensive demolition of the shadow Secretary of State’s policy on tuition fees by university vice-chancellors, he has clearly decided to try his luck with apprenticeships, but yet again we see that the right hon. Gentleman is better with atmospherics than with policy detail.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Minister is not giving way, and neither did the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) when he was at the Dispatch Box. I must point out that the Front-Bench speakers in this debate have spoken for well over an hour, which is why Back Benchers have had very little time to speak. The right hon. Gentleman has had his chance. I call the Minister.
Nick Boles
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Opposition motion refers to an aspiration that there should be as many people starting apprenticeships as there are going to university. Treasury officials—not Ministers—have costed this policy and advised that it would cost £710 million in 2015-16. But when challenged about how they would pay for this, what tax they would put up, what other spending programme they would cut, answer came there none.
The Opposition motion also promotes the fantastically deluded idea that all apprenticeships should be level 3 and should last a minimum of two years. Treasury officials—again, not Ministers—costed this policy too. They advise that it would cost £680 million in 2015-16. Can the shadow Front-Bench team explain how they would pay for that, who would pay more tax, whose services would be cut? Of course not.
It is especially disappointing to see this policy soufflé survive the exacting inquiries of the Opposition’s very own Masterchef, the shadow Minister. He has a razor-sharp mind and a real zeal for reform, but I am afraid it is clear that he has been relegated to the sidelines, allowed out only on high days and holidays and, as we have just heard, forced to read from the Leader of the Opposition’s lazily profligate script. The flimsiness of the Labour party’s proposals for apprenticeships might be harmless enough in the early years of opposition. That, of course, is where the shadow Secretary of State has learned his trade. But in government, it would create chaos.
Employers, training providers and young people are making big decisions when they decide to invest in creating apprenticeships and in creating the training programmes to support apprenticeships and, as young people, deciding to commit to an apprenticeship. They need certainty and clarity if they are to have the confidence to make a long-term commitment to apprenticeships. They need a competent Government with a clear plan and a clear understanding of how much their plan will cost and how they will pay for it.
If there is a Conservative Government after 7 May, we will invest in apprenticeships, which will be jobs and will last more than 12 months. Every apprentice will have an employer. There will be 3 million of them between 2015 and 2020 and we will pay for them by reducing other areas of Government spending so that, as we have in this Parliament, we can increase our investment in the apprenticeships programme. I urge Members to support those parties that really understand how to grow apprenticeships, and to oppose the motion.
Question put.
Electoral Registration
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 289 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the importance of a complete and accurate electoral register to the health of our democracy; welcomes the fact that 1.8 million voters have registered using online registration, but notes that, according to the Electoral Commission, 7.5 million eligible voters are missing from the register; notes with concern that an estimated one million voters have left the register in the past year and that the shift to individual electoral registration could see millions more fall off the register; calls on the Government and the Electoral Commission to do more to tackle under-registration, including block-registering students in university or college accommodation and people living in adult sheltered accommodation and care homes, introducing a schools registration scheme, on the model of the Northern Ireland Schools Initiative, to boost registration in time for the General Election on 7 May 2015, and maximising the use of national and local data sets in securing a complete register; and further calls on the Government to set a clear goal to reduce the numbers of missing voters and to delay fully implementing individual electoral registration until this goal is met.
As the Government’s timetable has meant limited time for debating this important matter, I shall focus my remarks on the motion and how we can ensure that the general election in 92 days’ time is as fair as possible. We want the electoral register to be as complete and accurate as possible—something that I hope we all want. After all, it is the lifeblood of our democracy. If a person is not on the list, they cannot vote—it is as simple as that.
However, the electoral register also performs a much wider civic function. It provides the building blocks that the Boundary Commission uses to decide parliamentary constituency boundaries. One of the fundamental principles of our legal system—trial by one’s peers—depends on the register, as it provides the list of those who can be called for jury service. Those who are not on the register will find it more difficult, and maybe even impossible, to secure credit or a mortgage.
That is why it is so appalling that according to the Electoral Commission’s own research some 7.5 million people are missing from the register. We know what kinds of voters are more likely to be missing: young voters, students, those who have recently changed address, those who rent privately, the unemployed, those from ethnic minorities and those in socio-economic groups D and E—in other words, poorer members of society.
Some 95% of the over-65s are on the electoral register, yet estimates of the proportion of 18 to 24-year-olds on it vary from 56% to 70%. If that were not a big enough problem, we know that there is also considerable variation in the rates of those who actually vote. Just 44% of 18 to 24-year-olds voted in the 2010 general election, and the figure for the over-65s was pushing 75%.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
On 13 October 2011 the right hon. Gentleman said that 10 million people would lose the right to vote, but he has just said that the figure is only 7.5 million, so how has the situation improved since then?
Sadiq Khan
I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make—that 7.5 million is somehow more acceptable? He will appreciate, because he cares about these matters, that it depends on what figures are referred to. The Electoral Commission has done some estimates, as have other academics. It might be a laughing matter for Conservative MPs, but we think that it is a very serious issue.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way in this incredibly important debate. Does he share the concern of many people in Liverpool that the figures for attainers—the under-18s who still need to go on the register in anticipation of becoming eligible to vote—show a 97% drop in the number of 16 and 17-year-olds on Liverpool’s electoral register as a result of the introduction of the Government’s new scheme, from 2,635 to just 76? Is he as appalled as I am about those new figures?
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend makes an important point. As I said, the register that will be used for the general election in 92 days’ time will have missing from it those who have just reached the age of 18 and should be taking part in general elections. It is estimated that there will be 3.3 million first-time voters on 7 May, and we are concerned that too many of them will be missing from the register.
Almost three quarters of those who vote are in socio-economic class AB—the wealthiest—yet fewer than two thirds of C2s and Ds do so. Our elections are being fought on the basis of a seriously skewed register, with key groups and communities under-represented.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sadiq Khan
In a moment.
Our election results are being decided by voters who are older and more affluent. This is an appropriate time for me to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Sadiq Khan
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we introduced the measure in 2009, and he supported it. Under our motion, we would not get rid of individual voter registration but ensure that there were safeguards before the next general election.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I represent an inner-city seat where we shall see a significant reduction in the overall number of our electors, and I am concerned about the implications of that. Individual voter registration came in cheek by jowl with the concerns about electoral fraud that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) mentioned. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the genuine concern about the fact that we can now have postal votes at will? The number of postal votes went up from some 920,000 in the 1997 election to over 6 million in the last election. It is the concern about the misuse of postal votes that makes individual registration so important.
Sadiq Khan
The hon. Gentleman’s point is not relevant to the motion, but I will deal with it directly. If he has concerns about the misuse of postal votes, I advise him to report them to the police and to the Electoral Commission. He will be aware of the numbers of prosecutions that there have been over the past few years. We have to be quite careful about using parliamentary privilege to make allegations. If he has specific examples, I ask him to refer them to the police and the Electoral Commission.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
The constituency with the highest proportion of postal ballots is Tatton, with 96%. Is the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) aware that 93% of people transferred their postal ballots from household registration to individual registration? Postal ballots are valued by the voting public.
Sadiq Khan
That is a very important point. In some constituencies the number of people using postal votes is incredibly high. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster was not suggesting that the voters in Tatton are committing electoral fraud.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a complete red herring? The Electoral Commission’s report of 2006, when we had all-postal pilots—in my own constituency, for example—found that fraud was not an issue.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend makes an important point. To be fair to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, he was not suggesting that there was huge-scale fraud but pointing out the concerns that exist. He is nodding, so I think he accepts that.
Sadiq Khan
I will let the hon. Gentleman make one final point before I make progress.
Mark Field
I was suggesting not that there is widespread fraud but that the large number of postal votes makes it all the more important to ensure the sanctity and security of the electoral system. Taking the individual registration route was an important part of that. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman’s party, when in government, made it clear that we should go down this route. The concern that he is expressing about students and people from certain socio-economic groups is part and parcel of the individual registration process.
Sadiq Khan
I am grateful for that clarification, and to demonstrate what a nice guy I am, I shall give way one last time.
Chris Ruane
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way a second time. May I inform him and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) that there has been one successful prosecution for postal ballot fraud in the past seven years?
Sadiq Khan
I thank my hon. Friend for confirming the point that I was seeking to make a short while ago.
There is some good news. Many people out there are not prepared to put up with this inequality. I pay tribute to all those involved in registering people to vote—it is a tough job, but critical—from local authority electoral registration officers to political party activists of all parties pounding the pavements, and from the NUS to HOPE not hate, Operation Black Vote and our trade unions, who tirelessly work to get people registered. I also pay tribute to the Daily Mirror’s No Vote No Voice campaign, getting its readers and their families and friends registered to vote.
In particular, I want to pay tribute to and thank Bite the Ballot, the architects of tomorrow’s national voter registration day. Anyone who has been involved in one of their sessions with young people cannot fail to be impressed by the infectious enthusiasm of Mike Sani and his team. It is a real pity that the Prime Minister chose to snub their leaders’ debate, although it is perhaps indicative of how some in the ruling classes view younger voters.
To complicate matters further, the whole way we go about registering to vote is undergoing a fundamental change. Yes, it was the last Government who, in 2009, legislated to introduce individual electoral registration. That legislation was shaped by the experiences in Northern Ireland—when they moved to IER, there was an 11% fall in the numbers registered, so to counter that a transition period was put in place for long enough to prevent a repeat. Safeguards were also put in place at key milestones to check against any deterioration in the completeness of the register. Colleagues on both sides of the House welcomed that careful and considerate approach to moving to IER.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), now Madam Deputy Speaker, who in those days spoke for the Conservative party, said:
“I am very pleased to have the opportunity to put it on the record once and for all that we agree with the Government that the accuracy, comprehensiveness and integrity of the register and of the system is paramount. That is one of the reasons why we will not oppose the timetable the Minister has suggested this evening.”
The then Liberal Democrat spokesman said:
“I do not think that anybody was suggesting that the timetable be artificially shortened, or that any risk be taken with the comprehensiveness of the register.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 108-12.]
After the last general election, the coalition, in its arrogance, decided to rip up the cross-party approach supported by all sides in the previous Parliament. The coalition agreement contained a commitment to
“speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration”,
and the Government introduced the reckless Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, which removed the voluntary phase and instead introduced compulsory individual electoral registration from July 2014.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. He correctly predicted the drop-off in the electoral register, and the scrapping of the voluntary arrangement in the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 is the root cause of these problems. Does he share my concern that the loss of those electors will lead to the long-term deterioration of the electoral register?
Sadiq Khan
Absolutely. Having fewer and fewer people taking part in elections is a bad thing for all of us. The Government’s justification for getting rid of the voluntary phase was that it would save money, but it is right to remind the House that we warned that speeding up the process and stripping out the key safeguards was gambling with the completeness of the electoral register. We were not alone. Similar warnings were voiced by experts, academics, the Electoral Reform Society and the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is in his place. We take no satisfaction in saying, “We told you so.”
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
Does the shadow Secretary of State not accept that anyone who was on the household register in July 2014 who is still in the same house remains on the new register today? Is that not a serious safeguard?
Sadiq Khan
I shall come to the data-matching shortly, but we have considered those on the register in December 2013 and those on the register in December 2014, after the data-matching. An estimated 1 million voters have dropped off the electoral register. For 1 million to be missing in a year is bad enough, but the trends in the groups that are unregistered is also worrying. Data coming in from local authorities are showing serious drops among students and those turning 18. In the patch of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the number registering fell from 630 to 114 in just 12 months. As has been said, the figure for attainers registering in Liverpool has slumped from 2,300 to just 76. Three areas with large number of students —Cardiff, Newcastle and Brighton—have seen drops of between 9% and 10.5% in the numbers registered.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I represent one of the youngest constituencies in the country, with an increasing number of young private renters—there are more private renters than home owners in the constituency—and people who move frequently drop off the register. I pay tribute to my borough of Hackney, which has put money and time into bringing the register up again. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the cost of doing so is also a problem for local tax payers?
Sadiq Khan
To give Members an idea of the scale of the challenge, local authorities now have to write to each individual voter rather than to each household, which is a huge expense. To be fair—because I like to be fair—the Deputy Prime Minister has finally woken up—
Sadiq Khan
A Tory Minister of course stands up when I mention the Deputy Prime Minister.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for being gracious in giving way. Liverpool authority received £161,000, which was the third highest allocation for maximising registration funding in the country. If there is any question to ask about the drop-off in registrations, it should be directed towards the council.
Sadiq Khan
Let us get this right. Academics, experts, the Select Committee, the Electoral Reform Society and everyone else says “Slow down”, but the Government go ahead. We warn them that it will go wrong, but who do they blame when it goes wrong? Somebody else. They are the same old Tories.
Mr Kevan Jones
I must say that I take great exception to the Minister’s arrogance, because his letter—agreed with the Electoral Commission—missed off attainers, and that has led to the drop in the number of 17-year-olds being registered.
Sadiq Khan
Perhaps Ministers do not realise what officials in the Cabinet Office are sending out, but they have accepted that it was their mistake.
To be fair to the Minister, his boss, the Deputy Prime Minister, has finally woken up to the mess that this Government made by speeding up the process. That must be why, last month, the Deputy Prime Minister announced £9.8 million to help with registering voters who are currently under-represented. He accepted that he had messed up. Will the Minister confirm that that money is ring-fenced solely for electoral registration activities?
Another critical factor is the extreme pressure on local authorities because of the cuts imposed by this Government. Local authorities have to write to 48 million individual voters, instead of 20 million households. Unlike the Minister, who criticises them, I take my hat off to local authorities, most of which are doing a remarkable job dealing with this massive change in our democracy, all against a backdrop of enormous pressures on council budgets.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
In Coventry, more than 8,000 people have not been registered, the bulk of whom are students. Coventry city council, alongside the students, has organised a registration day tomorrow at both universities. The situation is very serious, and it is no good the Government blaming everybody else but themselves when things go wrong.
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am sure we all agree it is outrageous that the Government are once again seeking to blame somebody else for cock-ups that they were warned about.
The electoral register is in a parlous state. It is just 92 days until the general election, and just 75 days until the deadline for registration on 20 April. We need action, and we need it now. Doing nothing is not an option. The main thrust of our motion is to propose a number of remedies to which the House should give its backing. A particular priority must be young people. All the evidence shows that if people vote when they first become eligible, they are more likely to vote for the rest of their lives, because voting becomes a habit. The opposite is also true: if people do not vote early in life, taking part in elections will never be much of an issue for them. There must be a greater onus on schools and colleges to provide focused activities.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Electoral Commission and the Minister have not learned. Even though the issue of attainers has been raised with him, the letter that authorities are sending out, to which he and the Electoral Commission have agreed, does not refer to 17-year-olds being electors. They have not learned the lesson, even though the issue has been pointed out to them by electoral registration officers all over the country and certainly by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane).
Sadiq Khan
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I pay tribute to him and other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for working hard with the universities and young people in their constituencies to get young people on the register.
We need special provisions for this group of people. We should allow universities and colleges to block-register those who are in halls of residence, to meet the unique challenge presented by younger people, and students in particular. That could be done very quickly and in time for May. A similar case can be made for care homes and sheltered accommodation: large groups of people who are under the responsibility of an organisation, a local authority or a charity should be allowed to be block-registered.
A scheme in Northern Ireland called the schools initiative has proved to be successful in raising the registration levels of younger people. It places a duty on schools and colleges to provide the ERO with lists of those who are approaching the age of majority. The EROs then go into the schools and colleges with pre-populated registration forms and get the students to complete them. That is even easier now that online registration is allowed.
Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the two parties that form the coalition have a vested interest in keeping down the number of students and would-be students on the electoral register, because those two parties are the ones that put the fees up to £9,000?
Sadiq Khan
Many people will start thinking that, unless the Government take action. It is in all our interests for as many people who can vote to be on the register and to vote.
One of the brighter spots of the move to IER, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), has been the use of DWP data to verify those on the old household register in order to register them automatically on the new individual register. It is far from perfect and it has struggled with many of the under-represented groups, such as students and younger people, but it has taken the pressure off many millions of people who have not had to go through the rigmarole of registering individually.
That has showed how we can use data that are already in our possession to make the job easier. Why should we restrict that to DWP data? Why can we not look at registering people automatically if local EROs are confident that they are eligible to vote? That is covered in the later sections of the motion. The Government are in possession of considerable data about members of the public, including on benefits, social security and pensions and data held by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Passport Office and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Local authorities have data on council tax, council tenants, parking permits, school rolls, meals on wheels and so on. Those agencies should all be geared up to ask members of the public whether they are registered to vote when they come into contact with them. We could perhaps set up systems to notify a local authority if somebody applies for a new driving licence or changes their address with the taxman.
We should be more ambitious. We should be making better use of data so that people are put on the register automatically. I have had informal chats with some local authorities and they believe that they could construct a more complete register if they were allowed to use the data in their possession. We would, of course, allow people to ask to be removed from the register. The idea of maximising the information that we possess to populate the register has legs, and we will explore it in detail if we win in May. It would be useful to hear from the Minister why it is not being looked at and to hear what his objections are.
In conclusion, it is unacceptable that so many people are unregistered and are being deprived of their say in the way the country is run. I am disappointed that the Government and the Electoral Commission are so complacent about the bad news on the state of the register —bad news that grows by the day. We need a clear statement of intent from Ministers and a goal for the reduction in the number of missing voters, because we cannot afford to take risks with the register. A chronically depleted register, with missing voters concentrated in certain communities and parts of the country, will call into question the legitimacy of our democracy. Let us act now before it is too late.
The Minister for the Constitution (Mr Sam Gyimah)
This is an important debate. The right to vote has been hard won, and it is the duty of everyone in public life, including those in the Government, to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to vote. It is also vital that the electoral register is as complete and accurate as possible. In pursuing that, it is my view that everyone who has the right to vote shares that right equally, including students, minority ethnic groups, forces personnel and British residents overseas. The Opposition speak as though some voters should be prioritised over others, but we believe that if someone is eligible to vote, we must take the necessary action to ensure that they are on the register.
Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I hope my hon. Friend will agree that the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) made an admirable case for political equality, and as he wrapped up his speech he spoke about the legitimacy of our democracy. Does the Minister agree how surprising it is that Labour Members are not insisting on the equalisation of constituency sizes?
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I will not be tempted into that debate.
Individual electoral registration was first introduced by the last Labour Government and has cross-party support—there is nothing sinister or cynical about the transition. As with academy schools in education, Labour was right to seek to modernise our electoral system by introducing IER, but once again we are seeing the measure through while Labour Members seek to disown it. I wonder what has prompted the change of heart on the Labour Benches.
Luciana Berger
The Minister talks about the importance of including everyone on the register, but in Liverpool we have lost more than 20,000 people from our electoral register. He said earlier that Liverpool had received a sum of money, but obviously that has not worked so far. What else will his Department do to assist Liverpool to ensure that we get those 20,000 people back on our electoral register?
Mr Gyimah
As I said, in addition to the £161,000 of maximised registration funding, Liverpool received £288,000 to help boost its register. If that money was not enough, the city can apply to the Cabinet Office for more funding using justification-led bids. Electoral registration officers have statutory responsibility for maintaining the register, so perhaps the hon. Lady will ask her EROs what they have done with the money.
What has prompted the change of heart on the Labour Benches about IER? Is it because the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) is trying to taunt the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) in their bids to become the Labour candidate for the Mayor of London? Could it be that the Labour party, rightly scared of the next election, has retreated to the comfort zone of opposition politics and scaremongering about the Government’s policies?
Chris Ruane
If the Conservatives win, and if the Minister is still a Minister in June, he will take the most momentous decision of his life: whether to let 5 million people drop off the register before the freeze date for boundaries on 1 December. What principles will guide him in that decision? When I asked him that in Committee, he did not have any.
Mr Gyimah
I will come to the details of the electoral register—[Interruption.] May I answer the question? There is a clear process through which the decision will be made about whether to end the transition in 2015. That will be down to the independent advice of the Electoral Commission, whoever is Minister and whoever is in government.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
In a democracy everybody should have the right to register to vote, but we must also get the correct people to register so that there is no fraud. Surely the Government must ensure that the register is correct.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Can the Minister identify any case in the last 30 years of wrongful registration? Is this not a red herring?
Mr Gyimah
IER was the policy of your party to make the electoral process secure. The Electoral Commission has identified 16 local authorities at risk of electoral fraud. Just because you have not been able to point to it, it does not mean fraud is not happening. That is the point.
The same Labour party that introduced IER is now seeking to disown it. It is the same Labour party that said our long-term economic plan would lead to the disappearance of 1 million jobs. [Interruption.] Instead, 1,000 new jobs have been created every day of this Parliament. It said that reforming education maintenance allowance would increase the number of young people not in education, employment or training. [Interruption.] Instead, we have seen the biggest drop in the number of NEETs since records began.
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am listening carefully to the rubbish the Minister is talking. It is quite embarrassing. We are discussing electoral registration, not the Government’s economic record, so could we get the Minister back on to the subject?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Just a second. The Minister was giving way to me, not you, Mr Twigg. I say to hon. Members that we have very little time, and shouting down the Minister does not help anybody trying to listen to the debate. Let us listen and show some courtesy to all Members.
Mr Gyimah
The Opposition said that our plan to ensure universities were properly funded would lead to fewer students going to university, particularly from disadvantaged backgrounds. We now have record numbers of students, including from disadvantaged backgrounds, attending university. With this record, it is no surprise that the Opposition are seeking to create fear and uncertainty where there should be none.
Stephen Twigg
The Minister said that our motion sought to disown IER. Where in the motion do we do that?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am not responsible for the motion. I have let one or two “yous” go, but now I feel I am being brought into this debate. I also say to Members that the Minister is giving examples as he sees fit. It might not suit certain Members, but it is up to the Minister to make his speech as he wishes, and he is completely in order.
Mr Gyimah
Let me give the facts on the electoral register. The Electoral Commission’s research shows that, in 2000, 3 million people were missing from the register. In 2011, that figure had risen to an estimated 7.5 million. This is against a backdrop of an increasing population. Since 2011, the drop in registration figures has stabilised. For the 13 years Labour was in power, the state of the register deteriorated, and very little was done about it.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend explain why when in power Labour made sure the military had individual registration but now seems less keen on the idea for other people?
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend rightly points to the principle I laid out at the beginning of my speech: we have to treat all voters equally when it comes to the electoral register.
We all know that under the old system the register was inflated. Tenants and students moved on, but the register did not. People were registered at multiple addresses without their knowledge.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
In Blaenau Gwent over the past year, more than 2,000 people have dropped off the register. Does the Minister accept that being on the register is important in obtaining credit and getting a mortgage? What are the Government going to do to help the 8.5 million people who have fallen off the register to get a mortgage and to borrow money?
Mr Gyimah
The number of people on the register is increasing all the time. If we look at the register for December or for any month, we see that it provides a partial snapshot of a two-year transition process. We also know that the old system was susceptible to fraud. In one case, someone managed to register their dog to vote.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the Minister not accept that many of these problems became apparent when this was introduced in Northern Ireland? The Government have chosen to ignore all that and press on anyway.
Mr Gyimah
That is contrary to the facts. One thing the Government did was to learn the lessons from Northern Ireland. Without going into all the detail, we preserved the annual canvass, for example. Electoral registration plummeted in Northern Ireland because it did not have the annual canvass. Since IER went live, however, nine out of 10 electors have been automatically transferred to the electoral register. No one on the electoral roll at the last canvass will lose their right to vote at the next general election.
Dr Offord
Much emphasis is placed on people missing from the register. The Minister said that people entitled to be on the register are on it for two years. When I asked my office to go through some of the people seeking asylum and indefinite leave to remain in this country, we found that 16 people not entitled to vote under the old system were on the register and that 10 of them continued to be so. I have duplications and people who should not be on the register. What provision will be made to remove them?
Mr Gyimah
My hon. Friend points to why we introduced IER. He should take the matter up with his local ERO, who is responsible for ensuring the integrity of his local register.
Online registration has made it simpler and easier to register to vote, and I am pleased to announce that 900,000 18 to 25-year-olds have registered to vote online. As I said, we have learned the lessons from Northern Ireland.
I can assure the House that every resource request, from electoral returning officers, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the Electoral Commission has been met. I pay tribute to all the electoral administration officers and dedicated professionals in the Cabinet Office who are working to make the transition to IER a smooth one, but we are not complacent.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
For the record, the Minister said that 900,000 had registered to vote online, but I think 900,000 might have chosen to register online—unless his announcement is much more significant than we all thought, and he is actually announcing today online voting, which many of us would welcome.
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his correction; that number registered to vote online.
Despite the 900,000 young people who have registered to vote online, we are not complacent in our efforts. In January, we announced that an extra £10 million would be invested this year to maximise voter registration—in addition to the £4.2 million announced last year. Today, I can announce that £2.5 million of this funding will be used specifically to target groups that are under-represented on the electoral roll, including students, minority ethnic communities, overseas voters and members of the armed forces, while also tackling the issue of electoral fraud.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Minister keeps talking about money, but the issue is not about money; it is about the system that he is implementing. Why is it that, even though he and the Electoral Commission have been told about this, the latest letter Durham and other councils have to send out to households still do not include the old wording about registering 17-year-olds?
Mr Gyimah
The hon. Gentleman has asked that question three times—twice to his own Front-Bench spokesman and now to me. What we have is a system of individual voter registration. Under the old system, parents would have put the attainer’s name on the form; under the new system, people have to register themselves. That is why we are funding “Rock Enrol!” to introduce students to the registration process at school, and why we are carrying out a national awareness campaign to introduce people to that same process.
Mr Jones
Not only have I raised the point four times today, but I have raised it with the Minister outside the Chamber as well. The fact is that those who receive these letters need to know whether they will become attainers. Under the old system, it was possible to ask for anyone aged 17 who was is likely to attain the age of 18 in the next 12 months to be placed on the register. It would have been simple to make the change. The money that is now being spent on sending the letters would have ensured that 17-year-olds in those households were registered.
Mr Gyimah
The letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers was tested and approved by the Electoral Commission, and in terms of users. [Interruption.] I want to make some progress now.
The £2.5 million that I have announced will be delivered through a number of organisations, including the British Youth Council, Citizens UK, Mencap and Operation Black Vote, to ensure that as many people as possible are placed on the register. The right hon. Member for Tooting mentioned data-matching. There is much more that we can do in that regard. We are currently running pilots involving the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and there will be a report on them in September. Once IER has bedded in, we shall consider other ways in which we can use data that is gathered when people interact with other public services to help them to register to vote.
Sadiq Khan
Earlier in his speech, the Minister made the point that everyone should be treated equally. The fact that he is allowing data-matching means that every single person must fill in a form. If he accepts the principle that everyone should be registered in the same way, why will he not extend that people to allow block registration in halls of residence?
Mr Gyimah
The registration of students, and block registration in particular, is a key issue in the motion. In my view, you either believe in individual voter registration or you do not. You cannot have it both ways. Singling out any group of voters for block registration would be a step backwards to the old, discredited system of registration.
What is most farcical about the stance adopted by the Opposition today is that they want to give 16-year-olds the vote, but do not trust them to be able to register themselves, even once they are at university. Their whole approach is based on political gimmicks. That is why the Leader of the Opposition ended up making a speech on under-registration in Sheffield, although Sheffield university, which has piloted a registration system involving the use of data when people enrol, has one of the highest student registration rates.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Will the Minister also note that Sheffield Hallam university, which has not reached that stage, has one of the lowest levels of student registration?
Mr Gyimah
It should be doing that. [Interruption.] It is not a case of blaming someone else. In 2013, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, Science and Cities wrote to all vice-chancellors and academic registrars, encouraging them to look at multiple ways of getting students on to the register. We have set up a student forum in which best practice can be shared. If any academic registrars are not doing that, Members should by all means let me know, and we will write to them again to ensure that they are engaging in best practice.
Let me now answer the question about block registration. Data-sharing between universities and local authorities is the key, and we are working to ensure that all universities share data. That will enable electoral registration offers to have students’ enrolment details, and to chase them to register. It also means that we can preserve the central tenet of IER, which is that individuals should be responsible for their own registration.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Bizarrely, there are more properties than there are electors on the register in the Newland ward in my constituency, where the vast majority of Hull university students live. Those students live in houses in multiple occupation. That strikes me as very peculiar. Will the Minister comment?
Mr Gyimah
Another point that has not been grasped by the Opposition is that students can choose where to register to vote. They can choose to register to vote at home or at their college premises, or, indeed both. That is entirely right. What we should move away from—and what we are moving away from—is the system whereby the warden of a college chose where the student registered. In some cases, people did not even know that they were on the electoral roll in the area concerned.
It is important that we debate this issue, but we have to be clear about what is happening today. This is not a genuine concern about a policy, because we know Labour is supportive of IER. Instead, it is an opportunistic attempt by the Labour party to con students that it is fighting for their interests when its own activists’ handbook advises it to ignore under-registered groups. That is why I urge the House to reject the motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Speeches have a time limit of six minutes.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
I begin with a happy announcement. If colleagues wish to go outside from about 6 pm, national voter registration day, which is tomorrow, is being celebrated this evening by a projection on to the Elizabeth Tower of an exciting animation showing ballot papers going into a ballot box. I thank the Speaker for facilitating my request to involve Parliament in national voter registration day. I am sure colleagues will avail themselves of the opportunity for a wonderful “selfie” from Westminster bridge.
More seriously, the elephant in the room is not the technicalities of voting and registration, but why people are disengaged from politics. We must facilitate people’s engagement with politics. The real reason people are not engaged with registration and voting is that they are disengaged from our democracy. They suffer a daily drip feed of corrosive cynicism, often very strongly politically biased, from the media. Our parties have atrophied. We have concentrated more and more on 50 to 100 marginal seats and not looked after our parties. There is immense ignorance, which none of us does much to dispel, around the idea that Parliament and Government have the same, rather than conflicting, interests. There is a failure, even in this place, to set out what a plural, devolved democracy of independent institutions might look and feel like. Add to that the chronic sclerosis of Whitehall and an over-centralisation that kills local creativity and responsibility, and we have a recipe of poor capability on electoral registration and bureaucracy around voting that can produce a poisonous mixture for the future of our democracy.
I am delighted we are seeking to address at least some of those difficulties today. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee has reported seven times on this specific issue since 2011—seven separate reports by a Select Committee of this place to flag up what might go wrong with individual electoral registration. I have gone back through the reports today looking over the same difficulties. To the Government’s credit, they have addressed some of them, in particular on finance and on certain technical matters, and I am grateful for that. Fundamentally, however, many of the difficulties the Committee has outlined over five years are coming to pass, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said from the Opposition Front Bench, with just 92 days to go before an election and 38 days to go before Dissolution. In our complacency, we have let these problems grow and we are finding immense difficulties in each of our constituencies.
On postal voting, about half a million people have been kicked off the electoral register because they failed to reregister. That is a misfortune for them. Many of us will have been on the doorstep and said, “Hello, I am your Member of Parliament. I can see that you might need a postal vote. Can we give you that postal vote? Can we get that registration for a postal vote for you?” The Member of Parliament has been there and almost given a guarantee that the constituent will have a postal vote, but some of those people will be the very people who will not now be eligible to vote—some may not be in the first flush of youth—because of all the technicalities. We need to make sure we get these messages over and get them over quickly.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will know that the universal postal voting regime was introduced to boost turnout. Why does he suppose that since 2001 turnout has been 59%, 61% and 65%, whereas in previous elections it was 75%, 73% and 78%?
Mr Allen
We live in a democracy and it is the sacred duty of every Member of this House of every party to ensure that as many people register to vote and as many people can vote as is humanly possible. To throw out this red herring of fraud when there has only been a handful of cases—[Interruption.] As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) reminds me, only one case has ended in a successful prosecution. Denying millions of people the right to vote is the biggest fraud we are perpetrating in our democracy and we should not be collaborating on that.
Dr Offord
The reason there have been so few prosecutions could be, as we found out in the case of Nigel Kennedy, that there is a limited period in which a prosecution can be brought. That period may expire before the time it takes to get the evidence, and that determines that there will not be a prosecution.
Mr Allen
One case has been proven and taken forward. I want to give a couple of other statistics, and, sadly, there are a lot more zeros in them. Some 7.5 million people were not registered to vote at the last election. That works out at about 10,000 people in each of our constituencies. In fact, in deprived areas, such as my constituency, I am damned sure that it will be more than that—so more than 10,000 of my electorate are not even registered to vote, let alone not taking up the right to vote. Of those who did register at the last election, 16.5 million people decided not to bother to vote. If we add the non-registered to the ones who did not bother to vote, it comes to more than the number of those who voted Conservative and Labour combined.
This is a scandal. I am not blaming the Government for this; I am just saying that we as a Parliament need to take this in hand. We as a Parliament need to get people to register. We need to encourage people to vote not just because the techniques are right, but because they feel engaged in their system and believe that decisions are made not just at the Whitehall level, and because they feel they own their democracy and own decision making, particularly in own locality.
The point about EVEL—English votes for English laws—has been thrown into the debate again, but that is a procedural technicality for this House, rather than a question of how we devolve power, as they do in virtually every other western democracy, to people at the grass roots, to seize the opportunity to develop their own ways in their own areas.
Mark Durkan
On the subject of English votes for English laws, does the hon. Gentleman recognise that if the Government continue with the current Act—the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011—the seat distribution to the boundary commissions in the next Parliament will be on the basis of reduced registration in England, so there could be fewer English seats in this House and more Scottish and Northern Ireland seats?
Mr Allen
Whenever a colleague in this House hears someone talking about EVEL and English votes they should be reminded that, unlike most democracies, we decide the size of our constituencies not on the number of people in them but on the number of people who are registered, and, as I have said, even at the last election 7.5 million were not registered. What a nonsense of a system that is!
I am going to give one last statistic, which is a slightly happier one. Some say, “People out there aren’t interested in this stuff”, but a world-record number of people replied to a Select Committee consultation on voter engagement. People out there are desperate; they are hungry for engagement. That is why there are so many organisations around. I have a list of a few of them here: Bite the Ballot, Unlock Democracy, the Hansard Society, the British Youth Council, Sky’s “Stand Up Be Counted” campaign, Catch 22, the National Union of Students, Involver, UpRising. They all wanted to grab that chance of saying to us that we have got to do better.
It is not good enough. Sixteen thousand people responded to our report, and the follow-up report, having listened to those 16,000, will be published tomorrow. There will be a debate in this House starting at 1.30 pm for those Members who are not able to speak in today’s debate.
We must do something about this. If people read the report tomorrow, they will see lots of ways forward on an all-party basis to involve our people in our own democracy.
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who speaks with great expertise on this subject. He makes the case that we need to do all we can to get people to register to vote in this country, and I completely agree, but I believe we are doing that by all methods possible, as I shall come on to demonstrate. However, I completely agree with his wider point about engagement; we need to find new ways forward. I will read his report tomorrow with great interest.
Sadly, there always are and always have been a substantial number of people who do not register to vote—whatever the system, and in every democratic country—no matter what their persuasion. Different figures are bandied about because it is an imprecise science: we can count the people on the register, but we cannot count those who do not register. As of July 2014, before the shift to individual voter registration started, at least 6 million people were not on the register.
Mr Streeter
Goodbye.
The figure the hon. Gentleman gives is the snapshot of the number of unregistered people as of 1 December. I have to say that he ruins my weekends. He tables at least 400 written questions every week, and I have to spend my weekends reading through the answers. Of course, it is great fun. My wife is convinced that I am having some kind of illicit relationship with him. [Interruption.] Not a pleasant thought.
Chris Ruane
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he has just said?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I do not think anybody needs to clarify the relationship between you and Mr Streeter.
Mr Streeter
As I said, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not a pleasant thought from my point of view.
The truth is that a vast amount of work is being done around the United Kingdom to get people to register before the general election, but it is important to remember that anyone who is already on the household register and is residing at that address has not been removed as a result of the shift to IER. The Electoral Commission is running a national campaign across the UK to encourage people to register to vote ahead of the 20 April deadline. It will reach all adults, with a focus on groups—already mentioned in this debate—that research has identified are less likely to be registered to vote, such as people who have recently moved home, those who rent their home, young people, and people from black and minority ethnic communities.
Some of this work is being undertaken with the support of organisations and private companies that represent these communities or have a special reach into them. For example—this is very good news—the Electoral Commission and Facebook have today announced that on national voter registration day, which is tomorrow, every person on Facebook in the UK who is eligible to vote will see a voter registration reminder message in their newsfeed. Some 35 million people use Facebook in the UK every month, which is more than the number who voted at the last general election. This is using innovative methods to reach people and encourage them to vote. We must keep returning to the point that people can now register to vote online. It takes 30 seconds, and the only thing they need is their name—[Interruption.] Yes, I have seen it done. [Interruption.] I was already registered; I was data-matched. People need their name, address, date of birth—most of us know those things—and national insurance number; ring your mum and find out what it is. If people have those four things, they can register; it takes 30 seconds. This is good news.
Mr Streeter
I do that every week. I don’t know what the hon. Lady is on about.
This builds on the important work the Electoral Commission is doing to get the message across that everyone should register to vote. I am also pleased that the commission is strongly supporting national voter registration day—an excellent initiative launched by Bite the Ballot last year—in a number of ways, including by re-launching the “Ballot Box Man” YouTube advert aimed at encouraging young people to register to vote. If you have not seen it, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is very entertaining and makes the point extremely well. A wide range of social media activity is being undertaken, including on Twitter and Facebook. A range of resources is being sent out to electoral administrators and the commission’s partners from across the voluntary, public and private sectors to help them get people registered. The commission is also supporting the launch of Operation Black Vote’s bus tour across Great Britain—that also begins on national voter registration day—to get more BME people on the electoral register.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and we must all celebrate national voter registration day and get involved in it. It seems to me that many of the Opposition’s arguments are not against individual voter registration and that they are about encouraging people to register under the new scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree with that?
Mr Streeter
I do agree with that. We have not focused enough on the responsibility not only of individuals to register to vote but of electoral registration officers, whose job it is to encourage people to register. They are sending out letters, and they should be going door to door. They are being given extra resources to enable that to happen. I believe that a very substantial number of people will join the register between 1 December and 20 April. We would not be having this debate in three months’ time.
Mr Streeter
I will not give way again if that is okay, as I have a lot to say in the next two minutes.
This week, on Monday 2 February, the commission’s new national advertising campaign launched a series of online display adverts to highlight the fact that anyone who is not registered will be unable to vote in the general election on 7 May. The adverts provide a direct click-through link to the gov.uk/registertovote page. On the same day, the commission also launched an online campaign across the 20 countries in which UK expatriates are most likely to live, to make expats aware that they might be able to vote and to encourage them to register to do so. The important point has been made several times by Government Members that everyone who is eligible to vote should be encouraged to register, and not simply those in certain groups.
The commission’s main national public awareness campaign for the UK parliamentary general election will begin on 16 March 2015 in Great Britain and will include television, catch-up TV and online advertising. The commission has set the ambitious target of 1 million additions to the register in Great Britain between 16 March and 20 April, with a further 10,000 in Northern Ireland.
Mr Streeter
Yes, we have, and the right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to learn that the Electoral Commission hit its target in the run-up to the last general election. I am pretty confident that it will do so again.
Mr Streeter
I cannot give way again; I have only 29 seconds left.
I hope that the House will recognise that there is a great deal of activity already under way or about to happen that is likely to increase voter registration dramatically. We also have a responsibility ourselves to take our great communication skills to our constituencies and to get the message across to everyone out there: register to vote—don’t lose your voice!
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I shall start by making the bold statement that if the Conservative proposals on electoral registration had gone ahead in their original form in 2010 and 2011, we would have seen a constitutional coup that would have kept the Tory party in power in this country for a generation. There would have been a two-pronged attack that involved bringing the date for the introduction of individual electoral registration forward by a year. That simple act would have resulted in a total of 35% of the electorate dropping off the register, in addition to the 15% who were already missing from it. Those people would have been the most economically and socially marginalised in the country, and their marginalisation would have been complete with their vote gone.
The second prong of the attack was to have been the equalisation of constituencies at 75,000 electors per seat, plus or minus 5%. That change would have been carried out while 7.5 million people were missing from the electoral register—the equivalent of 100 missing parliamentary seats.
Meg Hillier
I am concerned that the number of people on the electoral register is used as a proxy for local government funding allocations. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a real concern, especially for the poorer constituencies, which are experiencing the greatest drop-off of all?
Chris Ruane
I agree with my hon. Friend.
I wish to probe more deeply into the machinations of that grand plan. It is only by looking at what has happened in the recent past that we can find out what would happen over the next few months if the Tories were to get back in.
Chris Ruane
No, I will not give way.
Individual electoral registration was introduced by the Labour Government in 2009 with cross-party support. The issue was so sensitive that we sought that cross-party support. The deadline for its introduction was after the latest date for the next general election, which is of course this year. The reason for the long run-in period was that there were already 7.5 million people missing from the register, and we hoped that we could get them back on to it during that five-year period. The Electoral Commission was going to have marking points throughout the period, so that we could implement IER and assess its impact. This cross-party support, this cherished unity, was shattered, as one of the first aims of the coalition agreement, set out on page 27, was:
“We will reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.”
What was this massive electoral fraud that so concerned the Conservatives? Why was it so important that a new IER Bill took precedence over virtually all other Bills at the height of the economic crisis?
Let us look at the facts and figures concerning electoral fraud. The fraud that so exercised the Conservatives was one case in 2008 and one in 2009. In the six years from 2008 to 2013 there were three cases out of 45 million electors. That was the size of the problem.
Chris Ruane
No. I shall make progress.
That was the size of the problem—three cases of electoral fraud in six years. The Government, backed up by the Electoral Commission, claim that it is not the numbers—
Chris Ruane
We introduced it because, although the old system had served us fairly well and quite a high number of people were registered, we thought it was patriarchal and registration should be down to the individual. We did it with cross-party support, cross-party unity.
Why did the Conservatives go to such trouble to shatter the cross-party support? They knew exactly what they were doing when they rushed the Bill through with undue haste. They hoped that even more poorer voters would drop off the register before the 2015 general election and increase their chances of winning it.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most appalling things that this Government did was to produce a White Paper which referred to voter registration as a lifestyle choice?
Chris Ruane
I am coming to that right now.
What the Conservatives proposed was not simply bringing forward the date by one year. They had a few more tricks up their sleeves. They wanted to replace the civic duty to register by making it a lifestyle choice. Electors could simply opt out of registering by ticking a box that would be supplied to help them on their way to political disengagement. The Electoral Commission warned that if this happened, it would be assumed that those who did not vote would not register and we would lose 35% of the electorate.
If the Tories had succeeded, nearly half the electorate would have been missing from the register. Those left off would have been the poorest. This was a blatant, deliberate political act to drive the poorest people off the register. There is a term for it used by right wingers in America—voter suppression. No vote, no voice: those people were being silenced. The Conservatives were leaving nothing to chance. They planned a few more measures to ensure that those electors were forced off the register. They proposed that there would be no annual canvass—the Minister mentioned this. We introduced an annual canvass. The Minister did not want to introduce an annual canvass, but he was forced to do so. To complete the stitch-up the Conservatives proposed to remove any sanctions for not registering to vote. All these actions together show beyond doubt that the Tories’ direction of travel was to disfranchise as many poor voters as possible.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) who, as shadow minister at the time, summoned civic society to fight this, and we managed to get the worst aspects of the Bill removed. The Lib Dems finally realised that they were being stitched up too. I pay tribute to the work of Chris Rennard in the Lords and others in the Lib Dem party who informed their Front-Bench team of what was going on.
We were able to stop the worst aspects of the Bill, but even though the Tories were defeated by a mighty alliance of those who wanted to protect democracy, they managed to squeeze one concession from their Lib Dem partners. The Tories proposed that they be given an opportunity, should they win the election, to make a political decision to drop off the unregistered in June this year, six months before the freeze date for the next boundary review. Five million electors would not transfer from household registration to individual registration. These voters would also be removed from the Scottish parliamentary elections, the Welsh Assembly elections and the local government elections. The Minister has already admitted that he has no guiding principles when he makes this important decision to smash British democracy—no such principles are in place. He failed to answer on this when I asked him at the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and he failed to answer today when I asked him. The press and the public are watching the Minister. Would he like to intervene on that? Where are his guiding principles?
Mr Gyimah
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that invitation to intervene. Whoever is the Minister, and whoever is in government, the decision they make will be taken on the independent advice of the Electoral Commission. That is pretty clear as far as guiding principles are concerned.
Chris Ruane
The Minister wants to have a word with his boss because I do not think he is thinking like that. The Minister was unable to answer this question about guiding principles, so I will tell him what the answer on the guiding principles will be. They will be what they were at the beginning of this Parliament: party political gain for the Conservative party.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I will not follow the line of argument of the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who I suspect sees a conspiracy every time he walks past a bus queue. The reality is that this serious issue deserves rather better than the cynical treatment it has had from the Opposition today.
The integrity of the register is an integral part of our democracy, and that integrity means not only that those who should be on the register are on it, but that those who should not be are not on it. The level of complacency demonstrated by the Labour party towards that aspect of the equation is nothing less than contemptuous towards our electors.
Wayne David
The Electoral Commission has been quoted on many occasions, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that even it says that it is the perception of fraud, not the actuality of it, that Members are talking about?
Robert Neill
The report last week deals comprehensively with that, and there is another report to which I will refer the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Let me deal first with the important issue of why the Labour party really has adopted this attitude. I made an assumption about the backing away from Labour’s previous stance that we saw from the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan). I am sorry he is not in his place, because I know he is a great fan of block votes and he is probably looking for a few in the London Labour party at the moment for the nomination for Mayor—I am sure we could pass that on to him. I assumed it was the normal reaction that we get from the Labour party nowadays. IER was, of course, introduced—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) must contain himself for a moment. IER was, of course, introduced in 2009. What is that magic figure of 2009? Of course, Tony Blair was still around, so it is a legacy of the previous—[Interruption.] The Labour party is anxious to forget everything that went before and the reason the previous Government come into it is this: the Labour party had a track record of being extremely flaky on adopting IER.
The Electoral Commission published a report in 2003 and the Labour Government responded to it in 2004, saying that they were sympathetic to the principle of individual registration but they were not going to implement it—that is the reality. Ever since then, Labour has had to be dragged kicking and screaming towards improving the quality of the electoral register. In the end, the experience in Northern Ireland, where IER certainly produced a reduction in the number of people on the register but also significantly reduced fraud, made it clear that Labour’s position was untenable. The people of Northern Ireland blazed the way for the rest of this country and we should salute the introduction of IER there. If it is good enough for Northern Ireland, it should be good enough for the rest of the UK as well, and it is no good the Labour party trying to row back from that now.
The Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 made provision for this phased implementation of IER. Ironically, that was not originally in the Bill and it was put in only as a result of pressure from the then Opposition parties in the House of Lords. The Labour party was reluctant even to take that step.
Frank Dobson
It is often said that the country would be better governed if there was a consensus, but may I say that I have never been part of the consensus on IER? I thought it was stupid when it was suggested by the stupid Electoral Commission and it has remained stupid ever since. We have had the mad situation that in this democratically elected House we have knowingly voted to reduce the number of people entitled to vote—it has been a disgrace.
Robert Neill
I am delighted to see that the right hon. Gentleman is taking a hard-line stance, which is consistent with his political views. There is no doubt that he demonstrated that same consistency when he voted down changes to the boundaries that would have ensured that the electorate of his constituency was broadly more equal with that of mine, but we will not trouble him with that unfortunate matter.
The fact that the issue of electoral fraud has been dismissed so often by the Opposition suggests that they think it is irrelevant, but it is not. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) made an important point. The real difficulty that we have is proving cases, and the complacency shown by the Opposition on this matter is breathtaking. The reality is that the six-month time limit makes it particularly difficult to get the evidence required for this type of offence. I hope that, in the future, we will revisit that matter. We should extend the timeline for bringing prosecutions for election offences, and I hope that we can consider that in the new Parliament.
The very nature of the offence makes it difficult to prosecute, particularly when it involves the head of the household, as it has in the past, filling in forms on behalf of other people. It is also difficult to get people to stand up against members of their own family on whom they may be dependent. That is why there are fewer prosecutions than we would expect. That fact is borne out by the useful report, “Electoral Offences since 2010”, which has been issued by the Library of the House of Commons. Members might be interested in looking at it. It was published on 30 July 2014, and details, over a raft of pages, individual instances of allegations of electoral fraud. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon mentioned, it has been difficult to bring many of those cases to a successful prosecution, but the report is, none the less, really worth looking at.
In the London borough of Tower Hamlets, there have been repeated cases of fraud. Let me say here that I am not trespassing on the current court case. This has nothing to do with the election petition against the mayor. Historically, there have been repeated allegations of malpractice in Tower Hamlets, largely by abuse of the block registration of postal votes. In March 2012, Tower Hamlets removed 127 names from the electoral register. It was not possible to bring a prosecution in that case, but the names were removed because they should not have been on the register. Clearly, malpractice was going on. Some 550 people were registered in 64 properties in the borough. In some cases of registration, there were eight people to a bedroom. It was nonsense, but it is something that the Labour party regard as “fairly minor”. It says that it is a small price to pay. I say that it is not, because it demeans the electoral process. But that does not matter as far as Labour is concerned. Its ersatz view of quantity seems to trump the importance of quality in the elector register. At the end of the day, it is the quality of the electoral register that is most important. If it is not honest, people will lose faith.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) made the point that we can drive up the number of people properly on the register through the excellent initiatives of the Electoral Commission. We do not need the specious arguments of the Opposition to do that. We can have safe and secure electoral registration and sensible campaigns to increase voter registration.
Robert Neill
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once. I want to make a little progress as I have little time left.
My own local authority in Bromley has made great progress with its individual canvasses and maintaining the roll-over on to the register; it can be done. Frankly, we have had nothing but crocodile tears from the Opposition. I have not seen so many crocodile tears since General Nasser built a dam across the River Nile. They should not be detaining the House in the way that they are doing. The Opposition motion is a shambles and a disgrace.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Let me first out myself as someone who, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), was completely opposed to individual electoral registration. I accept that I have lost that argument and that we have to move on from where we are now. Where we are now was entirely predictable, but we must now get to a better level of registration.
I wish to let the House know what is happening in the London borough of Merton, which is at the halfway stage in the transfer to individual electoral registration. Merton has a very effective electoral registration organisation and high levels of registration but is still experiencing difficulties. I would like publicly to acknowledge the long-standing work of our electoral registration officer, Mike Bentley, who recently retired, and welcome Andrew Robertson, who faces his first general election in May.
As of 1 December 2014, a total of 146,567 people were registered to vote in Merton, compared with 149,615 in 2013, so there has been a drop of about 3,000 over the past year. However, that masks a much more worrying fact. Experience shows that voter turnover in Merton is usually about 23,000. In other words, about 23,000 move out of the borough and leave the register, and roughly another 23,000 move into the borough and join the register. However, in this transition year only 7,000 have joined the register and 10,000 have left. Have fewer people moved, or is the register inaccurate? I believe that about 10% of the electorate are inaccurately registered, based on past movement.
Of the 149,615 on the register at the end of 2013, only 128,000 could be verified. That left about 21,000 unmatched on any of the registers currently used. Using a variety of techniques, the electoral registration department has followed up as many of the 21,000 as it can and brought the number of unmatched voters down to about 6,500—about 5% of the electorate. As we all know, if a voter is unmatched for this year only, they would still be allowed to vote in person. The problem is that a significant number of those unmatched people were previously postal or proxy voters. Many of those people are elderly or disabled. They believe that they have a lifetime entitlement to a postal or proxy vote.
I am giving this information to the House not to help me in the election, because most of those people have historically voted Conservative. I still want them to have the same opportunity to use their postal or proxy votes to vote for somebody else, because this debate is not about party politics; it is about the essence of our democracy. If we cannot get people to register to vote, we will have an enormous and growing alienated community in our society, and that will not benefit any of us. All of us, of whatever party, whose hearts sink when we hear criticisms of politicians and politics need to do everything we can to get those people on the register, irrespective of who they are or whom they intend to vote for.
We are only halfway through the process in Merton. In 2016 we face a mayoral election in London. Our community is far more mobile and diverse than Northern Ireland could ever be. It is possible that we will lose huge numbers of people from the register. Some of the alternatives set out in the Opposition’s motion could help, but for me they do not go far enough. I might unite everyone in opposing my suggestion, but I will still continue to make it. I believe that if someone accesses a public service, they should be required to register to vote. If they want the benefits of an advanced welfare democracy, they should sign up to be on the electoral register. If they need to be on the register to get a mortgage or credit card, is it not reasonable for them to need to be on it to get a driving licence, access tax credits or join a library? All those things are about a social contract: something for something, not something for nothing. Whether people vote is up to them, but it is our job to persuade them to do so. The sheer act of citizenship needed to be on the register should be required if someone is to access the services of the state.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
I am somewhat disappointed by the motion, because it over-eggs the pudding to some degree. It does not recognise that this process was started by the previous Government but has been picked up and progressed by this Government. Labour Members began the whole process—I welcome that and have congratulated them on it many times—and we are now successfully delivering on it. That is a good thing.
There is still a lot of work to do before the 2015 election and before IER is fully introduced. The motion calls for more to be done to tackle under-registration, without any recognition of how much effort and money has been put into doing that. It is curmudgeonly not to recognise that that effort has been made. The conspiracy theory that this is all about removing poor people from the register is not compatible with that huge effort and with the funding that has been made available to ensure that they are given the opportunity to be put on the register.
Nick Smith
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Government are missing important sources of voter data? For example, if they used information from credit reference agencies such as Experian, they could boost registration considerably. Does he accept that that would be a worthwhile thing to do?
Mr Ward
The pilots have identified the best ways of getting the most people registered, although the system can always be refined and made better. There seems to be an assumption that the previous registers were perfect, but in areas of high fraud that was simply not the case.
Eighty-seven per cent. of people have successfully been moved on to the electoral register. Yes, plenty still needs to be done, and that is why I agree with many parts of the motion. We need to tackle registration for the hard-to-reach groups and to make sure that EROs are doing the very best they can to ensure that as many people are on the register as possible. The reduction in the voting age that I hope will happen in future means that we need to do many of the things suggested in relation to schools and colleges. That work is being done through the all-party group on voter registration.
Part of the reason for implementing the new IER procedure was to increase the accuracy of the register. Those who represent an area like mine will know just how necessary that was, particularly in helping to deal with voter fraud. In many cases, not even the new system will bring about changes to the voter fraud that takes place as a result of certain behaviour and the failure of political parties to impose strong discipline on their own activists. In Bradford, 88% of people are automatically registered under the data-matching system, yet we are still likely to have problems with postal vote fraud in particular. The problem we have experienced is not that people are not legitimately registered to vote in a household, but that postal votes are collected and filled out on behalf of constituents or that unacceptable pressure is put on individuals to vote in a particular way, as court cases have identified.
As well as ensuring the accuracy of the register, we need to ensure that the police take seriously and investigate cases of fraud that are reported to them. Too often, the thought in the mind the police has been, “Well, they’re all at it,” and it has not been taken as seriously as it should be. In Bradford in the past, candidates of all parties have been required to sign a pledge stating that they will not take part in voter fraud. That is how serious the situation is in places like Bradford.
Between now and the election, work needs to go on. Bite the Ballot has been mentioned and I will be on a bus—which we are paying for, not the Government—going around the constituency tomorrow for national voter registration day. Last summer, we took the bus out and registered 250 young people in our constituency. That is where the effort should be going. That is the effective way of ensuring that we get people on a register that we can be satisfied with and that is more accurate.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Let me make it quite clear that the Labour Government introduced the notion of individual electoral registration and the motion before us in no way backtracks from that, no matter how much bluster we hear from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) and the Minister for the Constitution, who should look at the detail of how his Department is working. By falling back on the Electoral Commission, the Minister is making a big mistake.
I accept the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane). The original idea behind the process was to drive down the register, and we do not need to look too far to see where the Conservative party got it from. In the United States, the Republican party is doing exactly the same thing.
The hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) rightly emphasised what is being done to try to get people, particularly young people, on the register. I commend all those efforts, but it is not about working harder, to use the old BT phrase, but about working smarter. The Government are not doing that and I am afraid that the Electoral Commission is not doing it either.
The Minister asked why the focus was on young people, and I can give him the answer. According to the House of Commons Library, only 56% of 19 to 24-year-olds are registered to vote, whereas 94% of those aged over 65 are. I want to refer to one issue, which is the responsibility of the Minister and the Electoral Commission—he cannot get away from it—and that is the drop in the number of 18-year-olds who have been registered, particularly attainers.
In my constituency in 2012, there were 619 attainers on the register. In 2013 there were 701, in 2014 there were 632, and this year there are 114.
Chris Ruane
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who was the MP who discovered the drop in the number of attainers. Is he aware that 87% of attainers were registered nationally last year whereas this year the figure has gone down to 52%?
Mr Jones
I am, and I shall explain why.
The drop in North Durham is quite clear and we must ask why it has happened. We all know that 1997 was a very strong and passionate political year for this country. We could put the fall down to a drop in the birth rate in 1997—clearly there was a lack of passion in North Durham!—but that is obviously not the case. I wrote to my local returning officer about this, and I must pay tribute to Durham county council for the work it is trying to do to get through the minefield laid by the Electoral Commission and the Government. The response I received says that under the old system, where the head of household registered, a section of the form asked for the name of anyone who was 17 and would attain the age of 18 within the next year to be added. The new letter that was sent out to verify who was in the household included a sentence asking for the name of anyone it was thought should be registered to vote, but there was no reference to 17-year-olds. The Minister likes to hide behind the Electoral Commission, but, frankly, on occasions I find the Electoral Commission completely incompetent. On this occasion, it is.
I have raised the question directly with the Minister outside the House. I accept that he has given extra money for registration to councils such as Durham, but that is no good. When I went to county hall last Friday, I saw all the boxes of new letters ready to go out. I looked at the letter, and it does not cover 17-year-olds. When I asked the returning officer why not, he said that the council had to use the letter agreed by the Minister and the Electoral Commission. This was a missed opportunity to correct a basic problem.
In my constituency and other parts of the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd has shown, the problem will lead to hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of 17-year-olds not being registered, although they will attain the age of 18 this year and would be entitled to vote. That is a scandal, but something that could have been sorted out quite easily. Frankly, it is due to a combination of the Minister and the Electoral Commission. I am not surprised by the Minister because I do not think he has a great grasp of most the subjects for which he is responsible, but one would expect a bit more from the Electoral Commission.
There is an opportunity to put this matter right. Most local authorities know their 16 and 17-year-olds, because they are registered with them for education purposes. I challenge the Minister to instruct all local authorities, with money behind this if necessary, to use such data to ensure that 17-year-olds who will attain the age of 18 this year are actually registered. That must be done, otherwise many 17-year-olds who will turn 18 before 7 May will assume that they will get a vote, but will not get it.
I make no criticism of the hard work that has been done by a host of organisations to try to get young people registered. I have written to my local schools and publicised the issue locally to ensure that we can get as many as possible of those 17-years-old on the register.
In a democracy, it is important to ensure that the register is as accurate as possible. That was why the Labour Government brought in the process, which I support. It was done on a cross-party basis, and that consensus should have been maintained. When the Conservatives came to power as part of the coalition, they shattered that consensus and departed from it for their own reasons. We have heard a lot of guff about fraud. I love the idea that the only reason we have not had many fraud cases is the time limits, but my answer would be, “Well, change the time limits.”
I refer hon. Members to the Electoral Commission’s own evidence. In 2004, we had an all-postal ballot in Durham as part of the pilot.
Mr Jones
I do not trust the Electoral Commission on occasion, but in this case I do. Its report said that there was no evidence of major fraud in the administration of postal votes. In a local council by-election in my constituency, the change resulted in a turnout of 67%. A problem of turnout was highlighted in certain communities, but that was not a reason for binning it entirely. However, the Conservative party and the Daily Mail frothed at the mouth about postal voting being open to widespread fraud, for which there was no evidence whatsoever.
I ask the Minister to address the issue of 17-year-olds, which I have previously raised with him. We have missed the opportunity of doing so in the recent letters, but something needs to be done before registration closes on 20 April.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is an agreeable chap. I can only assume that his conspiracy theory arises from his upbringing in the murky world of Labour and trade union politics in the north-east. Like his friend the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), he sees a conspiracy round every corner.
I have been in politics for 30 years, but for Labour Members it is always about politics, not about what is in the national interest or what is right. Even when they start off by doing what is right, proper and decent to address an issue, they turn around a few years later and say, “We don’t agree with it any more, because it does not suit our narrow partisan interests.” How do they have the gall?
The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd trooped through the Lobby to vote against fair and equal boundaries. Along the coast from his constituency, Arfon has an electorate of 49,000, while my next-door constituency of Cambridgeshire North West has almost 100,000 electors. He considers that to be democratic, but it is not.
Chris Ruane
When making seats equal was being railroaded through, 7.5 million people were missing from the register, which would be the equivalent of 100 extra parliamentary seats.
Mr Jackson
I am not wholly convinced that the Labour party has ever taken electoral integrity as seriously as it should have done. The hon. Gentleman talks about the criminal cases over the past few years. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) alluded to the fact that we simply do not know how much electoral registration stuffing there has been, because EROs and local authorities have not had the capacity to check that across the country. Under the Labour party, we saw electoral malpractice and criminal activity in Pendle, Derby, Birmingham, Bradford, Slough and Peterborough, to give just a few examples.
Let us be honest: this debate is a wasted opportunity for the Labour party. It is inviting us to conclude that an impact assessment of its Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, in which individual electoral registration was originally contained, would have shown no reduction in the number of people registering. Of course that is not the case. I was in the House at the time and we all knew that there would be a reduction after the first major change for many years.
The Labour party now comes back and says that this is an evil, wicked Tory plot to drive poor people off the register. The crocodile tears were not flowing when it blocked servicemen and women—people who were fighting and dying for our country—from coming back, casting their ballots and using the universal franchise. Labour Members were not worried then. Now they are full of crocodile tears and faux outrage over the patronising notion that their voters are not on the register.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) bemoans the situation with older people and postal votes. Does she think that people who are older are so stupid that they cannot fill out forms? Before the 2001 changes, older people and pensioners were able to fill out forms in cases of ill health, if they were working away or if they were in other circumstances. More to the point, the turnout was much higher.
Mr Jackson
I named her, but I have named a lot of people in this debate.
The Labour party’s problem is simple: it is useless Labour councils. Those useless Labour councils are being given a lot of taxpayers’ money to do the job properly. They should be canvassing, registering people, ensuring that the right people are on the register and ensuring that there is electoral integrity in the register. If Labour Members have problems in Bristol, County Durham and the London borough of Merton, all of which are controlled by the Labour party, they should take them up with local people.
Mr Jackson
I cannot give way, I am afraid, because I have little time.
If this were a plot, we would not be putting so many public resources into the process. There has been £500,000 to boost confidence in the electoral system, £2.5 million has been spent on students and overseas voters, £6.8 million has been given to local authorities by the Department for Communities and Local Government for physical canvassing for registration, and there has been work on universities and housing associations as part of the Cabinet Office’s £9.8 million funding.
We accept that some people will be missed in the DWP data-matching. In the central ward in my constituency, about 40% of people were missed. We understand that, but it is ultimately the responsibility of local authorities to find the missing voters by physical door-to-door canvassing. In that way, we will have a full register with integrity.
For most of the time, the previous Labour Government were content to see the potential for electoral register stuffing.
Mr Jackson
No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I have two more brief points to make. In considering this issue, the Minister should look again at bespoke funding to investigate improprieties and criminal activities in respect of election fraud, because it is difficult for a small constabulary to cope with such matters. We must look again at the Representation of the People Act 1983 in respect of ID at polling stations and the ability to challenge voters in cases of impersonation. That is an important issue.
Finally, the Government have done an excellent job—largely, I admit, with cross-party support—on postal vote integrity, which is still an important issue. For example, Peterborough city council threw out one in five applicants for postal votes in Central ward in May 2014. Fraud is still a problem and we must be vigilant and protect the electoral integrity of our political system. We should ensure that the right people are on the electoral register and have the opportunity to vote. That is above party politics, and it is a shame that the Labour party cannot rise above partisan point scoring in the national interest.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I would like to say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), but after that nonsense it is not, so I will not.
I represent more students by far than any other Member of the House—36,000 according to the latest census. They are not the only group that contributes to the enormous churn in the electoral register in my constituency, but I will concentrate my remarks on them. I am worried about their disfranchisement not simply because of the coming election, but because of the impact of their exclusion from the register on the next boundary review, which we know will be conducted on the basis of the register as it stands in December 2015.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) challenged Labour Members on the principle of the equalisation of constituencies. We would embrace that principle but it must be on a legitimate basis, and the current register already contains deeply inequitable constituencies. There are many worse examples, but if we compare my constituency, Sheffield Central, with that of the Deputy Prime Minister next door in Sheffield Hallam, we see that the number of registered voters seems broadly comparable—the difference is about 5,000 people. However, 17% of households in my constituency have nobody registered, but that figure is just 4% in Sheffield Hallam. Sheffield Central has a population of 115,000 people, and Sheffield Hallam just 89,000—a variation of 26,000, which will only be made worse by the way the Government are dealing with IER.
Students are not the only group but they are a significant one, so to avoid that situation locally I worked with both universities to integrate electoral registration into the student enrolment process. We developed a system at the university of Sheffield for the 2014 entry which, if successful, will be rolled out to Sheffield Hallam university in 2015. I am sorry that the Minister misinterpreted my earlier remarks to attack Sheffield Hallam university for its low level of registration. Changing systems are complicated and we sought to work with Universities UK and the National Union of Students to encourage higher education institutions across the country to adopt a better system.
I am grateful for the support of the Cabinet Office for the pilot that we have been developing in Sheffield. The system requires students to make a positive decision about whether they wish to register to vote as a required step in their enrolment. Last September the scheme was successful, with around 64% of students choosing to register, as the Minister highlighted. The system then took people to the next step, which required them to fill in their national insurance number. At that point, two thirds of people dropped out of the system because they did not have ready access to their NI number and did not want to halt their enrolment. The situation looked bleak with only 24% of students registered, despite more than double that number wanting to register.
Again, credit is due to the Cabinet Office, because new guidance issued on 10 December allowed electoral registration officers to use their discretion to verify an application using only student enrolment data. Therefore in late December and January, our EROs added 7,000 students to the electoral register, even though they did not provide their NI numbers. That is sensible because universities have clearly collected significant and substantial information to verify student identity as part of their registration process.
The Minister said earlier that he is looking at ways of using data collected for other purposes to construct the register, so will he answer one specific question? It would be simpler to roll out this system across universities than to seek national insurance numbers in the first place, especially given that the Government are clearly happy for people not to have them. Would it not be better, therefore, to have a simple system in which we ask students, “Do you want to register to vote?” and then use the information the university has collected as sufficient verification?
Paul Blomfield
I see the Minister nodding. If he will confirm that in his winding-up speech, it would be a significant step forward in encouraging student registration across the country.
Finally, there is a wider lesson to be learned. With commitment, creativity and resources, IER can be introduced successfully. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said, we need to transfer those lessons to other organisations, such as schools, housing providers, residential homes, doctors’ surgeries and so on, to widen the register.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I want to pick up where he left off—on young people.
One of the worst things about the big fall in the number of people on the register is the massive reduction in the number of young people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) said, if young people do not get the habit of voting when they first can, they are highly unlikely to take it up later in life. In a written parliamentary question, I asked the Minister, who is not quite in his place,
“how many people have been informed that their application for inclusion on the…register was not valid because their national insurance number was not provided”.
He replied:
“Failure to provide a National Insurance number does not result in an application being declared invalid.”
He does not know what is going on. I have a letter from an ERO in response to a young person’s application to register to vote. It read, “Thank you for your recent application to register. Unfortunately, I am unable to process your application because it was incomplete. The following information is required and was incorrect or missing: national insurance number.”
There are 440,000 young people still at school who turned 18 between 1 September and 1 May. The person that letter was sent to could not register because she did not have her national insurance number. I do not know how many hon. Members spend a lot of time with teenagers, but a letter with a young person’s national insurance number arrives before they are 16, and we are suggesting that two years later teenagers will know where that letter is and have kept it in a safe place. I cannot think of anything more naïve. How many young people will have lost it?
Helen Goodman
Yes, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the “ring mum” solution before. How outrageous. What about young people in care? What about young people estranged from their families? What a disgraceful attitude to large numbers of young people.
We rang the council to find out what to do. It suggested that the person bring their passport, which costs £72. It suggested a driving licence, which costs £34. These are all things that young people do not have.
Helen Goodman
I tabled a PQ to the man who is commenting from a sedentary position now asking how young people were supposed to know what their national insurance number was. His answer was: payslips and correspondence with HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions. The truth is that 18-year-olds who are still at school do not have payslips or correspondence with HMRC or DWP. The Government have not thought this through.
The other thing the council asked for was a council tax bill. No 18-year-old gets a council tax bill. This is completely incompetent. Ministers have not thought this through. I went to the website to find out what to do. Nobody can get their national insurance number on the website. That is not how it works. They can, however, ring a very nice man on: 0300 200 3500. They will get a very nice man with a lovely Lancashire accident, and he will put their national insurance number in the post.
The suggestion that we have heard from Ministers that this information is readily available is totally naïve. The DWP Ministers who are responsible for giving people their national insurance numbers and informing them cannot even be bothered to turn up and sit on the Bench for this debate. They have a central role. The truth is that it displays all the attitudes of DWP Ministers to young people: they want to take the housing benefit off 18 to 21-year-olds; now they want to take the vote from those very same young people. It is a total disgrace. [Interruption.]
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is good to contribute. First of all, right hon. and hon. Members, including the Minister and the shadow Minister, have been very kind in referring to Northern Ireland’s experience. It provided an important example for the rest of the United Kingdom. If I may, I would like to provide a little more of the Northern Ireland perspective.
On electoral registration, our aim should be to have an open, honest, transparent and, more importantly, accessible system so that those who want to vote are able to do so without difficulty. We do not need any more reason to deter or make difficult the process of voting, and there are obvious worries that the plans for individual voter registration will let many slip through the cracks. We also have to protect our democracy from fraud, and individual voter registration is one way of doing that, as many Members have suggested.
Before the Northern Ireland initiative, it was evident that, as the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland reported, there had been a significant and worrying decline in both the accuracy and completeness of Northern Ireland’s electoral register. On 1 April 2012, post-general election, the register was 78% accurate, with one in five entries relating to people who were no longer resident at the address. An estimated 400,000 people were not registered at the correct address. Understandably, we had an ambition to address that issue.
It is valuable to have discussions in the devolved Administrations and the Northern Ireland Assembly in particular in the hope that through our respective Governments we can learn from each other about what makes for best practice.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best initiatives in Northern Ireland has been the voter electoral identity card? People can apply for it, and it is free. It has a photograph and other identity marks on it, and it allows people to carry that credit card into the electoral booth to prove who they are and maintain their vote without molestation.
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that. Yes, that is another example of something that was done in Northern Ireland, and it is important to note that it provides a free opportunity to get voter identification.
Mark Durkan
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that one reason the registration effort in schools has been so successful is precisely that the electoral ID card is a strong incentive. It is not necessarily that pupils are overwhelmingly committed to voting for our party!
Jim Shannon
I would not necessarily go with that opinion, because when the pupils congregate for the cards and we help them to go and get them, I think we will gain from that. I am ever the optimist, as you know, Mr Speaker, and I am sometimes referred to as a “glass half full” person. I am conscious of the time, so I will continue.
It is important to address fraud. There have been examples in west Belfast in the past where up to half a dozen people were living in blocked up houses. I do not know how they got in there. If one had four legs, it was easy to get in, but not so easy for those with two legs. That is all I can say. It is acknowledged that we are likely to have a higher volume of voters in the general election—the contest to watch—so for that reason we need accessibility along with accurate data.
In 2012, Northern Ireland had an accuracy of 78% in its electoral registers. That clearly showed what we could do. The electorate of Northern Ireland grew by 9.8% between 2007 and 2012, in comparison with only 2.8% for United Kingdom and the rest of the mainland. Big steps were taken; we moved forward very quickly.
It is now a given that we must talk about technology in all strategies for engaging with and reaching the public. The online system is one thing we have introduced and it has been successful, although I think we could do more with it. Over 90% of responders gave positive feedback, so there have been issues that we have been able to deal with.
The system of voter registration in Northern Ireland for those at further education colleges has been good. There needs to be leafleting and marketing in our universities and colleges and our local businesses, and at grass-roots campaigning levels. Visuals and sign-up drives are also very important.
I urge Ministers to bear it in mind that, in the light of the upcoming elections and the fact that the nation’s eyes will be on how we run the votes, we should be ready for scrutiny and accountability.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
Today’s debate comes at an important time. There are just 92 days until the general election. As we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), who has done fantastic work throughout the current Parliament and before, the Electoral Commission estimated last summer that 7.5 million eligible adults were missing from the electoral register. Our estimate, based on local authority information, is that a further 1 million people have fallen off the register since then.
Throughout the debate, the Minister and Conservative Back Benchers have shown extraordinary complacency. It has been a case of “Blame the local councils”, “blame the Electoral Commission”, “blame the universities”, or “blame the voters themselves.” Conservative Members have wanted to blame everyone except the Government, whose rushed timetable has led to the present position, as the Labour party has said consistently ever since the Government introduced legislation earlier in this Parliament. It is simply not good enough. It is scandalous that, in the 21st century, people will turn up at polling stations and be turned away. We all have a responsibility to do more to ensure that our democracy is not undermined in that way.
Let me be fair: the Government have taken some steps that we welcome, and which are welcomed in the motion. Online registration is hugely welcome, as is the opening up of new data sets for electoral registration officers and new guidance on student registration. Today the Minister announced the provision of £2.5 million, and we welcome that as well. However, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will tell us more about how the money will be allocated, and, in particular, will tell us whether fantastic organisations such as Bite the Ballot will be eligible to bid for it. I think that such organisations know better than any of us how to reach the young people who, as has been pointed out today, are falling off the register.
Bite the Ballot has done amazing work. Anyone who has observed its work in schools—as I have, in both England and Scotland—will know that students walk into the classroom apathetic and uninterested, and walk out debating the rights and wrongs of the death penalty or priorities for public spending. I greatly welcome its efforts, and specifically welcome tomorrow’s fantastic national voter registration day, of which we were reminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen). As I said, the Electoral Commission estimated last summer that 7.5 million people were missing from the register, and we estimate that a further 1 million are missing from the new register.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), students in higher education are disproportionately affected by the change. That is why, in the motion, we suggested allowing universities and colleges to block-register students in halls of residence. I pay tribute to the remarkable work that he has done, working with his local authority and the universities in Sheffield.
Stephen Twigg
I was about to say that. If the Minister had been a little more patient, he would have heard me say that I welcome the new guidance from the Cabinet Office, which allows electoral registration officers to register certain individuals if a national insurance number is not or cannot be submitted, and has been verified by data that are within the Government’s guidelines. As my hon. Friend told us, Sheffield university has been able to add 7,000 student electors to the register as a result. However, although it is hugely welcome, the guidance came very late. It would have been so much better if the excellent practice at Sheffield university could have been shared by every university.
As the motion says, we believe that the Government should allow universities to register students en bloc, but, at the very least, will the Government write to all vice-chancellors reiterating the new guidance and, in particular, offering that excellent case study of Sheffield university, so that, even at this late stage, we can boost registration in time for the election in May?
Perhaps the most significant and disturbing development is the one that was cited by my hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman): the apparent massive decline in the number of attainers—17-year-olds who will reach the age of 18 during the coming year. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) reminded the House of the figure for Liverpool. Last year, there were 2,300 attainers on Liverpool’s electoral register; this year, there are just 76. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham described this as a scandal. It is indeed a scandal. The Minister said, rightly, that we should learn from Northern Ireland. One thing we can learn from Northern Ireland is this: the schools initiative in Northern Ireland sees electoral registration officers visiting schools and colleges in their area to encourage young people to register, and requires the schools and colleges to give information to the electoral registration officer so they have the data on school students that can then be used for registration purposes.
In Northern Ireland, when the previous Labour Government began the transition to IER, we saw a massive fall in the number of attainers on the first register—it was very similar to what we have seen in England, Scotland and Wales this year. It fell from 10,000 to 244, which is an even more dramatic fall than the one we have seen in Liverpool. After the schools initiative was introduced, the number of attainers registered went up dramatically to a higher level than was achieved under the household register. My understanding is that on the latest register in Northern Ireland, two thirds of attainers are now registered. That is actually higher than the proportion under the old system of household registration.
Mr Gyimah
In Northern Ireland, registration rates plummeted to about 11% when IER was introduced. In the UK, nine out of 10 have automatically been transferred to IER. The two situations are not similar. The reason we have managed to achieve that is that we have focused on the annual canvass, which Northern Ireland did not.
Stephen Twigg
We are talking about the very specific issue of attainers: those who will reach the age of 18 in the current year. The drop-off in Liverpool, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham referred to, also happened in Northern Ireland, and perhaps even more dramatically, according to the figures I was given. My point relates directly to the motion. If we adopt the Northern Ireland schools initiative in England, Scotland and Wales, we can reverse this. That is no reversal of IER. It is still individual registration, but it is about going into schools and colleges. [Interruption.] I am delighted to hear the Minister say, “Do it.” Will Ministers stand up and commit to introducing the legislation immediately? We will support it. Please, bring forward the legislation to enable England, Scotland and Wales to achieve what has been done in Northern Ireland.
Stephen Twigg
The whole point of the schools initiative is that the duty is on the schools and colleges, as well as on the electoral registration officers. That is why it has worked in Northern Ireland and that is what we would need here. I repeat what I said—perhaps the Minister’s colleague, the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons can respond to this in his closing remarks. If we share a concern across the House on this, it is not too late—it is quite late, but it is not too late—for us to pass legislation for England, Scotland and Wales that matches the schools initiative in Northern Ireland, and reverse that appalling, scandalous and dramatic fall in the number of attainers on the electoral register.
We are in a position where emergency action is urgently needed. From a position that was far, far from perfect previously, with 7.5 million not on the register, we have seen a further drop-off. We have until 20 April: two-and-a-half months. We are proposing two very straightforward changes that could make a real difference: allow live-in institutions to block-register their residents; and immediately introduce the schools initiative so that we can boost youth participation. Those two changes alone could see hundreds of thousands of people added back on to the register. Tomorrow is national voter registration day. We cannot, surely, afford to have a lost generation of young people disconnected from our democratic process. We are arguing for two very, very simple reforms. If the Government join us, we will support them in implementing those reforms. I urge them to do so today.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
The debate has been important and wide ranging. We have heard many analyses of the issues we face and a number of possible solutions. The problem of under-registration did not happen overnight, and it will not be fixed overnight. Its causes are complex and are linked to increased population mobility and disengagement from traditional party politics. It is nonsense to suggest, as I am afraid many Opposition Members did, that this Government do not take the issue of under-registration seriously. Nothing could be further from the truth.
As the Minister for the Constitution made clear, the Government are committed to enhancing both the accuracy and the completeness of the electoral register. That is why I cannot support the idea of block registration. The whole purpose of individual electoral registration is that it is individual; it is not block registration. It is not people being put on a register who do not know that that has happened.
The decline in the completeness of the registers between 2000 and 2010—in other words, under the last Government—has been arrested. The most recent research by the Electoral Commission shows that levels of electoral registration have stabilised since 2011. I hope we can all welcome that, but it is of course not enough.
Chris Ruane
The right hon. Gentleman is entirely correct. The figure was 7.5 million under Labour and it is 7.5 million now. Is he aware that the EC’s aim is still to have 7.5 million people on the register by 2019? Does that not show a lack of ambition by the EC?
Tom Brake
I think that Members on both sides of the House would like the Electoral Commission to achieve much more than that, and of course that is why the Government have set out £14 million of spending, which I am going to come to, to boost registration.
We have taken a number of vital and novel steps to transform electoral registration in this country. Online registration, which has been welcomed by everyone, was introduced for the first time last year and makes registering to vote easier than ever. Of course young people in particular, who spend a significant percentage of their time online and are very familiar with using systems online, will be able to use that very easily. It is easier, too, for people to encourage others to register, simply by sharing a link to the gov.uk website.
Nick Smith
My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) showed how difficult it is for young people to know their national insurance number. What action are the Government going to take to ensure that 16 to 18-year-olds know their NI number so that they can register to vote, and thereby deal with this problem?
Tom Brake
First, as the hon. Gentleman may know, EROs can advise on alternative sources of that information, and I am sure that best practice in helping young people in that respect will be disseminated. I should also say that given that the Labour party supports, as I do, the idea of young people being able to vote at 16, I am a little worried that Labour Members seem to think that young people are completely incapable of keeping any records themselves.
Last month the Government announced a further package of funding of up to £10 million to support activities to maximise registration.
Tom Brake
I will make a little more progress.
That was on top of the £4.2 million invested last year. The Labour party has rightly wanted to know some of the detail of that, and I will come on to that. Most of this money has already been distributed to EROs, to support their work. Earlier today we announced how the rest of the funding will be used to encourage traditionally under-registered groups to register. If this was part of a Government conspiracy to stop either young people or poorer people registering, as has been suggested by some Opposition Members, then I do not understand why we would have spent £14 million over the last two years on trying to boost registration.
The funding will be provided to a number of national organisations, including the British Youth Council, Citizens Advice, Citizens UK, Homeless Link, the National Housing Federation, Mencap, Operation Black Vote and UK Youth. Many of these organisations work directly with the groups of people the Labour party has suggested the Government are trying to deny the right to vote.
Mr Kevan Jones
I acknowledge the money being given to councils such as Durham to send out “cleansing” letters, which they are doing next week, but why was reference to 17-year-olds missed off those letters? That was not up to Durham county council; that is the letter it had to use, which the right hon. Gentleman has agreed and the EC has used.
Tom Brake
My understanding is that the Electoral Commission provides guidance that the EROs then act on, but they do have some leeway in how they interpret it. Given that the hon. Gentleman has raised this issue four times today and clearly wants a response, I will ensure that he gets a written reply.
I have listed the organisations that are going to work very actively on promoting voter registration among the people they work with. They have direct experience of working with unregistered groups and insight into what works. The £2.5 million campaign is funded from the £10 million announced in January to increase voter registration rates. From this we will also be funding student bodies, including the National Union of Students. As I said earlier, if the Government intended to stop students registering, as some of the more overheated Opposition Members have suggested, we would hardly be funding the NUS.
Siobhain McDonagh
Will the Minister congratulate Sean Goulding, John Treacy, Nathan Coe and Mitchell Murdoch—from Carshalton Boys Sports college, in his constituency—who, unfunded, are running their campaign for first-time voters, which can be found on Twitter at #ftvote?
Tom Brake
I am of course very happy to support that initiative, as I am indeed doing.
As a number of Members have highlighted, national voter registration day, organised by Bite the Ballot, which I have worked with, takes place tomorrow. Events will be held up and down the country and I urge everyone here in the Chamber to do what they can to support this and similar initiatives. Of course, we all have at our fingertips the ability—through the many tweets Members send out, through Facebook postings, through the e-mails we send out—to encourage young people to register to vote, and we should all be participating in that.
Tomorrow, the Electoral Commission’s overseas voter registration day marks the launch of its activities over the coming months to encourage British citizens overseas to register and to vote. The Ministry of Defence will also be launching its annual information campaign for the armed forces tomorrow—the start of a range of activity to encourage service personnel and their families to ensure they are registered to vote ahead of the general election.
Helen Goodman
As well as having a publicity campaign with the telephone number for national insurance numbers, why does the Minister not change the letter so that when people get it, they know that they will need it when they register to vote? No mention is made of that at the moment.
Tom Brake
I am very happy to take that point on board and see whether it can be acted on.
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee will be publishing its report on voter engagement, and it will no doubt include a range of thoughtful recommendations for the future. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) suggested that the use of photo ID might be appropriate, but the PCRC has recommended that the Government do not adopt the Electoral Commission’s suggestion that people take photo ID to the polling station.
There will be things the next Government can do further to modernise electoral registration in this country.
In the time left I will try to respond to some of the specific points that were made. This is all about ensuring that the electoral register is accurate. That is what the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) wants, and that is what we are trying to do.
On attainers in Liverpool, I have concerns that the best practice that exists in some local authorities is clearly not being picked up by others. My own local authority has successfully exchanged census information from schools with the ERO to ensure that a very significant percentage of young people at school are now on the register. The small number who are not are being individually chased by local authorities to ensure that that happens. So it can be done, and in fact an EROs conference is taking place today at which I am sure some of these issues will be debated.
Yes, we should give special focus to young people, but it is worth pointing out that we will not support the proposed legal requirement for EROs to go into schools. Of course, there are local authorities such as mine where the issue is not registering young people to vote but ensuring that older people in care homes are registered. Forcing EROs to go into schools, where there is not a problem, would tie down resources, which could result in there being insufficient resources to enable them to focus on the areas that they need to focus on. Clearly they have the ability to go into schools now; there is no need for the law to be changed to enable them to do it. We would of course encourage all schools to be participating in this regard. As I have said, there are things that the next Government—
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This afternoon, the Serjeant at Arms confirmed to me that the former Member for Eastleigh, Mr Chris Huhne, had applied for and been granted a parliamentary pass. Given the low esteem with which many Members of this House are held by our constituents in regard to poor behaviour, is there any method that we can use to rescind that application to ensure that someone who is a convicted criminal cannot freely walk around the Palace of Westminster?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He has put his concerns on the record. That said I will, if I may, make two points. First, these are matters dealt with by an established process under the auspices of the Serjeant at Arms, and although I do not cavil at the hon. Gentleman having an opinion on the matter, we do not discuss security related matters on the Floor of the Chamber. Secondly, I put it on the record that, although the hon. Gentleman has a view that he has expressed with great alacrity, there is also the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which is on the statute book. I note what he says and I understand his concern and no one will deny him the right to his point of view, but we will leave it there for tonight.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I inquire whether there is any way within the rules of order that I can draw attention to a possible misprint on the Order Paper to the House of Commons relating to the cross-party early-day motion 757 on defence spending, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Sir Peter Luff), along with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), the right hon. Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) and about a dozen others including me? It reads as follows:
“That this House believes that the UK faces a growing and ever more complex range of current and future threats…and supports the UK devoting at least 20% of its gross domestic product to defence.”
When I signed the early-day motion, I was under the impression that I was supporting 2%. It is beyond even my wildest dreams to have 20%, but a figure in between would not be unacceptable.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He inquired whether there was a mechanism within the rules of order. As he well knows, there is, and he has just used it. It was 31 years three months ago that I first met the hon. Gentleman. All I will say about him tonight is that once a propagandist who seizes his moment, always a propagandist who seizes his moment.
Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a serious point underlying this matter, which is that the 2% figure is indeed what the UK Government have encouraged every other NATO country to contribute of GDP to defence. This 2% figure is essential both to UK national security and to our international reputation.
Mr Speaker
If Sir Gerald Howarth really must make a point of order, I suppose that we must hear him.
Sir Gerald Howarth
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. May I put it that there needs to be an investigation? Clearly, the Table Office is under the impression that those right hon. and hon. Members have suggested 20%. I have to say that I could not possibly cavil at that. It seems to be the very minimum that we should be spending on defence in view of what has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), the Chairman of the esteemed Defence Committee. Will you, Mr Speaker, confirm with the Table Office that it has accurately recorded that which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have tabled?
Mr Speaker
I have always known that the hon. Gentleman is no great advocate of increased public expenditure, but defence tends to be an exception. He has made his own point in his own way.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You talk about the main act, but is this not an appropriate overture for the main act? After all the Scottish people are determined to stay in the Union precisely because they want to maintain Trident.
Mr Speaker
That may be so. We will leave it there. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Business without Debate
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business of the House
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Scottish Representation in the Union
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gordon Brown (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Lab)
I asked for this debate on the constitution this evening because in the run-up to the election, when other issues—the national health service, the economy, national security and defence—will clearly be pre-eminent considerations, it is doubtful whether there is any other way over the next two months that this House can give detailed consideration to a set of constitutional challenges that, if not thought through or if mishandled, will in time threaten the very existence of the United Kingdom.
I am not here as an advocate of the status quo. I start by recognising that this House of Commons is England’s Parliament as well as the United Kingdom’s and that we should agree a Commons Committee reform that allows for detailed debate on English-only measures by only English Members. With reform of the Lords, reform of regional and local government, reform of the voting system and reform of the Commons itself also part of the queue of complex, interrelated and interconnected constitutional issues that are in need of democratic resolution, I believe that some kind of convention of the people or, if that is rejected, a Speaker’s Conference, which you might chair, Mr Speaker, is now the best way of ascertaining whether the United Kingdom can finally move from what is a 19th-century constitution to a modern, 21st-century one.
If the Union is to survive, it will have to be built on the interdependence of our four nations, and it will have to guarantee equality of status within the United Kingdom. My argument tonight is that with the announcement of English votes for English laws, which means nothing other than restricting the right of Scottish Members to vote in this House, the Government are deliberately driving a wedge between Scotland and England and, in so doing, they have asked the wrong question, and they are now getting the wrong answer.
However, at the very time that we should be attempting to unify and reconcile the four nations of the United Kingdom, building on the fact that the Scottish National party wants to be part of the UK currency, and on the fact that the nationalists’ economic case for independence has fallen as a result of the halving of oil prices, the Government have summarily rejected one of the central recommendations of the Smith commission, which they set up, which was:
“MPs representing constituencies across the whole of the UK will continue to decide the UK’s Budget, including Income Tax.”
The Conservative party has got this wrong, because it presumes, as Members now on the Government Benches have always said, that the fundamental anomaly in the British constitution is that Scottish MPs can vote on English-only laws, whereas English MPs cannot vote on Scottish-only laws. In retaliation for what they see as Scots pursuing a Scottish interest, they wish to pursue and enshrine an English interest above a common UK interest that could bind us together.
But what is called the West Lothian question is, in truth, only a symptom of the problems we have to deal with. The central anomaly, and the real asymmetry from which all else follows, is the basic, and indeed unchangeable, imbalance in the size of the four nations. England represents 84% of the UK population, Scotland represents 8%, Wales represents 5% and Northern Ireland represents 3%. England sends 533 Members to this House, compared with 59 from Scotland, 40 from Wales and 18 from Northern Ireland—117 in total against 533. It is obvious that when we start from such a profound imbalance and asymmetry—such a huge inequality in population and voting shares—fairness of outcome cannot easily be secured by a blanket uniformity that treats the minorities exactly the same as the majority. It follows that the rules needed to respect and reassure the minorities, who might always be outvoted, have to be different from those needed to uphold the majority.
The challenge is not unique to Britain. The United States, Australia, Spain, Switzerland, South Africa, Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria and many other countries have had to find ways of managing the gross inequalities in the size of their constituent parts without undermining their unity. As the price of keeping the United States together, California accepts that it has just two Members of the US Senate to represent its 38 million citizens, while Wyoming has the same number to represent just 500,000 citizens—one Senator for 250,000 people in one part of the country, and one Senator for 19 million in another.
Similarly, the price New South Wales pays for Australian unity is having one Senator for every 580,000 people, in contrast to Tasmania’s one Senator for every 40,000. Fair treatment for minorities and national unity are achieved in the Spanish Senate, the Swiss Council of States, the South African National Council of Provinces and the Brazilian, Nigerian and Mexican Senates not by the crude and blanket uniformity that is characterised by English votes for English laws, but by special arrangements that recognise that minority rights have to be respected and upheld so that the provinces, states or nations can be held together in one Union.
With the Leader of the House’s announcement that he would exclude Scottish representatives from voting on what he now calls consent motions, including annual consent motions on tax issues arising from the Budget, he is breaking with the old-established practice of other countries, breaking with our own constitutional history, and breaking with all sensible advice in creating what the Government now boast is the English veto, making ours the first and only Parliament in the world where two classes of representatives will exist and where some representatives are clearly more equal than others.
By the Government’s own insistence on devolving all income tax to the Scottish Parliament and then using that as a pretext for banning Scottish MPs from voting on income tax here, there will be a constant national refrain that there are now first-class and second-class MPs: the English who rule and the Scots there on sufferance. I have to ask—
Mr Brown
I will give way after this. I have to ask Government Members this: can you imagine Scotland, or possibly Wales and Northern Ireland, being enthusiastic about sending MPs to this place indefinitely if they have to withdraw when the real vote on the Budget—the consent vote, or the veto motion—is being taken on this central economic legislation once a year: income tax rates in the Budget voted on by a consent motion that excludes Scottish and, in time, Welsh and Northern Ireland MPs who also want devolution of taxation? Can we sustain truly positive support for one United Kingdom Parliament for long when it becomes clear that the Government of the day owe their existence to an English majority and ride roughshod over other representation? If anybody is in any doubt about the threat to the unity of the UK posed by English votes for English laws, they should take note of how Scottish National party Members, who want to break the Union, have become its biggest supporters.
It was said of the Hapsburg monarchs that they would never learn from their mistakes. Surely the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats should heed the lessons of history. For decades William Gladstone, when Prime Minister, tried to find a way of balancing what he called the rights of “outsiders”—in this case, the Irish after home rule—and “insiders” without breaking the Union, but then concluded in his final term that it
“passed the wit of man to frame any distinct, thorough-going, universal severance between the one class of subjects and the other”.
He was not alone, for in 1965, when Harold Wilson’s proposal for steel nationalisation was defeated by Ulster Unionist votes, he asked his Attorney-General to devise a formula for two tiers of MPs, and he could not do so. At that time, the Conservative party insisted: “Every Member of this House is equal with every other Member of this House and all of us will speak on all subjects.”
Mr Brown
I will finish the history and then I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
When, in 1972, the Kilbrandon royal commission again considered English votes for English laws, it concluded:
“in our view, therefore, all Members of Parliament, whether or not they come from regions with their own legislative assemblies, must have the same rights of participation in the business of the House of Commons”.
Then again, in 1977, when James Callaghan had to revisit the issue during the first Scotland Bill, the advice he received agreed with Gladstone that
“no form of ‘in and out’ voting has been identified that would be sufficiently consistent with the basic features of our constitution to be workable”.
It seems that a problem that could not be solved in two centuries the Prime Minister now claims he has mastered and resolved in just a few weeks. I have to say this: if after 50 years in politics and four periods as Prime Minister, Gladstone could not find an answer to this question, and if every subsequent Prime Minister since has found it unworkable and unanswerable within the Union, might it not be somewhat immodest for the Prime Minister, who set up his review in October and published the results in December, to say that he has found the answer in just eight weeks? Might not he have been modest enough at least to listen to and get some perspective from his old constitutional history tutor at university, Professor Bogdanor, who has argued—
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Brown
Professor Bogdanor has argued that while
“English votes for English laws seems at first sight a logical response to the English Question…it is in fact incoherent…a bifurcated government is a logical absurdity. A government must be collectively responsible to parliament for all the policies that come before it, not just a selection of them.”
The reality is that EVEL, English votes for English laws, and this hunt for perfect symmetry in an asymmetrical world risk jeopardising the Union in the long term. Let me quote Mr Michael Portillo—this is probably what the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) wants to say. Mr Portillo said only a few days ago:
“I think it is creating daily a greater division between the two nations, which will lead to a sort of logic that the two nations should separate...The English mentality I think is now increasingly that the two nations are going in different directions: that if you’re a Scottish Member of Parliament you are a second-class citizen to an English Member of Parliament and you will be allowed to vote on certain matters.”
If the Union fell now, it would not be because of what happened during the referendum, the result of which was conclusively against leaving the United Kingdom, but because of what happened since—[Interruption.] The Union will not fall because most Scots demanded independence from the United Kingdom—they did not—but because leaders failed to convince them that they were fully committed to its unity—[Interruption.] It will not fall because a majority of people today want to leave the United Kingdom but because people feel that there is a Scottish interest and an English interest and that the Government have not defended the UK interest.
Sensible Conservatives recognise that. Commenting the morning after the referendum speech by the Prime Minister, Lord Strathclyde, author of the Conservatives’ own proposals on devolution, which rejected this approach, said:
“If we are serious Unionist politicians we need to use the language of healing and strengthening...We started off perhaps with…a step in the wrong direction”.
The Prime Minister’s Cabinet colleague, the Liberal party Member who is Chief Secretary to the Treasury, was blunter. He said of the Prime Minister’s speech that morning:
“He went from being a Prime Minister who had absolutely done the right thing in the national interest to making a very partisan judgement on behalf of the Conservative party”.
The implication was that the Prime Minister was putting the integrity of the United Kingdom second not to the express demands of the people of England but to the very vocal demands of the UK Independence party.
Mr MacNeil
Mr Speaker, will you give me some guidance on the difference between a debate and a lecture? Should a Member who has promised to give way not give way?
Mr Speaker
Let me make two points. It is very simple. First, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) is perfectly in order. Secondly, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is bearing more than a striking resemblance to an over-ebullient puppy dog. That is not something we want to see in this Chamber. He should take an example in statemanship from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and calm himself.
Mr MacNeil
Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way? He has to sit down to give way.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He mentioned the Kilbrandon commission, and Labour said to that commission that it preferred a Tory Government to independence. Is that still his view?
Mr Brown
The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. His colleague the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) was wrong to shout earlier that the majority of Scottish people wanted independence. The majority of Scottish people were clear that they did not want independence, and the sooner the SNP realises that it does not have a majority for that position the better.
Sir William Cash
The right hon. Gentleman is overlooking several points. The first is the question of unfairness to the English voters. That is the key issue. Secondly, he asserts that there will be two classes of Members under our proposals. It is not about two classes of Members but two different functions. It was his Government and his party leader in 1996-97 who created the devolution arrangements without making proper recompense for the unfairness to the British voter. That is where the problem lies.
Mr Brown
I have already proposed an English committee system that the hon. Gentleman should accept. He is forgetting the lessons of every other country in the world that is trying to hold together minorities in different parts of the country. They have to find a way of respecting the rights of minorities while upholding the majority. Nothing in yesterday’s EVEL proposals answered those problems. It is difficult to define what an English-only Bill is. If we take one possible definition of “separate and distinct effect”, constitutional lawyers say that that would encompass just half a dozen Bills in 10 years. That makes us ask why it has been proposed.
English MPs vote normally as a bloc in the same way as UK MPs, which suggests that this move has been proposed for other reasons. Whatever the practical considerations, the real damage of English votes for English laws is not its mechanical application. The real damage, before a veto is imposed, is the creation of a perception that the United Kingdom is now only about separate interests and not a common interest.
Mr Brown
I am going to finish.
There is a myth that the Union can survive this new polarisation of Scotland and England. The myth is that it is held together by bonds that are of such long standing that they can overcome what may be seen as a local difficulty. I say to the House, however, that what may have been true in the aftermath of the second world war and its shared sacrifice has given way to a new world where none of our ancient institutions is strong enough or popular enough on its own to hold us together.
The Union cannot survive on mutual respect alone—it is in short supply at the moment—or just on the basis of mutual toleration, a minimalist policy of holding each other at a distance for fear that we will fight. The Union will hold together only if there are things that the people of our four nations believe they have in common; if we emphasise that there are common needs, mutual interests and similar values that make us want to co-operate; and, in short, if there is a belief that we do best by sharing. In the modern world, where countries survive or falter on the basis of a daily referendum of opinion, such sharing has to preserve our historical willingness to share risks and transfer resources between each other to tackle issues such as poverty, unemployment and inequality.
The 18th-century Prime Minister Lord North is today remembered for only one thing, which is that he lost America. Will this current Prime Minister—this is the statesman’s question—now act to ensure that he will not be remembered in history as the Lord North of the 21st century? On 19 September 2014, for purely short-term gain—putting party before country, without considering the long-term interests of our united country, and ignoring the need to reconcile people and bring them together—he may have lit a fuse that eventually blows the Union apart.
I have made proposals for reform. I do not want us to pre-empt a constitutional review. I know that the Secretary of State for Scotland supports the position I am representing. The issue tonight is whether he can persuade his colleagues in the coalition Government and Government Members before it is too late.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)
May I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on securing this evening’s debate? It is very good to see the House so well attended and particularly animated, which is not always the case in our Adjournment debates.
At the start of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said one thing with which nobody could take exception, which was that this is a time for us, through the work of the House, to bring unity to our four nations. For those of us who represent Scottish constituents at Westminster, that was very much the view expressed by the people of Scotland in a quite remarkable democratic exercise on 18 September. We would do well at all times to remember that.
The right hon. Gentleman has done us a service by bringing this issue to the House tonight. The issue is entirely legitimate, and nothing will work less to the advantage of the Union than seeking in any way to deny that legitimacy or simply seeking to avoid it. It is absolutely right that all the political parties should look to address the issue, as indeed they are doing.
As we look across the political landscape and address the various options available, it is possible to conclude only one thing—that there is no easy answer and absolutely no quick fix. If we try to achieve an easy answer or a quick fix, we run a very real risk of replacing the obvious and patent anomalies of the current constitutional settlement with new ones, which would place more pressure on the hinges of our United Kingdom at a time when those who would break it up remain vigilant for a chance to do so.
Mr Carmichael
If I may make a little progress, I will give way to my hon. Friend in a minute.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House laid out the proposals of the Conservative party. It is a matter of record that my party disagrees with that approach. Nor is it much of a secret that there is a range of views within the Conservative party, from those who believe that this issue is best left alone to those who want a more radical solution. There is not much consensus in that party, let alone between the parties in this House. However, there is a broad consensus here about keeping together our family of nations. That requires that this issue be considered carefully with an eye to a lasting settlement, not a short-sighted or short-term partisan advantage.
Sir William Cash
Does the Secretary of State agree that the proposals that were agreed to tentatively by the Conservative party yesterday will not necessarily be the solution, because the real problem is that the new Parnell from Scotland, in the form of Mr Alex Salmond, will come down and use any opportunity relentlessly and ruthlessly to create as much chaos as possible, and thereby disrupt the United Kingdom?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that Alex Salmond was here for many years and often sought to do exactly that. However, in terms of achievement, there was not a great deal to show for his time here. I therefore caution my hon. Friend about pre-judging the outcome of the election on 7 May and what the consequences of that outcome might be.
My party has always been clear that any parliamentary vote involving English or English and Welsh MPs should be held only on the basis of a proportionate vote share from the previous election. Devolution to the constituent nations of our United Kingdom has always taken place on that basis, and for good reason. It would be wholly unjust effectively to devolve power to England or England and Wales in a way that distorted democratic opinion and passed unfair advantage to any party.
The logical and lasting solution to this conundrum, in the view of my party, is the creation of a federal United Kingdom, in which England as a whole or in its constituent parts devolves powers from Westminster and, by extension, answers the West Lothian question. I accept, however, that we may be some way from that solution.
The options can and should be considered by a constitutional convention, as the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath indicated. The convention should be empowered to look at all the anomalies and difficulties that we face. In that way, we can forge a consensus and build lasting solutions that strengthen the bonds of our United Kingdom, rather than threaten to break them.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is important in this debate that we learn more about the Liberal plans for the proportional representation of MPs. It seems, with respect, that they could end in a really bonkers situation. What would happen if the Green party got 5% of the votes but only one MP? Would the Green party lady walk through the Lobby representing 20 other colleagues? What would happen if the Labour party got 38% of the popular vote but 43% of MPs? How would it be worked out in practice?
Mr Carmichael
Those matters would, of course, have to be considered by the House before it countenanced a change to Standing Orders of the sort that I have outlined. The example about the Greens would have to be taken into account and it might determine the size of any such Committee. I say to my hon. Friend gently that this House has tackled many bigger conundrums and challenges than that, and we have shown ourselves to be equal to the task. Although his point is legitimate and thoughtful, I do not see it as a barrier to a change of the sort that my party favours.
It might be helpful to add a little context to the question of Scotland’s representation in the Union, so I will briefly remind the House of the recent constitutional events that brought us here. On 18 September, the people in Scotland voted to secure Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom and to keep the advantages of the UK pound, UK pensions, UK armed forces, and a strong UK voice in the world. They voted for the strength and security that the United Kingdom provides through our single domestic market, our social union, and our ability to pool and share risks. However, people in Scotland were also clear that they wanted change. They wanted a strengthened, more accountable Scottish Parliament, with more decisions that affect Scotland being made in Scotland. The United Kingdom Government made a commitment to delivering the vow made by the three party leaders—in respect of which the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath made such a decisive intervention—and to delivering further powers to the Scottish Parliament early after the next general election. Despite the ambitious time scale, all deadlines in the vow have been met.
Immediately following the independence referendum, the Prime Minister established the Smith commission as an independent body to convene cross-party talks on further powers for the Scottish Parliament. The heads of agreement were published before St Andrew’s day, in line with our commitment, and were welcomed by the UK Government. The next stage of our commitment was to publish draft legislation, setting out what the agreement would look like in law in advance of Burns night. Two weeks ago, ahead of schedule, the Government published the draft clauses with an accompanying Command Paper.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has got part of his history wrong, because since the vow there is now the vow plus that has been advocated by the Labour party. We are in a constant state of flux and constitutional change in Scotland. Where do the Government see it ending? We have the vow plus from Labour, but what is the view of the UK Government?
Mr Carmichael
I thought I was making a mistake in giving way, and I am afraid the hon. Gentleman’s question confirms that. His party did a brave thing in taking part in the Smith commission—for the first time ever, it was an historic moment to get all five parties from the Scottish Parliament around one table. He was part of that consensus; perhaps he did not like it and was one of those who put pressure on John Swinney and others to run away from the settlement that they had just signed up to.
Rather than coming up with such points, the hon. Gentleman would do better first to calm down and relax a little, and he could then tell the House what he and his party will do with the powers that will come to the Scottish Parliament as a result of the Smith commission. One thing he does not want to accept is that as a result of the Smith commission, Scotland will have the third most powerful devolved Parliament anywhere in the world. A tremendous amount of good can be done with the powers that will be given to the Scottish Parliament, and that is where the debate ought to be, rather than the constant whinge about vows or vows plus.
Mr Carmichael
I am sorry but I am running out of time.
The Government are doing everything we can to enable 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the 2016 Scottish Parliament elections, as recommended by Lord Smith, and hon. Members will know that on Monday I took an order through the House to deal with that very point.
A great deal more could—indeed will—be said on this subject between now and 7 May. That is absolutely right, because to build a consensus we must make this Parliament fit for the whole United Kingdom, and such debates will be necessary. I am therefore grateful to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath for bringing the matter to the House this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dairy Industry
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It will not have escaped your notice that quite a lot of people want to take part in this debate. I am therefore immediately imposing a five-minute time limit on speeches, apart from the opening speech and the wind-ups. If Members stick to that sensibly, we may be able to get everybody in.
To facilitate matters, I will—perhaps exceptionally—read out the list of Members in the order in which I intend to call them, which is the order in which they submitted their name to the Speaker’s Office. There is no question of preference or seniority; it is simply how the names went in. On the Opposition Benches, we have Mr Shannon, Ms Ritchie, Dr Whiteford and Mr Owen; on the Government Benches we have, in this order, Glyn Davies, Nick Herbert, Miss McIntosh, Mr Ollerenshaw, Mrs Newton, Mr Kawczynski, Mr Julian Smith, Mr Reid, Mrs Murray, Mr Farron and Sir William Cash. I need to add Mr Parish to that list; he was chairing a meeting earlier.
That is the batting order. I am telling Members that because it may be that some will choose to intervene rather than make a speech. Those whose names I have not read out are not on the list at all. I hope that is clear.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on the dairy industry under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
This is a time of deep uncertainty for many farmers, as they have seen huge volatility in the price that they receive for milk over the past three years. The dairy industry is vital for the United Kingdom, but I hope hon. Members will excuse me if I address the challenges facing the industry through the prism of my rural constituency, Ribble Valley. The industry is simply the backbone of the constituency. Some of the farmers to whom I spoke can trace their farms back several hundred years. Generations have worked the land and shaped its appearance and character.
From a food security point of view, the industry is simply essential. Its liquid market is strong; of course, we also have some of the most recognised cheeses in the world, particularly the tasty, crumbly, creamy and mature Lancashire cheeses that are made by some of the most famous family names and sold throughout the world. Milk is also processed into other commodities, including yoghurts, butter and powdered milk.
The by-product of the industry is amazing: rolling countryside that attracts a large number of tourists, providing income for bed and breakfasts, amazing hotels and companies that source food and beers, as well as providing a large number of local jobs. Then there are the gastro pubs. There are far too many to mention, but we have the Campaign for Real Ale pub of the year, the Swan with Two Necks in Pendleton, and, just 2 miles away from there, the food pub of the year, the Freemasons at Wiswell. Originally I had planned to mention all the pubs, delicatessens, restaurants and amazing quality shops in my constituency, but my speech became a travelogue for Ribble Valley; that is what the dairy industry has done for my area. The Ribble Valley food trail is now firmly a part of why visitors come to the area, and those visitors keep small villages such as Rimington, Clitheroe, Longridge, Lostock Hall, Chipping, Waddington and Mitton alive.
The recent investment in local businesses runs to millions of pounds. The restaurants and hotels in the James’s Places group are found throughout the valley, representing big investments in the area. The Aspinall Arms in Mitton has just seen massive investment, as have the White Bull in Gisburn, which has reopened after being closed for over a year, and the Derby Arms in Longridge. My point is that without the backbone of the dairy industry the whole fabric of the area simply would not exist.
Anyone can see the pride and worth of the industry as they travel through the area, but it is especially clear at the agricultural shows, such as the Chipping show, the Hodder Valley show and the Longridge show. I am proud to say that the Royal Lancashire show will be part of the local calendar once again this year, on 7, 8 and 9 August. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has just pushed a note to me saying, “Don’t forget to mention the Shireburn Arms”—that is just down from Stonyhurst college, where he went to school.
My village of Pendleton is relatively small. It has three dairy farms of different sizes. John Cowperthwaite is the seventh generation of his family to operate from his farm. He has a contract with Sainsbury’s and says that the contract has been honoured and that he is happy with the way he is being treated. That means that there will be a business for his son Richard, who is 22 years of age, to take over. Richard works with his dad at the moment.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. My hon. Friend is getting to an important question about contracts for our farmers. Sainsbury’s has been very good, as has Tesco, but the real issue is the pressure on the price per litre. Will he go on to talk about the big supermarkets’ contracts?
Mr Evans
Yes. It will not have gone unnoticed by my hon. Friend and others that Sainsbury’s took out a large advert in a number of newspapers indicating those supermarkets that are being fair and those that are not. I will refer to that later.
Edward Cowperthwaite’s farm is a bit further into the village. He milks a smaller herd than John Cowperthwaite. He came off his tractor to speak to me yesterday. He is not on a contract and has seen two successive cuts to his milk price, in January and February this year. He works seven days a week and cannot afford to employ anyone. He has some sheep to keep his income up, and his wife works as a teacher, so thankfully he can make a go of it, but he has five youngsters and is not sure that any of them will want to enter farming while it is in this particular predicament.
At the top of the village is William Slinger’s farm, which he can trace back to 1603. He has a larger herd of cows, plus sheep, and is the founding director of Bowland Fresh, which about 30 local farms feed into. Both Booths and Asda take his milk, and he works hard to ensure the scheme works for the participating farmers. I want to thank Booths in particular, as the founding buyer for Bowland Fresh, for the considerate way that it has treated local suppliers. Edwin Booth lives locally and knows that the value of milk is not simply the plastic bottle people take away from his stores. I also thank Asda for its support for Bowland Fresh.
Whether the cause is Russian sanctions, the reduced Chinese market or simply an over-supply in the market after a very good year last year, the fact is that the price for milk on some farms is now way below the cost of production. A local dairy farmer from Samlesbury, Graham Young, who is also a member of the National Farmers Union north-west dairy board, told me that many farmers joined the European milk co-operative, Arla, and are getting under 25p a litre; some farmers are in the First Milk co-operative and are getting around 20p a litre. Although the longer term is looking good, those prices are not sustainable in the short term, and farmers have to survive the short term first.
The current situation has energised a number of MPs who, like me, think something must be done. Those include my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who is here today. She is Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which produced an excellent report last month making a number of important recommendations. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), who is also here, had an Adjournment debate in November on this issue; sadly, the plight of the industry has worsened since then. A number of Members have put down or signed early-day motions and raised issues relating to dairying on the Floor of the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stone.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Non-payment caused a huge crisis. Will my hon. Friend give some thought to the idea that the Government could help by engaging more, through public procurement of services? People who are in the Army, the education sector and other sectors could get milk supplied in a way that would help our farmers, and would ensure that the Government were taking an active part on this issue.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks about all the activity taking place in this Parliament, but we also had many Westminster Hall debates in the previous Parliament about the crisis in the dairy industry. Does he agree that the time for talk is now over, and that we really are looking to the Government for concrete steps this time round to sort out this perennial problem?
Mr Evans
I do agree that the time for action is now. If we do not act now, it will be too late. The number of farms has dropped from 35,000 to fewer than 10,000, so this is clearly a crisis. I should congratulate my hon. Friend on being the founding member of the all-party group on dairy, which has focused on the industry’s plight.
To go back to a previous intervention, we know something is out of kilter when milk is sold at 89p for 4 pints. When I was in Ribble Valley last week, I saw 8 pints on offer for £2 in my local Co-op. Perrier sells for £1.04 a bottle—water is valued more than milk. That cannot be right.
I commend the Minister on his hard work and resolute efforts to look at fresh ways of supporting the industry. He meets industry representatives constantly; indeed, he met Thomas Binns, one of my dairy farmers in Cumbria, just yesterday. I have looked long and hard at a number of suggestions made by some of my farmers. I have also read around the issue in the Farmers Guardian, and I have read reports about the industry’s plight. I have produced a charter for the British dairy industry, which I hope the Government will get behind. It is a 12-point plan, although it may well be a 13-point plan after the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. I have provided the Minister with a copy. The charter simply says:
“1. The Groceries Code Adjudicator to be given more powers to protect dairy farmers.
2. A strengthened Groceries Supply Code of Practice.
3. Supermarkets and wholesalers who pay less than the cost of production for milk should be named and shamed. They have Fairtrade coffee, chocolate and bananas, this should extend to Fairtrade UK milk and dairy processed products.
4. Farmers need to be given more assistance in accessing a variety of export markets.
5. Banks should provide support to dairy farmers during this challenging time for the industry.
6. HM Revenue & Customs should move to look at profits over a five year period to provide a more level rate of taxation.
7. The EU intervention price of 15 pence per litre needs to be urgently reviewed as it is no longer an accurate figure and is far too low.
8. Better and clearer origin of production labelling. British means produced and processed in the UK.
9. More stability on investment allowances for farmers.
10. Ensure that dairy farming is supported and championed by the Government. Dairy farms are the backbone of rural Britain and it must be sufficiently attractive for new generations of young farmers to enter the industry.
11. Look to encourage producer organisations within the industry to give better protection on product price.
12. Look to cushion the worst impacts of the volatility within the industry.”
Let me also add point 13, on the public procurement of UK milk.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his fantastic speech, which is very timely. May I add my concerns about over-production? With quota coming off this year, we hear that Ireland is likely dramatically to increase its production of liquid milk. That will flood across into the United Kingdom, and the consequences could be very serious. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about the future of milk production?
Mr Evans
That has certainly been heralded in a number of agricultural publications. Ireland, France, Germany and the Netherlands could all increase their production, and the price would drop even further. The threat is that we start importing more product into the UK, which will further and severely disadvantage British dairy farming. I hope the Minister will address that.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
At Prime Minister’s questions the other day, did the Prime Minister not say in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) that the Government were seriously looking at, and he was committed to, the introduction of fines and the spreading of tax payments over this year? If that is good enough for the Prime Minister, I hope it will be good enough for the Minister when he responds.
Mr Evans
I will finish now to give lots of other Members an opportunity to contribute. However, we will all listen carefully, as will the industry, to what the Minister has to say. We know he supports the British dairy industry, and we know the Prime Minister supports it, having a number of dairy farmers in his constituency. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say. I would like to thank Kathleen Calvert, a stalwart defender of the industry’s interests, whom I spoke to this morning, for her suggestions on helping the industry, some of which I have incorporated into my speech.
I want to finish with the last paragraph of a letter to Emma Penny, the editor of the Farmers Guardian, which is published not far from my constituency, in Fulwood, on the outskirts of rural Lancashire:
“If nothing is done we will not recognise the industry in 10 years’ time. It will consist of 50 mega dairies on the outskirts of large cities and even more milk, cheese, butter and powder will be imported. Wake up Britain.”
Minister, it is time we all woke up and smelled the coffee, but what is the use of smelling the coffee unless it has British milk in it? We also want some toast with British butter on it and a slab of Lancashire cheese, followed by British yoghurt and the full English breakfast, including a healthy portion of black pudding—all supplied by British farmers. We must not take the industry for granted. We must not lose it. We have to act now to ensure its future.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. Sixteen Members now wish to participate in the debate. Members can do the maths: speeches are down to four minutes. I have also decided that I will not add injury time for interventions. Members who courteously give way to others may need to bear that in mind when considering whether to take interventions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) for giving us all the opportunity to participate.
I am here because the dairy industry is an important issue in my constituency. I have spoken about it before, but there are new issues to raise. In Northern Ireland, we have 3,425 dairy farms, boasting almost 280,000 dairy cows, with a market value of £627.5 million—the value of the dairy industry to the Northern Ireland agriculture sector is therefore enormous. The industry also employs 2,318 people.
As we have heard, the price of milk has continued to drop. In the past month, however, it appears that the market has bottomed. The milk price indicator hit a low of 19.24p per litre in mid-December, but it has now risen to 20.09p per litre. There is an indication that it may be 20p to 22p per litre before the early summer. Let me put that into perspective. If someone gets 21p per litre for their milk, and the cost of production is 28p, they lose 7p per litre. A base price of 20p per litre means that a 100-head dairy herd would lose £5,000 a month. Over a year, that would amount to £60,000. For those in the dairy industry, that is a serious issue. One of my constituents started dairy farming just before Christmas, and he is getting an extra 2p per litre, but even that is not enough.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that many supermarkets in Northern Ireland and across the UK use milk as a loss leader to get footfall is a key issue, which the adjudicator must address?
Jim Shannon
That is clearly an issue, and the Groceries Code Adjudicator needs to address it.
Northern Ireland exports 85% of its milk products. There are a large number of dairy farmers in my constituency, and Pritchitts is one of the major milk powder producers. It is therefore immensely important for me to ensure that things change.
There is hope on the horizon with the pending abolition of the milk quota, which maintains high production levels even if demand remains static. I also welcome the resurgence of the Chinese market. I believe demand there is coming back, and we are pleased to see that. That might just be the thing that makes the difference.
A further concern, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, is retailer price cuts. Asda is selling two litres of milk for 79p. That means that only 23p profit has been made—23p that has to be split between the farmer and the supermarket giant. It does not take Einstein to work out who is really making the money. I will give hon. Members a clue: it is not the dairy farmer. Farming unions are trying to encourage Dairy UK and the Dairy Council to support the promotion of local dairy products, and we agree; every hon. Member can talk about how the milk is sweeter, the cheese better-tasting and the yogurt particularly tasty in their area. My hon. Friend knows about yogurt—he is an expert.
The issue is clear for us. Farming unions have continued to fight for the EU intervention milk price to be reviewed. That has received support from the Minister at the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, and has been backed by the Scottish and Welsh Farming Ministers. The Minister has claimed that there is no value for money in such interventions, so it would be unlikely that the UK would fight for the review. He needs to rethink his position, given the regional support and clear need for a review. I would certainly like a consultation, at least.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I apologise, Sir Roger, for arriving a minute or two late at the debate, and I am grateful to be called. It takes longer to walk to work with a broken toe.
I want to make two points, on public procurement and labelling. The dairy industry has had a huge impact on my constituency, as it has on many others. The Severn valley is a fertile part of Britain, and a huge number of dairy farms earn a living there. It has been a huge part of my life. I have said before, in the main Chamber, that I am probably the only Member of Parliament who has actually milked cows by hand. [Hon. Members: “No!”] I had not realised. I will have to start an all-party group for those who have milked cows by hand.
The issue we face is global instability through the flooding of the market across the world. It is important that DEFRA should do everything possible to help in the current situation, in the hope that it will not last too long. That means talking to banks and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, to see us through. I was pleased with what the Prime Minister said in response to my question in the Chamber on 21 January, which has already been mentioned and is at column 216 of the Official Report. I asked about expanding the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator and whether there should be a power to fine, and the answer was a strong message that the Government take the issue seriously. Progress is being made, and that is what we all want.
The only answer to the present situation is to expand the market. We operate in a global context, and there is probably over-production across the world. When quotas are lifted, that is likely to get worse. We must aggressively expand the market for British milk and dairy produce. First, we need a full-blooded DEFRA campaign to export and market to China, which is a huge growing market, and elsewhere. I know that action is being taken on that, but it must be redoubled and must continue.
Public procurement is a sensitive matter, because we are members of the European Union and must stick to competition rules, but the Government need to be as inventive as possible. Every public body in Britain that wants Britain and its dairy farming to succeed should do all they can to make sure they use British produce. That is a key issue that the Government can influence, although obviously they must be careful.
Labelling is also incredibly important. The British people generally want to support British farming. They want to buy British produce from supermarkets or other retailers, particularly now that they can see that dairy farming is having a difficult time. However, we must be certain that produce marked as British genuinely is British. That does not mean packed in Britain—produce brought here and sold and advertised as British when it is not. We need accurate labelling so that the people of Britain can join together to help the continued success of the dairy industry, which has underpinned rural life in Montgomeryshire and elsewhere for generations.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing this important debate on the dairy industry.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and we have just completed a detailed report on dairy prices, volatility in the market, and the need for the European Union to review the intervention price. I urge the Agriculture and Rural Development Commissioner, Phil Hogan, and the Minister to make sure that the price is reviewed, and that there is considerable uplift. From my Northern Ireland perspective, the volatility has had a great impact on the local dairy industry. The majority—about 85%—of our milk products are exported. With the milk quota ending in April, the issue of price volatility will be more marked and definite, so it needs to be addressed.
My constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned the dairy intervention price, which the Select Committee report dealt with clearly, along with the fact that the Groceries Code Adjudicator lacks teeth. On 29 January a motion was tabled on enabling fines to be levied on the big supermarkets. I hope that penalties will be brought in, but smaller retailers also have an effect on the consumer and, more importantly, the farming and dairy industries, and that needs to be investigated.
We want an uplift for the dairy industry, and we feel that there is a need to take a long-term view of the industry and its current crisis. Countless farmers are being forced to leave it and abandon their livelihoods, because they are not receiving sufficient support in the crisis. There will come a time when the markets improve and we will need their high-quality produce. There may be a shortage of farmers remaining to produce it.
The dairy industry is vital to farmers’ livelihoods and to the economy. Intervention is not just an option; it is an immediate necessity. We need action at Government and EU level to protect farmers properly in the long term, in the face of market volatility, which will bring further challenges. I commend the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s report to the Minister, and I look forward to his response. I hope that he, in conjunction with the EU Agriculture and Rural Development Commissioner, will be able to provide some relief for the dairy industry.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I join other hon. Members in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) for initiating the debate and raising an issue of great concern to those of us with rural constituencies. In the past two decades or more, the number of dairy farmers in West Sussex has reduced significantly. The national trend is for further reductions, with the threat that dairy production in the county will become a very rare thing. That would be a great shame.
I want to raise three ways of addressing the unsustainable situation in which producers are paid a price below the cost of production—albeit that we accept that prices are volatile. The situation was not the same last year, and there are world market problems that cannot be addressed easily. The first issue, which was discussed by my hon. Friend and has been raised by the EFRA Committee, is the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I announced the Conservative party’s policy to introduce what we then called a supermarket ombudsman at the Oxford farming conference some five years ago.
I believed then, as I do now, that in spite of having faith in free markets, when markets operate in an unfair way, damage can be caused not just to producers but ultimately to consumers. That can justify measures to correct market failure. There is a danger that that is happening here and ultimately the consumers will lose if we undermine our production base too much. There is a case, as the EFRA Committee recommended, for strengthening the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator across the supply chain and ensuring that the adjudicator can levy substantial fines and mount proactive investigations. I welcome the Prime Minister’s indication that the Government will look at that and I hope that the Minister will say more about that when he responds.
The other policy that I promoted in opposition that we need to continue to press hard is country of origin labelling for our produce. That would help hugely in what is needed: a national campaign to market and promote British produce as the means by which consumers can support British production. We have not yet succeeded in extending that principle, partly because of the problems with getting EU agreement and also because of problems with our authorities who claim that such measures increase the burden of regulation. We need to resist such arguments.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) that we should look carefully at public procurement and the way in which the public sector can do more to promote British produce. The long-term outlook for dairy farming may be rosy, given the potential for global markets to improve and for the international consumption of dairy products to increase, but we need to do more to help producers in the short term to recognise that dairy farmers are part of the backbone of the rural economy. It is not in the national interest to continue to see their loss.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing the debate and I commend the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on its report, which provides a helpful backdrop to the proceedings. There seems to be much consensus from industry, stakeholders and others that the present low prices and market volatility are largely attributable to increased global production, lower demand than anticipated in China and the impact of Russian sanctions on EU imports.
There is also fairly widespread agreement that, in the longer term, the demand for dairy products worldwide is likely to rise and our producers could access growing international markets. In the meantime, however, as we have already heard, the situation is a lot less rosy. Farm-gate prices are below the cost of production, which is creating a critical situation for many dairy farmers, some of whom have been struggling to stay afloat for some years.
I have a sense of déjà vu, because back in 2012 we debated the crisis in the dairy industry here in Westminster Hall. At that time, I welcomed the introduction of what was then the new voluntary code of conduct, but I pointed out that farm-gate prices were still too low to be viable, and that, until the prices paid to producers exceeded the cost of production, we would not have a sustainable dairy industry. That essential issue, which is not fully addressed by either the voluntary code or the Groceries Code Adjudicator, still underpins the problems facing the dairy sector.
Most of Scotland’s milk production—92% of it—is for domestic UK markets, and primary producers, who have high input costs, are caught in and continually squeezed by over-concentrated supply chains. Dairy farmers point out that that those who supply Asda, Morrisons, Lidl, Aldi, Iceland and Waitrose receive substantially less than the cost of production for their milk. Asda’s suppliers say that they receive 56p for four pints against a production cost of 68p. Dairy producers cannot be expected to subsidise retailers in that way. In the long term, it is not in the interests of our food security or consumers to push dairy farmers out of business.
There has been some discussion about whether the voluntary code is operating as it should, whether the EU intervention price is too low and whether the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator should be extended. The voluntary code has been a positive move—as far as it goes—but it is not designed to tackle underlying structural problems. The dairy industry in north-east Scotland—what is left of it—illustrates well the limitations of the voluntary code in practice in that there is only one processor. That is the case in many parts of rural Scotland. The voluntary code can help in terms of conditions of contracts if stakeholders choose to adhere to it, but, if circumstances change, it is very weak in that there is often no other show in town. That lack of competition means that, in negotiations between producers and processors, one player holds all the cards. That highlights the underlying problems of a concentrated supply chain.
When legislation for the Groceries Code Adjudicator was going through Parliament back in 2012, I argued strongly that the restrictions on who could make representations to the adjudicator would place serious limitations on its effectiveness. I would definitely like to see the adjudicator being able to investigate complaints from parties other than direct suppliers. The situation we are discussing is a good example of where that would be beneficial. However, that would still address only the symptoms.
Dr Whiteford
I will not allow an intervention. I apologise. The Government’s failure to empower the adjudicator to impose penalties on those in violation of the code is a real dereliction that I hope they will put right with all due haste. I do not want the adjudicator to be another useless quango. Given the time constraints, I will not say anything about the intervention price except that I hope that the Minister will raise that at EU level so that it is on the policy makers’ agenda.
To allow our dairy sector to sink and diminish without trace is short-sighted. We all recognise that there is a future for the sector in growing export markets. If we are smart, we could develop those markets for high quality, value added products. We have a strong traditional industry with a reputation for quality, excellent animal welfare and food standards and distinctive, unique regional products. Notwithstanding the current market issues, there are substantial and growing opportunities for our dairy industry and a clear role for Governments throughout the UK in supporting their development. However, while we are still selling milk below the cost of production, we will not have a sustainable industry.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing such a timely debate. I will share some of the evidence that the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs heard in addition to our conclusions. One of the most striking things I have found in representing the deeply rural constituency of Thirsk, Malton and Filey and its dwindling number of milk producers is that, in the time that the Groceries Code Adjudicator has been in place, there has not been a single investigation. I welcome the laying of the statutory instrument, but that situation must be rectified by allowing her the power not just to levy fines, but to take an investigation off her own bat. If she is not allowed to do own-initiative investigations, we will not see any progress.
It is not often that, the week after the Committee reports to the House, the Prime Minister takes up two or three of our core recommendations, but that is what happened in this case, which was very welcome indeed. I hope that the Minister will leap into action to ensure that the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s remit and the code will apply to this supply chain. There is a commonly-held belief, which has been explored on many occasions in this Chamber, that the code does not apply in this case. That leaves the small farmer exposed.
I express my hesitation about seeing further concentration in the market. We also need to look at why co-operatives work so successfully in countries such as my second homeland of Denmark but not so well here. They can negotiate collectively on price, contract terms and conditions and that must be considered.
I applaud the moves towards country of origin labelling and I press, as the whole Committee does, for an urgent review of the intervention price. It is welcome that the Government have set up, for the first time, an agriculture counsellor to be based in Beijing. The drive by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for exports is welcome, but we must also support those producers, such as Shepherds Purse, just two fields along from where I live in North Yorkshire, who are creating cheeses that compete with many of the popular brands that we currently import.
There is a vibrant future for the dairy industry, but, should prices go up again, potential producers and farmers must look to the fact that the market is very small. We must look at the difference between the small, individual farmer and the might, weight and strength of the processor as well as that of the supermarket. I leave everyone with the thought that until that chain and that relationship is addressed, I do not see there being any change to either the dairy price or the dairy industry going forward. However, I believe that the groceries code and the adjudicator’s role are key to strengthening and restoring the balance for the dairy farmer and ensuring a sustainable future, so that the cost of a pint of milk reflects the cost of production.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), who is doing an excellent job as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I appreciate the considered and thoughtful evidence-based report that her Committee has done.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing the debate. Since I have been in the House, I have been working with him on rural issues. When he was the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, he came to the Anglesey show to see the best county in the United Kingdom in the glorious sunshine at its best, with the dairy industry central to that. He and I have been singing from the same hymn sheet for some time, and he helped me with a private Member’s Bill for a supermarket ombudsman at the latter end of the last Parliament—he was one of its sponsors. It was good that, at that time, the DEFRA teams in each of the major parties were on board, but it was difficult getting to the Business, Innovation and Skills Front-Bench teams. That has been part of the problem, and we should concentrate on that. This is specifically an agricultural issue as well, and we should try to look at it in that way to get a better deal for farmers.
The dairy industry is important and we should not see it in isolation. If we combine food, farming and tourism, we are talking about a huge sector of the British economy. At the centre of that are the dairy farmers and the farming community, so we should not look at this problem in isolation, but it is a special issue.
The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) is just leaving the Chamber. I started my working life on a farm. When machinery broke down I milked cows by hand, so I have some grass-roots experience—and some other experiences from the end of a cow—to bring to this debate. The serious point, however, is that I understand how special dairy farming is, because dairy production cannot be turned on and off at a tap when there are volatile prices and exterior factors across the world. Unlike sheep farmers and others that can diversify into other areas, dairy farmers cannot do that so easily, and I want to highlight that point.
I agree with the 12 or 13-point plan suggested by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley. We need a specific plan. In Wales, the issue is devolved and a dairy plan is coming into being, which concentrates on many of the issues that have been mentioned today. It is not an isolated issue for each Assembly and Parliament to deal with. It is a UK and global problem, and we need a UK response. That is why DEFRA needs to co-ordinate a plan of that nature to get the fairness that we all want for dairy producers.
For my final minute, I want to turn to the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I am hearing good noises about it in this morning’s debate, but in this Parliament the House was given an opportunity to water down the supermarket ombudsman’s powers, and unfortunately they were watered down. When that went through the House, we warned that if there were a toothless referee, it would not be able to make an impact. A referee must be able to come down on both sides in the game—not that I am saying it is a game—so we need to strengthen it. We need to name and shame. We have been calling for that, but it has been resisted.
I have been hearing that there is internal strife between the two parties of the coalition Government, but let us put that aside. Let us ensure that we get—[Interruption.] It is not “nonsense”. The ability to fine early on is needed. We need an ombudsman that has teeth. We need the referee to be able to put forward strong recommendations and have a proper inquiry. As the EFRA Committee said, this is a UK problem. British goods and produce are the best in the world; let us make sure we provide fairness for those best producers.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Before I call Mr Ollerenshaw, to whom I will give the four minutes, because he has had no warning of the fact that there will be less time, I tell hon. Members that I will be taking the time limit down to two and a half minutes. I appreciate that that is tight, but I suspect that much of what needs to be said has already been said. If Members can concentrate on making just the points they really need to make, we will still get everybody in, but it will be tight.
Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)
It is great to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Roger—I accept your strictures and will try to get in under four minutes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing the debate; obviously, Lancashire leads the way, as per usual, on this issue. In Lancashire, according to figures from the National Farmers Union, we lost 28 dairy farmers last year. That still leaves over 500 firms—mainly family firms—such as the prize-winning Whitlow dairy herd in Preesall. As my hon. Friend pointed out, many of those families’ tenancy or ownership of small-scale farms goes back hundreds of years and they often have 50 to 500 cows.
I shall try not to repeat what others have said, but the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) spoke about scale, and in these debates, we need to point out that this is not some minor rural issue. It is a major British industry. We are the third biggest producer of milk in Europe, and the 10th biggest in the world, with nearly £4.5 billion of product. That is what we need to mention to break down some of the barriers that people who are perhaps not from rural areas have in understanding what we are trying to do.
The recent price volatility is complex. There is almost another cold war, with Russia cutting back on dairy imports. Since 2010, Members have seen this extremely volatile market going up and down, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) pointed out in a very important Select Committee report.
On the slashing of milk prices in supermarkets, rather than focusing on the retail price, perhaps we need to focus on what the supermarkets are paying the milk producers. That is where the issue lies, not in whether supermarkets run a loss leader at the front end. We should not tar all supermarkets with the same brush. I add my praise for Booths supermarkets in the north-west, and Edwin Booth, for maintaining the highest prices paid to producers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley said.
However, there are no quick fixes. We have gone through the general agreement that the EU intervention price is set too low to be helpful, and that needs to be reviewed. We all agree on the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Some farmers still do not see what that means and how it will have an impact on their lives; we need to do something about that, and I am grateful for the Select Committee’s support on that issue.
The labelling pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) is absolutely key. We need to get the labels right, so that people are able to buy what is made and produced in Britain—which actually tastes like cheese, unlike some of the competitors one finds abroad. I want to mention Garstang blue, made near to me at the Dewlay cheese production, just below my constituency.
We need producer organisations, such as Bowland Fresh, which has been mentioned. I understand that Yew Tree Dairy in Skelmersdale has now introduced a milk drying plant, which might help prevent volatility over time. The NFU’s suggestion for a futures market in dairy—again, to smooth out the price—has not been mentioned so far today, and it seems to be a practical way forward. All these bits and pieces have been suggested, but what we want to see from the Minister is those bits and pieces starting to come together in a policy to save a vital part of British agriculture.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Members now have two and a half minutes, without hesitation or deviation. I call Sarah Newton.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I will try my best, Sir Roger.
Tamara Hooper is a constituent of mine who farms some land that I am very fond of. It is next to the farm that my godfather farmed, and her tale is of the situation faced by many farmers in my constituency, who have tried over generations to keep their way of life and first-class dairy farms going. Their huge skill in raising stock and looking after them and the land is passed down over generations; it is not something that people learn overnight.
Tamara Hooper is currently being paid 24.81p a litre by Arla. That is simply unsustainable. The 48 companies that rely on her farm will go out of business unless we do something about it. In my lifetime, I have seen the number of dairy farms in my constituency drop like a stone to the handful that remain. Some enterprising Cornish farmers have been able to develop cheeses, ice creams, milks and butters. There are many household names that people now find in supermarkets, which is great. I hope that many more of them will be supported to do that, but right now, Tamara and her family face going out of business. It takes time for people to set up new relationships and sell their milk directly. It takes time for people to train themselves as a cheesemaker, and they have simply run out of time.
I support all the work that has been done by the Select Committee and in the charter proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), which points to a series of practical things that the Government can do to intervene in a broken market. We have to intervene so that when the upturn that we all expect and anticipate comes, we will still have farms and farmers able to meet that opportunity. Just as we have a strategy for national energy security, we need a proper strategy for farming and food security, because that is just as important. I urge the Minister to take on board the ideas that we have come up with this morning and take urgent action to fix the broken market.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
During the previous Parliament, in 2006, I set up the all-party group for dairy farmers. In Shropshire at that time, nearly a decade ago, we already recognised the crisis that our dairy farmers faced. Some 160 Members of Parliament joined the all-party group and we had an excellent secretariat, the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers. The Prime Minister joined the all-party group when he was Leader of the Opposition; it was the only one that he joined during that Parliament. After a year of deliberations, taking evidence, going to Brussels and meeting various organisations, we came up with two recommendations: a limited cull of badgers to deal with the crisis of bovine TB, and a Bill introducing a groceries adjudicator to regulate the supermarkets and their conduct towards processors and dairy farmers. We took those recommendations to David Miliband, who basically laughed us out of his office—
Daniel Kawczynski
We have the minutes of the meeting. Mr Miliband said that both those issues were completely unrealistic and told us that he would not do anything about them.
I look to the Minister to take action on those two vital issues before our dairy industry collapses. What does he understand to be the impact of the volatility in the dairy industry on the cattle industry? Some of my cattle farmers are starting to talk about how it is affecting them.
I would also like to ask about EU subsidies. Apparently, subsidies are available to ensure that children under five have milk, and we are not claiming all the subsidies to which we are entitled. I hope to hear what he is doing to travel around the world and ensure that everything possible is done to open up new export markets for our dairy industry, particularly in Russia, where the ban on British beef has been lifted, which is worth £150 million a year to our cattle industry. I hope that when sanctions are lifted, we will do everything possible to increase exports to Russia.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The issue that we are discussing is a major one for Britain, but it is particularly acute for North Yorkshire. Since 2002, the region has lost 489 farmers, which is the second worst performance and loss in the country. Even farmers who are doing their best to invest in and build their businesses—such as Paul and Janet Bolland near Skipton, who recently invested £700,000 in their parlours and their farm—are struggling to pay interest on those investments. I do not find compelling the argument that we should look to Europe for reductionist intervention. My fear is that other countries that have higher production costs may soak up some of the subsidy.
I agree with many of the recommendations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and I pay tribute to her for all her work as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee over the past few years. I add my support for the idea of greater teeth for the Groceries Code Adjudicator and for looking again at the voluntary contract. UK Trade & Investment needs to be a bit more robust and communicative about all the good work it is doing. I have not heard directly from it about whom I should introduce my farmers to, and how to communicate to them. It needs to get out there more and tell us what it is doing.
There are some short-term measures that I would like to see from the Treasury. HMRC could really help farmers with their monthly payments, perhaps by allowing some pooling of profits over several years rather than working on an annual basis. Above all, I think that the Minister, who has responsibility for farming, has done excellent work on the matter. I fear and suspect that were we talking about another industry such as the car industry, there would be a cross-Government task force, a committee and a cheerleader. We want that sort of focus for the dairy industry. We want somebody to take responsibility so that we know to whom we can go, across the whole gamut of Government intervention and help, to help this industry, which is in such need at the moment.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on initiating this important debate. The fall in the milk price is causing serious problems for British dairy farmers. In my constituency, dairy farmers are mainly concentrated in Kintyre and the Isle of Bute. There are many dairy farms in Kintyre and the industry is a vital part of the local economy, which would struggle without it. As well as direct employment in the farms themselves, the dairy industry supports many other local businesses, including the Campbeltown creamery, which makes the famous Mull of Kintyre cheddar. I urge First Milk to invest in the creamery to secure its future and that of the local dairy industry. Grants from the Scottish Government have been offered, provided that First Milk makes its own investment.
Although there is widespread agreement that dairy demand will outstrip supply in the long term, which will create real opportunities for the UK dairy supply chain in the future, farmers have to survive the current crisis. EU intervention should be considered until the situation with the Russian import ban and other market forces has been resolved. Price intervention is set too low to have any effect before the situation becomes even more serious.
Like most hon. Members who have spoken, I welcome the Government’s decision to grant the Groceries Code Adjudicator the power to fine supermarkets that have breached the groceries code, and I hope that that will act as a deterrent to supermarkets. However, many dairy farmers do not fall within the scope of the groceries code because they do not sell directly to supermarkets, so the code must be extended to include complaints from indirect suppliers such as dairy farmers. The code is not due to be reviewed until next year, I believe, but I urge the Government to bring the review date forward.
The adjudicator should be able to be proactive, and should be seen as a genuine threat to those who breach good practice. In times of price falls, it is the primary producer—the dairy farmer—whose business is impacted by the low prices. Those further up the supply chain pass price cuts down the chain, but the long-suffering dairy farmer has nobody else to pass a price cut to, and they have to take the hit.
HMRC must also be more helpful by allowing dairy farmers to spread profits over several years. I urge the Government to take the steps that I have outlined to help the dairy industry survive the current crisis and secure a good long-term future.
Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Well done to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans). My constituency has a large number of dairy farmers, some of whom have positive stories to tell. Others, however, have to contend with the ongoing problem of bovine TB, and the volatility of milk prices may be the final nail in the coffin for them.
I want to take the opportunity to congratulate some dairy farmers who have diversified and become processors. The gold award-winning champion Philip Stansfield formed the Cornish Cheese Company, which the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee visited last year. The story of the young guy who produces Cornish gouda using his father’s cows is an example of a fantastic way of utilising the family milk to help with running costs. Bill Clarke and his wife, from Greymare farm near Lostwithiel, sold their cows in 2001 to concentrate on their processing business. They work only with Cornish farmers, of whom they have 23, all from within a 25-mile radius of their farm. They started from small beginnings, bottling milk from their own herd once the children were in bed. Their sons have now joined the business, which employs more than 100 people.
The story is not the same for all dairy farmers in south-east Cornwall, but it could be. I have recently been visited by a dairy farmer who is really concerned about his future. Having invested in new equipment, he fears that he will be unable to sustain his farm with such very low prices. He is fearful for his future.
I support the conclusions and recommendations of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the recommendations that have been made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley. I want to see a vibrant and thriving dairy industry in south-east Cornwall, with both processors and producers.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
As a word of early warning, Mr Farron is next. Mr Williams, you rose earlier and, because Sir William Cash has left, I can possibly squeeze you in at the end. I put you on notice.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans). Dairy farming is integral and vital to the economy, culture and landscape of Cumbria. Across the UK, over the past four Parliaments, we have seen a more than 50% drop in the number of dairy farm holdings and a more than 10% reduction in milk-producing capacity because of the lopsided, counter-productive, unfair and unfree market.
It is an outrage and a great shame that it has taken this crisis to prove right those of us who wanted the Groceries Code Adjudicator to have more powers and more teeth. We should have got it right at the beginning, but the power to fine is right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) rightly said, we should ensure that the adjudicator can look beyond the direct relationship with supermarkets to the indirect relationships, because that is where farmers are being done over most regularly and most heinously. We must look at the processor monopoly within the market, too, and consider putting the code of practice on a statutory footing.
I challenge the notion abroad that, somehow, the supermarkets are using milk as a loss-leader, which is not the case. Nearly 50% of the average price of a litre of milk in the supermarket goes into the supermarket’s pocket. There is room within the supermarkets’ profit margins to deal with this situation, and we must not let them hide behind the idea that this is all about world commodity markets when it is not. Poverty and hardship is now rife among dairy farmers. The inability of dairy farmers to reinvest in their future and their stock is now commonplace, and we see the loss of family farms on at least a daily basis.
John Maynard Keynes once said:
“Markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.”
That is absolutely the case within the farming and dairy sectors, and we must recognise that we have to save the supermarkets from themselves before they completely lose the producers on whom they rely. It is an outrage and an irony that we can go down a supermarket aisle to buy Fairtrade coffee and tea from Nicaragua and Colombia, but down the next aisle, getting the milk to put in that tea and coffee, we find milk ripped from the hands of a Cumbrian dairy farmer for less than it cost them to produce. We are passionate about fair trade for farmers from Colombia, but equally passionate about fair trade for farmers from Cumbria.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing this excellent debate. I want to make the case that, across the west of the country, on the grasslands throughout the country and on my own grasslands in the Blackdown hills and Exmoor, dairy farming is important not only to dairy farmers but to the whole farming industry; some 60% or 70% of our beef cattle come from the dairy sector. From the time that a cow goes to the bull, or is inseminated, it is three years before that heifer comes into milk production. We cannot turn milk production on and off overnight, which is why it is a special case. We have too much supply and not enough demand, but we have to do something about it. The Prime Minister and other Ministers are taking this seriously, and one of the keys is public procurement and ensuring that, by not always having to buy the cheapest milk, we can get our own production into our schools and prisons, or wherever it might be; let us ensure that our own milk and cheese is in there.
On retailers and the Groceries Code Adjudicator, I am delighted that a statutory instrument is being used to introduce substantial fines for supermarkets. Not all supermarkets are bad, and many have done a good job, but many are driving down milk prices, not for liquid milk but in the processed cheese market for their own-label cheese, which needs to be investigated thoroughly. The European Commission has a role to play in intervention. The Commission must up the intervention price, buy milk powder and cheese and put them into storage, thereby taking them out of the market. Once the market recovers, and it will, the Commission can let that cheese and milk powder back out into the market, which will not cost a great deal of public money. We have to take action. Standing around and wringing our hands is no good. I understand from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that there will be a milk summit, which is absolutely right. We must sit down with everyone and thrash this out, because we cannot destroy our dairy herds and then expect to pick them up overnight—that just will not happen. I am delighted that this debate has taken place, but let us see some real action.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I apologise to the House for arriving late. Other duties held me back. I am impressed with the understanding of the dairy industry that I have heard in this debate, which is partly due to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report. I am pleased that a number of those recommendations have been enacted so soon.
I will concentrate my few remarks on the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I am pleased that she will shortly have the power to impose fines, because only fines really count to commercial organisations. Yes, naming and shaming is important, but fines are important, too. Reference has been made to extending the adjudicator’s powers to ensure that she can examine the whole length of the food chain. Very few farmers in my constituency trade directly with supermarkets, and most people who produce milk do not sell directly to a supermarket.
I am also concerned that the Groceries Code Adjudicator should be able proactively to examine situations where she, or possibly he in the future, believes there to be a failure of the marketplace. At the moment, she can act only on a complaint. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), producers sometimes have only one customer. Such producers are therefore very cautious about making a complaint that may result in him or her being put on a blacklist and being unable to sell their product.
Thank you for this opportunity, Sir Roger. I look forward to hearing the closing remarks.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
This is an important and interesting debate. The dairy farming industry is integral to Staffordshire and my constituents, as it has been for generations, and it is incredibly important for the local economy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on his charter for the dairy industry, and I am extremely glad that he has listed public procurement, as so many others have today, as part and parcel of giving a fair deal to the dairy farming industry. I also congratulate the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the Committee’s fifth report, which it published the other day. We are seriously getting into it and, additionally, the Prime Minister has given his backing.
We will hear from the Minister in a moment, but when we consider the questions of intervention price, labelling and public procurement, there is a European dimension. Not unnaturally, as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I am concerned that we should not be held back simply because the rules and regulations that have been devised and that generate an enormous number of problems for our dairy farming industry, and indeed for other businesses, are allowed to prevail against our national interest. I will leave that thought with the House.
I tabled early-day motion 675 on the non-payment of dairy farmers, and there are a number of signatories. I would be extremely grateful if people signed that early-day motion, which points out, as others have said today, that
“the number of dairy farmers had dipped below 10,000 for the first time, a 50 per cent fall since 2001”.
That is a serious figure that demonstrates everything that has been said in this room by these extremely eloquent speakers on behalf of dairy farmers. The case has been made, and we now look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)
This has already been an excellent debate. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), a good Swansea boy, and all Members who have spoken for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and others reminded us of the importance of the dairy industry not simply to the economy, growth and exports but to the social fabric of our rural communities, their interplay with our towns, and our health and well-being.
About 14 billion litres of milk are produced in the UK each year, and about half of that is used for liquid milk. The UK is the third largest milk producer in the European Union, after Germany and France, and the 10th largest in the world. Given the industry’s value of £4.27 billion at 2013 market prices, its importance is clear.
However, despite the long-term optimism expressed by some Members, Ministers and EU Agricultural Commissioner Phil Hogan, the dairy sector has suffered from low prices and volatility for years. The November 2014 farm-gate price of 28.91p per litre was down 16% from the previous year. The 2012 milk crisis led to blockades of depots and processors, and thousands of angry farmers descended on Westminster to confront Ministers. In fact, the former Minister who was confronted by those angry dairy farmers, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), is now the chairman of First Milk, which is owned and run by dairy farmers who have been forced to delay payments. He told the press recently that
“hundreds of UK dairy farmers are unlikely to find a home for their milk this spring.”
In addition to that delay, First Milk’s producers have seen the price they are paid plummet from 32.5p per litre last spring to 21.2p per litre for those supplying the Co-op on liquid contracts and 21.57p per litre for those in the manufacturing pool.
The average farm-gate price of about 28p per litre disguises huge variations. A third of liquid milk is sold to retailers, which base the price they pay on what it costs the farmers to produce it, plus an agreed margin. Sainsbury’s and Marks and Spencer currently pay 34p per litre, Waitrose pays 33p per litre, Tesco pays 32p per litre and the Co-op pays almost 31p per litre.
Some major retailers, though not all, argue that their massive discounting of liquid milk at four pints for less than 90p in their endless price wars is not done at the cost of farmers. They argue that the only casualty in the price wars is their own profit margins, but frankly, even supermarkets that pay decent farm-gate prices to the producers and have the most direct relationships cannot absolve themselves of responsibility. The fact that they engage in price wars in which liquid milk is a prime weapon embeds the idea that milk is a commodity to be undervalued and sold for less than the price of water or carbonated and unhealthy fizzy drinks. Ultimately, the only casualty in the price war is the dairy farmer. We need to see not only British milk but British dairy products on supermarket shelves.
Some retailers and their production chains do not contract directly with producers, so they may not have regard to the voluntary dairy code, which I will return to in a moment. They do not absorb the costs of the price wars themselves, and instead put pressure on their supply chain, which causes farmers to reduce costs further below the cost of production.
Two thirds of liquid milk produced is sold to processors, which is where the cuts are being made. Arla, which supplies Asda, pays farmers 25p per litre. Müller-Wiseman pays the same. Dairy Crest is set to cut its price to less than 25p per litre, and we await a decision on the sale of Dairy Crest’s liquid milk division to Müller in the latest act of business consolidation to drive out costs. First Milk, as I said, pays less than 22p per litre. Iceland supermarket is supplied by Arla and Müller-Wiseman, but it has asked them to base their future prices on the cost of production—that is at least a step forward. Morrisons has announced that it intends to establish its own producer group, but in the meantime it gets its milk from Arla and Dairy Crest.
There is also huge variation in production costs. The figure most commonly cited is the National Farmers Union average of 28p per litre. However, the most recent figures from the industry body, DairyCo, show that there is a 14p per litre difference in the cost of production between the top quarter and the bottom quarter of farms.
We need a prompt review of how the whole dairy industry is overseen through the dairy code and the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The genesis of the dairy code, which was established on a voluntary basis in November 2012, was a dairy crisis that culminated in blockades, protests and a Minister leaving his post benighted but not delighted at his treatment. However, the independent review by Alex Fergusson MSP in 2014 proposed an extension to retailers and measures to increase the uptake into the 15% that are not currently signed up to the code.
When the public and the political awareness of the pressure on dairy farmers is so great and when the public relations disaster for processors and retailers is so potent, why is the take-up not higher? Why is it not universal? Will the Minister commit to name and shame everybody who has not signed up to the dairy code in public, on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website and in Parliament? Will he also commit to name and shame and publish a regularly updated list on the DEFRA website and in Parliament of all the processors and retailers that participate in supply chains that pay farmers less than the average cost of production?
The Government, in evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in 2013, repeated their previously stated position. They said that they would seriously consider legislating for compulsory contracts if the code fails to deliver the desired outcomes. Does the Minister now feel that that is needed, or has he considered it and ruled it out?
I and some Members here today know that the Government had to be dragged into agreeing to financial penalty powers for the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
Huw Irranca-Davies
I sat on the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill Committee, so I can tell the hon. Gentleman that they did. They conceded only under pressure from Members on both sides of the Committee. They argued against giving it those powers, which perhaps explains why it has taken so long to introduce the regulations. I and others have repeatedly raised that delay in Parliament.
I ask the Minister to clarify what the Prime Minister meant when he was pressed on extending the role and remit of the GCA to the dairy industry at Prime Minister’s questions on 21 January. He said:
“I also think it is time to look at whether there are ways in which its remit can be extended to make sure it looks at more of this vital industry.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2015; Vol. 591, c. 217.]
We all welcome the sinner who repents, but that issue was discussed ad nauseam in the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill Committee two years ago, and the Government rejected it. We had the opportunity to extend the powers along the whole supply chain, including processors and intermediaries, but that was dismissed as disproportionate. We also had the opportunity to enable the GCA to investigate abuses, but that was dismissed as allowing “fishing expeditions”.
I seek clarity, so let me ask the Minister directly. When the Prime Minister referred to extending the remit of the GCA to look at more of the industry, did he mean that it should include intermediaries? Did he mean that the GCA should have the power to instigate proactive investigations into abuses, which the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee asked for?
The current pressures on the dairy industry go beyond the UK. They reflect reduced demand in China due to the economic slow-down and the closure of the Russian market. The recent increase in production in the EU due to confidence in higher milk prices in 2013, good grazing and good weather, and increased yields in the UK conspired to lead to an over-supply. Arla suggests that global production is increasing by 5% per year, while demand is growing by only 2%. There is no single answer, but there are several areas in which we need to take action in the face of continuing long-term global price volatility and predicted continuing falls in farm-gate prices in the near future.
Will the Minister update us on the progress on country-of-origin labelling, on the establishment of producer organisations in the dairy sector, on the futures market for dairy and on what the uptake and interest in it has been? How much of the countryside productivity scheme money—the £141 million—has gone directly to dairy farmers, and what measures has it funded? What progress has been made with banks and lenders to deal with the immediate cash-flow problems? What discussions has the Minister had about the resilience of the dairy sector in the face of increased volatility that could follow the ending of milk quotas on 1 April this year? Most of all, we would like to know what the Prime Minister meant on 21 January. Was he serious, was he committed or was he deluded? Was he misinformed? Did he misspeak? Was he off piste and off message? Was it a soundbite in the run-up to the election to make the farming community think he is listening? The Minister has the chance to clarify whether the Prime Minister knew what he was talking about, or whether he was just spinning out of control.
It is over to the Minister to sort out the confusion from No. 10. Here we are again, three months to the day after the previous dairy debate, and three years after the previous dairy crisis. Our dairy farmers need and deserve some straight answers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing this important debate. Given the sheer number of Members who have wanted to speak today, it is clear that he has touched a nerve and alighted on a serious problem, which is the current state of affairs in the dairy industry. I am well aware that many dairy farmers are suffering at the moment. Yesterday, I was in Cumbria and I met a group of dairy farmers there. Earlier this year, the issue dominated discussions at our regular farm resilience group, as it did at our meeting of the dairy supply chain forum last November, and we have another meeting next week with the Secretary of State to look further at the issues facing dairy farmers and to consider how we can help them.
It is fair to say that the dairy industry has had a rollercoaster ride in the last couple of years. In 2012, we were exactly where we are now, with prices on the floor; in fact, in many ways the situation then was worse, because feed prices were very high and dairy farmers were losing a lot of money. Then, last year—2013-14—we saw a very good year for dairy farmers. Prices were much higher, at around 30p to 35p per litre. feed costs came down, and the farm business survey showed that they had a good year last year. Since then, there has been a big increase in production in New Zealand, with production there up around 18% over the last year. Demand in China dropped off quite suddenly, as the Chinese had built up stockpiles of skimmed milk powder and came back out of the market. Production in Europe is up by 8% to 10%, and the Russian trade ban has aggravated things. As a result of all that, on the international auctions we have seen a very sharp decline in prices, which brings us to our current low level.
As a number of hon. Members have already alluded to, it is worth noting that there are differences between different farm businesses; different farmers face a wide range of costs. Yesterday, I visited a farmer who has Jersey cattle on an extensive grass-based system, and his costs of production were only around 22p per litre. It is not always about “inefficient” and “efficient” producers. Sometimes, efficient producers choose to run quite intensive systems, which means they have higher labour, feed and capital costs, and have to make more investment. Quite often, those producers find that they have higher production costs—for some of them, it costs 28p to 30p per litre—and if they are receiving low prices they are losing money.
The other element to bear in mind is that there is a big spread in the prices that farmers receive. At the top end, there are those farmers who are responsible for around 30% of UK liquid milk production and they are on cost-of-production contracts to the major supermarkets. Many of them are still receiving around 30p per litre for their milk. At the other end, there are those farmers who supply processors and consequently they are much more exposed to the international commodity markets, such as those supplying First Milk, which takes most of the milk production in Scotland, the north, the borders and Wales. At the moment, First Milk is able to pay farmers only around 20p per litre, so there is a big spread, both in terms of production costs and the prices farmers are paid.
I will point out, first of all, the things that we are doing in the short term. Immediately, we have to address farmers’ cash-flow challenges. Regarding those farmers who have not yet received their single farm payment—most farmers have received it, but some have not—we have told the Rural Payments Agency to absolutely prioritise dairy farmers, and particularly those supplying First Milk.
I had a meeting with the banks two weeks ago to encourage them to show forbearance to their business customers who are dairy farmers suffering difficulty at the moment, and I will continue to monitor the process as far as the banks are concerned.
We have urged Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to be sympathetic in its dealings with dairy farmers. Those dairy farmers who had a good year last year potentially face quite a large tax bill, which is due to be paid in June this year, and we need to show some forbearance to those farmers who will have just weathered a very difficult winter.
Finally DairyCo, which is part of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, has set up a special unit to give financial advice to farmers to help them through these difficult times. Also, we will shortly open a new round of rural development programme schemes, which will have dedicated measures to try to help farmers to improve their productivity and reduce their costs.
In the medium term, there are other issues that we are looking to explore. First, there is exports, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. I completely agree that if we want to have a resilient industry for the long term, we have got to open new export markets. We have seen good progress in this area. In the past year, there has been 47% growth in exports to non-EU markets of our dairy products. In fact, our total dairy exports are now at their highest level ever, at £1.3 billion. A few weeks ago, the Secretary of State was in China where she had discussions with the Chinese about how we can open up these opportunities, and we will shortly receive a delegation from Brazil to consider the opportunities for dairy exports to that country.
Another key area that I have been working on with the National Farmers Union in particular is around market measures to deal with volatility. In the US, when quotas were removed, quite a sophisticated futures market was developed to help to manage volatility. Typically, US dairy farmers fix around 40% of their production at a fixed price, hedged in the futures market, and leave only 60% of their production to the vagaries of the market. That takes some of the extreme peaks and troughs in the market out of their income profile. We can learn lessons from that system and we are working on this issue with the NFU. There are embryonic markets in skimmed milk powder and butter, for instance, which are run by the London international financial futures and options exchange, and Eurex, and we would like to see whether we can develop that futures model further.
We are keen to promote country-of-origin labelling. The UK was at the forefront of arguing for improved country-of-origin labelling on beef, lamb, pigs and poultry, and we should do the same on dairy products, so that we do not have Irish milk being imported to the UK and processed into cheese, before it is fobbed off as a product of the UK.
Procurement was mentioned by a number of hon. Members. Last year, we launched the Bonfield report, which was a new approach to procurement. It sets out a balanced scorecard. The uptake from schools and hospitals has been good in that respect, and we are keen to encourage further uptake.
George Eustice
I cannot give way, as I want to cover as many points as possible. I agree with the point made about procurement, and we are making progress in that area.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I can confirm that a week ago the order that establishes the ability to levy fines was laid. It is subject to an affirmative resolution process, so it will now go through Committees in both Houses, but that will happen during this Parliament.
A number of hon. Members talked about the extension of the groceries code. We are considering that. Last year, I considered whether we should place the dairy supply chain code on a statutory basis, but because there is existing EU legislation in this area—a Common Market organisation regulation that establishes the grounds of such codes—we would end up with a weaker code if we put it on a statutory footing, because we would not be able to stipulate that farmers could walk away at three months’ notice. Therefore, while we had a contingency plan to put the dairy supply chain code on a statutory footing if it collapsed, we would have ended up, as I say, with a code that was weaker, so there are limitations to doing that.
When it comes to the powers of the GCA, we have to realise that they are not reliant on complaints. They already have full powers to investigate
“if there are reasonable grounds to suspect”
that the code has been broken. So, those measures are already in place. In fact, when I met Christine Tacon recently to discuss this matter, she said that one of the biggest things she is trying to encourage is better training of processors and those dealing with supermarkets to ensure that they use the code effectively and say to supermarkets, “You’ll understand that I can’t accept what you are asking me to accept, because it would be in breach of the code,” and to do so in a way that ensures everybody abides by the code. That is how we can help those further down the supply chain, because one of the issues is that it might sometimes be easier for processors to take the hit from the supermarket and pass it on to farmers. We need to ensure that they hold their retail customers to the code.
A number of hon. Members mentioned intervention prices. I have to say that Commissioner Hogan thought that that would be the wrong way to go when it was discussed at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council last week. One of the difficulties we would have is that other farmers in the UK would have to pick up the cost of such action through crisis measures, and we would tend to find that other European countries would benefit most, because although we have low prices here, other European countries have even lower prices. Also, the history of such schemes tends to be that the UK pays while others benefit, so we have to be concerned about that. However, we have the milk market observatory at EU level, and other crisis measures, particularly to mitigate the effects of the Russian ban, have been considered.
Hon. Members mentioned the EU school milk scheme. I will say, briefly, that we access that scheme, although it is not a very generous scheme; we have to top it up a lot, but we do use it. When it comes to the number of dairy farmers, there has been consolidation over many years, but production in the UK is now at a 10-year high. So, although we have fewer dairy farmers, total dairy production in the UK is still higher than it has been for a decade.
I will finish on a brighter note, by saying that the long-term prospects for this industry are good. We are seeing a 2.5% rise in demand per year, and the UK is well placed to take new opportunities in markets. We should also note that most analysts are now predicting a recovery of milk prices—farm-gate milk prices—later this year. The last three Fonterra global dairy trade auctions have shown a recovery in skimmed milk powder prices on the global market; in fact, they are up 15% since the beginning of the year. As I said, it will take time for that to feed through to farm-gate prices, but most analysts now expect that we will see a recovery in farm-gate milk prices from the summer onwards and that could be quite a strong recovery, if the early indications on the international auction in recent days are anything to go by.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
I thank all Members for their forbearance this morning. It has been difficult, but the House has conducted itself impeccably.
National Grid (Montgomeryshire)
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
It is always a great pleasure to serve under your fair chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am sure today will be exactly the same. I normally try to be a fairly relaxed and laid-back speaker in the House of Commons, and I like to be consensual in my general approach and debating style. I think that that is probably the most effective way for someone to get what they want, but since 2005 there has been one issue on which I have had great difficulty remaining calm whenever I have addressed it. It involves the industrialisation and destruction of the wondrous part of Wales where I have always lived and which is the subject of today’s debate. I want to speak about the mid-Wales connection project and the behaviour of National Grid in forcing it on the people I represent.
I have divided my speech into four sections. First, I will outline the general background to provide context. It will be necessary to make passing reference to a conjoined public inquiry into five wind farms that will have an impact on my constituency. A planning inspector’s report is being considered by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. To reassure the Minister, I respect her position and totally accept that she will not be able to make any comment on planning issues that could eventually land on her desk for decision. Today’s debate is about the mid-Wales connection project. It is a linked proposal being taken forward by National Grid, and I need to refer to the wind farms public inquiry only to create context.
Secondly, I will describe how National Grid has behaved in Montgomeryshire and north Shropshire, which has shocked me. I believe fellow MPs, the Minister and the public will also be shocked to learn about the tactics that this massive leviathan of an industrial complex and its agents have used to force their will on the local population. Thirdly, I will refer to what I consider to be the outrageous way in which National Grid has sought to influence the planning system using its power and money, which all seems to be entirely within the law. One issue I will raise, and to which I hope the Minister will respond, is whether that unparalleled power to influence planning applications, before and as they are being decided, should be reconsidered.
Fourthly, I will comment on the impact that the behaviour of National Grid, widely perceived by the public to be close to Government and thought by many to be a part of Government, has on the public’s faith and confidence in the democratic process. To finish, I will press the Minister to call on National Grid to suspend the mid-Wales connection project, at least until there are approved wind farms to be connected by it.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and neighbour for the persistent and dogged way in which he has championed this issue to protect his beautiful constituency and his constituents’ views. National Grid could not find, if it tried, a location to generate electricity that was further from its existing network. As a result of the construction, huge swathes of Shropshire will be carpeted over with pylons to connect the electricity to the grid, and that is completely unacceptable.
Glyn Davies
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his support.
First, to give the context, the rumpus began in 2005 when the Welsh Government announced in their infamous technical advice note 8 that Montgomeryshire—it spilled over into Radnorshire and Ceredigion—was to be transformed into a wind farm landscape. Although I had always been sceptical about the balance of benefit associated with onshore wind, I had not been a vociferous opponent until then. I had not thought the odd wind farm development would lead to the complete desecration of the mid-Wales landscape. It was the astonishing scale of development that flowed from the Welsh Government announcement that shocked me, and the subtle dishonesty with which it was presented. In 2005, Montgomeryshire was already blessed with more turbines than anywhere else in Wales, and the capacity to transfer new generated power to the grid was almost exhausted. To fulfil the Welsh Government’s new policy, a new dedicated 400 kV cable would have to be built, connecting the onshore wind farms to the national grid around 40 miles away.
In 2005, I was an Opposition spokesman on this policy area in the National Assembly for Wales, and I soon understood the scale of what was being proposed. Inevitably, whatever the announced target was, the capacity of the dedicated line would be filled. The cost of it—it was probably approaching £1 billion—was such that it could not possibly be allowed to become a stranded asset. Already there are about 20 applications at varying stages of readiness for new wind farms in and around my constituency. In summary, that means 500 new turbines on top of what we have now, a 19 acre substation and a 50 km, 400 kV power line on steel towers connecting to the existing grid in north Shropshire via the beautiful Vyrnwy valley. It is desecration of landscape on a mind-blowing scale. Not surprisingly, that has outraged much of the local population.
I used the word “dishonesty” to describe the position of the Welsh Government in 2005, and I did not use it casually. When I led a group of concerned Montgomeryshire residents to Cardiff Bay to express our views on the steps of the Senedd, the First Minister, Carwyn Jones, and the Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development, John Griffiths, stated publicly in response that the national grid line would not be needed to fulfil their policies. That was untrue, and the First Minister has subsequently changed his position, very quietly. Mind you, there were getting on for 2,000 of us who travelled on a seven-hour round trip on 38 buses to make our point. I have lived in Montgomeryshire all my life, and I have never known the people of mid-Wales to be so angry.
My second point is on the behaviour of National Grid. The position is that it has been contracted by wind farm development companies to build a 400 kV line. Over the past three or four years, National Grid has sought to force the line on a reluctant population and has totally failed to engage with the people of Montgomeryshire. Yes, it has produced glossy leaflets and yes, it has arranged hundreds of local meetings, but it has never listened to anyone. It never had any intention of listening. National Grid is programmed not to listen but to cajole, to persuade and then to enforce its proposals by whatever means possible.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about National Grid and its status. I am a member of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, and we have raised that very issue. National Grid has a monopoly, and legislation has given it extra powers to be the systems operator. It decides which generation goes ahead, as well as having the grid connections. Does he agree—I hope that the Minister will take this on board, and I hope to make an intervention during her response—that we need to have proper consultation? The regulator, Ofgem, needs the responsibility and the remit to be the champion for communities, to ensure that this—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. That was far too long for an intervention.
Glyn Davies
I thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for raising that point, which I intend to raise, because it is hugely important.
Over the past year or so, I have had countless frightened constituents ring me, terrified by the bailiffs employed to enforce the National Grid’s will by the agents, Bruton Knowles, who are based in Birmingham. One constituent rang me recently to say that bailiffs had entered his property without permission, using profane language and frightening his wife and children, who fled to a back room. The police were involved. Another constituent, who lives in an isolated property, rang me to say that eight men from National Grid suddenly appeared on her drive. She sent her children upstairs, locked all the doors and rang her husband, who was at work, and my office. She was terrified. An 85-year-old constituent was advised by her friends to co-operate, because of concerns about her personal welfare.
At one meeting I attended, National Grid had brought along a Gene Hunt lookalike as an enforcer to stand in the background. Police officers were also there, as they have been throughout the supposed consultation exercise. I received an e-mail two days ago from the son of an 83-year-old constituent. He had had to come home to protect his frightened father, who had encountered two strange men emerging from behind his garage, uninvited and unknown. I could go on, but I have made the point.
I am also told that National Grid has failed to share information with the local highways department. There has been non-stop lack of openness and transparency. It is all laughably described as consultation, but it is nothing more than outright bullying, using size and money to crush a local population.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I have listened to many passionate speeches by my hon. Friend. From what he is saying, is it any wonder that members of the public have lost confidence in institutions such as National Grid? They have even lost confidence in MPs and Assembly Members because of this kind of story.
Glyn Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is the fourth point that I will be making in my speech, but for now I come to my third point.
The whole basis of National Grid’s approach has been to create an assumption that its proposals and all the consequent wind farms are inevitable. The spin has been, “You can’t stop us, so you might as well help us and make the best of it. There is no point in protesting, it’s inevitable.” Up to November more than £15 million had been spent on the project. It is a blatant attempt to influence the planning process.
I was chairman of a planning authority for seven years. I knew that I could never be influenced or seen to be influenced before a decision was taken. I was also part of the planning appeals process in the National Assembly for Wales when I was an AM. Again, I knew the importance of avoiding any perception of influence when dealing with planning applications. That is why I fully respect the Minister’s position today. Yet here we have National Grid spending £15 million to portray another 500 turbines in mid-Wales—probably 20 or so per wind farm application—as an inevitability, before any applications are decided. That is blatant pressure on the planning system.
Recently, the chief executive of Ofgem, Dermot Nolan, giving evidence to the Energy and Climate Change Committee, questioned the position of National Grid and spoke of the need for a more independent body to develop the network. At present, National Grid has a huge financial interest in expanding the network—it expands its influence—and all the costs involved are transferred to the consumer by one means or another.
The whole mid-Wales connection project is financial madness. I have never known anything so financially crazy. There has been no value for money assessment whatever, although from the perspective of National Grid, that does not matter, because the consumer will pay. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that unusually dominant position of National Grid. It seems to me, as it does to Dermot Nolan, that there is a conflict of interest and a strong case for separating the roles of transmission operator and network expansion. I must add that I am shocked that Sir Peter Gershon, the chairman of National Grid and a man of great standing, would put his reputation on the line defending what must be becoming a huge financial and totally illogical embarrassment.
My final point this morning is specific to mid-Wales and north Shropshire, but more generally relates to the confidence that the population of Britain have in the democratic process. We have seen reduced engagement with the democratic process, in particular by young people, but National Grid has been granted the power to act beyond any democratic control, spitting in the face of public opinion. Any localism agenda has been thrown out of the window and, in my view, National Grid is acting contrary to any sort of human decency.
I hope that the Minister will consider asking National Grid to scrap such a crazy project or, at the very least, to suspend it until planning permission is in place for wind farms that might need a connection.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Amber Rudd)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on securing the debate. The need for and impact of electricity network infrastructure is an important and sensitive issue. I will, if I may, deal with that issue in principle, then come on to his specific questions, to which I will seek answers from my Department, if I cannot give them in the Chamber.
I welcome the opportunity to explain the need to upgrade the electricity network, and to clarify the approach to deciding where and how new infrastructure is delivered, and how that relates to my hon. Friend’s concerns about the impacts that onshore wind developments and associated networks can have on local communities. The Government are clear that onshore wind farms and the associated network connections must be appropriately sited, and that local communities should be properly engaged. The coalition Government are committed to meeting the UK’s climate change targets, maintaining energy security—with the appropriate siting, as I said—and delivering economic growth. Achieving those objectives represents a significant challenge.
The UK is increasingly dependent on fossil fuel imports, leaving us more exposed to risks from rising global demand, limitations on production, supply constraints and price volatility. At the same time, we expect to lose around a quarter of our electricity generation capacity by 2020, as old or more polluting generation plant closes. That is why we need a mix of energy for the future, comprising nuclear, fossil fuels with carbon capture, and a major roll-out of renewables. As well as onshore wind, we want to see expansions in offshore wind, solar power and sustainable bioenergy. The Government have set the framework for delivering the appropriate energy mix through, for example, electricity market reform.
Turning to onshore wind, which is the driver for National Grid activities in Montgomeryshire, we set out in the renewables roadmap and in the electricity market reform delivery plan our ambition for 11 to 13 GW of onshore wind by 2020. That must be appropriately sited. We are clear that local communities must be properly engaged and see real benefits from hosting wind farms. A declaration on community benefits from onshore wind has been signed by developers in Wales to ensure a consistent and transparent approach to the way in which they engage with communities. Wales is already seeing community benefit funds of £5,000 per megawatt per year. The Welsh Government have developed a community benefit register to ensure greater transparency and probity. It means that everyone will be able to see and track the impact of benefits to communities and to the wider economy.
In order to accommodate the new generation, we require such sources as onshore wind, but also others such as nuclear and offshore wind, and the existing electricity network will need to be expanded.
Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)
In Cumbria, on a number of occasions I have dealt with National Grid staff on new nuclear build. I have always found them to be extremely professional. When I have wanted them to do special consultations with farmers, for example, they have always done so.
Amber Rudd
It is reassuring to hear of the hon. Gentleman’s experience in Cumbria, although that has clearly not been the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire. I will suggest some possible remedies as I make progress.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), because of my constituents. Eight thousand people replied to a consultation, decrying what National Grid proposed, but it has been utterly high-handed in dismissing such concerns, and completely ignored the possibility of the power connections and the line being put underground or undersea. Technology develops, but National Grid has ignored it completely, much to the distress of my constituents. There are probably many similarities with the situation described by the hon. Gentleman.
Amber Rudd
I am not familiar with the particular example given by the hon. Lady, but I hope that the Planning Inspectorate would review the consultation process as part of its consideration. That is part of the inspectorate’s legal obligation.
I was discussing the need to upgrade infrastructure to accommodate renewables, which in part explains why National Grid is going ahead in Montgomeryshire and why the hon. Lady had her experience. Developers of new generation, however, need the reassurance that the network will be delivered in line with their project time scales, so that they are able to generate electricity once those projects are completed. We should recognise that such generation projects are substantial long-term investments, and timely network delivery is crucial to their viability.
Before I address National Grid’s activity in Montgomeryshire, it might be helpful to explain the wider approach to deciding on new network infrastructure. Under the current regulatory framework, it is for network companies, such as National Grid, to submit proposals for new network infrastructure to the industry regulator, Ofgem, and the relevant planning authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire made some interesting points about Ofgem’s potential concerns, and referred specifically to conversations with its chief executive. I assure him that I will follow up on this debate by writing to Mr Nolan to establish whether the formal position has moved, and will come back to my hon. Friend on that. Under the current set-up, proposals are based on a well-justified need case—say, the connection of new generation, or the maintenance of a safe and secure network—but it is important to us that Ofgem feels confident of the proposals.
The network companies also propose routes and types of infrastructure. In doing so they are required to make a balanced assessment of the benefits of reducing any adverse environmental and other impacts of new infrastructure against the costs and technical challenges of doing so, following extensive consultation with stakeholders. The requirements are set out in their licence obligations under the Electricity Act 1989: they must develop economic and efficient networks, and have regard to the preservation of amenity and the mitigation of the effects that their activities could have on the natural beauty of the countryside. The 1989 Act also stipulates that network companies must provide connection offers when requested to do so by developers.
Albert Owen
I agree with the wider strategy that the Minister has outlined, but on the specific issue of defined and suggested routes in the consultation, communities are frustrated by the fact that the suggested route always goes ahead with only fine amendments. Will she encourage National Grid and Ofgem to have some sort of community involvement or appeals mechanism? When the preferred route goes ahead, communities fear that their words and deeds are not taken on board.
Amber Rudd
I appreciate the sentiment expressed by the hon. Gentleman. His point is valid, and if the experience of hon. Members present is that the current consultation process is not sufficient, I will follow up on it. Some progress has been made: Ofgem has recently published information for stakeholders on how their views should be taken into account. That information clarifies that network companies are required to consider wider impacts and alternative solutions to overhead lines, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt).
Daniel Kawczynski
On the point that I made earlier about how far the site in Montgomeryshire is from the national grid, are the Government doing any work to look at the grid and evaluate how projects can be initiated closer to it, rather than so far away? Some sort of strategic work must be under way on that.
Amber Rudd
As I said earlier, National Grid is looking at the process as part of the preparation for potential new generation through wind farms. It has reviewed where the grid will be required, and then has to take its proposals to the Planning Inspectorate. The whole process is overseen by Ofgem. Obviously, my hon. Friend will be aware that although my Government have a policy role in encouraging the development of renewable energy and ensuring that it can be accessed, we do not interfere with planning, which is a very sensitive issue.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
The important point made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) was about the attitude of National Grid, which I experienced when a pipeline was being laid to take liquefied natural gas from Milford Haven to Gloucestershire. National Grid took no notice whatever of representations about the integrity of rivers and spawning areas—it was incredible. I think it is that attitude that gets people’s anger up.
Amber Rudd
Where there are particular examples, I urge hon. Members to write to me, and I will write to Ofgem. It sounds to me like there might be particular examples; that does not necessarily mean that the whole system is flawed, but it might mean that particular examples of insensitivity require some sort of redress. I will happily look into that for the hon. Gentleman.
Tessa Munt
I am grateful to the Minister for her generosity in giving way. Will she write to me on two specific points? First, there is the business of a “willingness to pay” study, which I believe has been carried out in Essex or Suffolk but not in other areas. That study has proven that, given the chance, people want new pylons and other infrastructure to be put underground. That should be done for existing pylons as well.
Secondly, the Government’s legislation says that there should be a social and environmental impact assessment. At no point have I or other Members been given any clarity on exactly what that entails. If the Minister could write to me to explain how that is implemented, that would be most kind.
Amber Rudd
I would be delighted to write to the hon. Lady and will take up the two points that she has raised. She is of course correct that it is possible to bury the cables; the cost is approximately 10 times as much, but that is obviously part of the consideration.
The regulatory approach to which I was referring and that is overseen by Ofgem is reinforced by the Government’s national energy policy statements. They set out the framework for factors to be considered when consenting to an infrastructure project of national significance. They make clear that for electricity networks, cost should not be the only factor in determining the type of network technology used, and that there should be proper consideration given to other feasible means of connection, including undersea cables.
Within the framework, National Grid, the transmission network owner in England and Wales, published a new approach to building new transmission infrastructure. Using that approach, National Grid puts greater emphasis on mitigating the environmental and visual impact of its new electricity lines, while balancing other considerations, such as the need to manage the effect on costs, which are of course ultimately funded through consumer energy bills. I hope that that balanced approach provides reassurance to hon. Members who are concerned about network infrastructure that alternatives are being considered.
Since the costs and technical difficulties vary so much from project to project, it is important that each one is assessed case by case. The Government consider the costs and benefits of undergrounding electricity lines to be important issues, which is why the Department of Energy and Climate Change supported an independent study—I think that it is the one to which the hon. Member for Wells referred—to give clarity on the practicality, whole-life costs and impacts of undergrounding and subsea cabling as alternatives to overhead lines. The report was published in January 2012, and its findings are generally consistent with the comparative costs that National Grid has quoted.
The potential need for and development of transmission network infrastructure in Montgomeryshire is the reason behind National Grid’s activities in the area. The application for the proposed new electricity network infrastructure to connect the proposed wind farms in mid-Wales has yet to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. After examination, any application would be decided by the appropriate planning authorities and Ministers, so it is not appropriate for me to give a view on the particulars of the project—as my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire has observed—or indeed on the proposed wind farms in mid-Wales, which have been subject to a public inquiry. However, I recognise that many people feel very strongly about overhead lines and other network infrastructure, and the possible effect on the landscape. In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend spoke passionately about the beauty of the landscape and the wonders of mid-Wales. He has been a champion of maintaining the landscape as it is, and we will take that on board.
Effective consultation with local communities and other interested parties is a vital part of the planning and regulatory approval process. When making proposals for new infrastructure, National Grid must demonstrate that alternatives were considered and why the preferred option is justified. It must also demonstrate that stakeholders have been engaged. At the root of the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire is his concern that, although safeguards exist and there are many levels of requirements for consultations, those consultations are either not taking place or not taking place satisfactorily. By law, the redress for that is through the Planning Inspectorate, which will look at the consultation process as part of the planning application. If it is not good enough, the planning application could be refused, because the request for planning permission requires a good consultation. My hon. Friend has made his points very clearly today, but I urge him to make them to the Planning Inspectorate as well at the appropriate time.
My hon. Friend spoke passionately about his constituency and mid-Wales in general. We have heard specific concerns about National Grid, but we believe that, overall, it is regulated carefully and diligently. Nevertheless, if hon. Members have specific concerns about incidents, they should write to me and I will certainly look into them. I urge all Members to continue to protect their constituencies as they have done, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire on leading this debate and being so assiduous in protecting his constituency.
UK Poverty
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
It has been almost five years since the coalition Government took office, so we are far beyond the time when it was even remotely credible to claim that everything that has happened in this country is the fault of the previous Government. The truth is that the choices that we make as a country have an effect. With a few months to go until the general election, this is a good time to assess the Government’s impact on the most vulnerable people in this country and to look again at the Prime Minister’s claim, five years ago, that he would not balance the books on the backs of the poorest. What a joke that statement now seems.
The rise in food banks has been the most visible sign of the devastation caused to towns such as mine, Wigan. In the past three months, my local charity, the Brick, has handed out more than 1,000 food parcels to families who cannot afford to eat. The first thing I want to say is this: be in no doubt that the situation has become much worse under this Government. Ministers have constantly said that food banks are the fault of the previous Government, but let me give them the facts. There were 3,000 food bank users in 2005, and 40,000 by 2010. By 2012, that had exploded to 128,000 people queuing for food parcels in one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Under the Labour Government, food banks fed tens of thousands of people a year; they now feed a quarter of a million people in this country, and the numbers are rising.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She may not be aware that we had never had a food bank in Oldham until 2012. In that year, 849 food parcels were delivered; last year, 5,000 people ended up receiving support, including 1,500 children. The numbers are going up inexorably. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the suffering that those people are experiencing?
Lisa Nandy
That experience is mirrored in my constituency. The Brick gave out 6,097 food parcels in Wigan last year. I spent a day helping its volunteers to do that. Many of the food parcels were cold boxes—I had never heard of a cold box before I spent the afternoon at my local food bank—for people who cannot afford the gas or electricity required to heat up some soup or a tin of beans. Our credit union, Unify, the charity Compassion in Action and Citizens Advice have given out loans, furniture and fuel payment vouchers in increasing numbers in the past four years. Yet people were told by the Conservative hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) that unfortunately their food bank use has become a habit. How utterly offensive.
The real causes are obvious. In my constituency, one can track almost exactly when the cracks in the community started to show. In October 2012, the Government introduced a new sanctions regime that affected nearly 6,000 families in my borough alone. It had an immediate impact. In early 2013, the manager of the Brick, Trish Green, said:
“We have been operating since 2008 but recently we have seen more families, more young people and people who have lost their jobs using the service…It also affects every part of the borough and we distribute food parcels throughout different communities, not simply the more deprived areas.”
That is mirrored across the region: as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), between 2012 and 2014, the number of people accessing food banks in the north-west exploded, growing by 238%. That was not, as the Conservative Minister for Business and Enterprise, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), said, because
“more people know about them”.
The vast majority of food bank referrals were because of benefit sanctions, although delays, debt, low-paid work, loss of job and family crisis were all common reasons.
Most of my constituents who have used a food bank were referred to it after being refused help by the jobcentre. A quarter of them had been told that they had not participated in an employment programme, and a fifth had been told that they had failed to attend an adviser interview. Let me give the Minister an example. Just yesterday, a man got in touch with me who had taken on temporary work over Christmas. He had notified the jobcentre of the start and finish dates of that temporary work, but was told that he had missed an appointment with the jobcentre to give the information that he had already provided. He was sanctioned. The jobcentre was closed on the day when he was supposed to have attended an appointment, so he was paid just 1p for the whole of January. He found out yesterday that he has been given £26 for the whole of February. Will the Minister tell me how someone in this country is meant to live on a penny a month?
Quite separately, two other people got in touch with my office, one a woman, the other a young man. Both had been sanctioned in the past few months for attending the funeral of a family member. In both cases, the individuals had notified the jobcentre of the reason why they could not turn up to sign on. I was thinking about what on earth people are supposed to do in that situation. It reminded me of a line from Kafka, which states that,
“it is not necessary to accept everything as true, one must only accept it as necessary.”
When death is not a good enough reason to change the rules, what sort of society have we become?
We find increasingly that people are sanctioned for being just a few minutes late for appointments to sign on. My local councillor, Jeanette Prescott, said that,
“several times this year I have had to refer a gentleman with learning difficulties to Denise (the local Reverend) for food due to him having sanctions on him for turning up late (once by 4 minutes). The gentleman can’t tell the time and is a recluse. He has been found sitting in his flat in the dark with no electric or gas. He won’t ask for help. Only for the old neighbours watch out for him and contact myself heaven knows what would of happened to him. I was informed he has to get a letter off the doctor for an electric card…The lad turned up at my door the other night. He hadn’t eaten for 5 days. He looked like he was dying.”
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I hope that the hon. Lady appreciates that people who work very hard, and who might be earning very small amounts from working 50 hours a week, have to turn up to work on time. If they are late for their employment, they might be sanctioned by their employer. It is important that those who are seeking employment learn the discipline of timekeeping, which is an important part of securing and keeping a job.
Lisa Nandy
I must say to the hon. Gentleman that taking that sort of patronising tone towards people is exactly why people throughout the country are so angry with the Government. While he was speaking, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) made the point that two Conservative Members turned up minutes late for this debate, but they will still be allowed to participate if they wish to do so. I will come on to the example of a working couple who got in touch with me recently and who have had real problems with the system. Nevertheless, I am happy to give way again if the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) wants to come back on this point: what would he expect someone with learning difficulties, who cannot tell the time, to do in that situation? He has no one to turn to for help and was sanctioned for being four minutes late.
Mr Spencer
I think that that emphasises the importance of the education system in solving the challenges that we face as we move forward. We must try to ensure that the employees of the future are in the best place to be able to take on a career and move forward with a job.
Lisa Nandy
The man I am talking about is the fourth case of someone with learning disabilities being sanctioned that I have come across in my constituency office this month. The Minister’s Department holds the responsibility for people with disabilities. I hope that she has listened to the comments made by her colleague and will take the opportunity to condemn them. I also hope that she will ensure that in future no one will be sanctioned for having learning difficulties that prevent them from being able to tell the time.
Debbie Abrahams
I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to take the opportunity to mention the fact that the universal credit regulations include the potential for introducing in-work conditionality for people who are in work but on low pay. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) should be careful in what he says. Also, people are sanctioned who have done nothing wrong. We repeatedly hear examples of people who did not know that they had appointments because they were made without their knowledge. Of course, they did not turn up to those appointments, so they were sanctioned.
Lisa Nandy
Absolutely. I could not agree with my hon. Friend more.
I want the Minister to understand the complete nonsense of the system. Another of my local councillors, Lol Hunt, got in touch with me last week to help a 53-year-old woman. That woman was awarded maximum points for ESA last year; she got no points at all this year. Absolutely nothing in her health or circumstances has changed. Councillor Hunt said that,
“she has very little food in her cupboards and is cancelling her direct debits this week for rent, gas, electric, phone etc. as she simply cannot pay.”
That is just the tip of the iceberg as to the stupidity of the sanctions regime.
The single biggest reason that my constituents were given for being sanctioned last year was that they were supposedly not seeking work. For example, in one family, a couple with two-year-old twins, one of the partners worked as a home care worker on a zero-hours contract—I am sure all Members are familiar with the situation of the many people who work in the home care industry on low pay and with insecure conditions. The hours that she was given were so few that the pay did not even cover the bus fare to work.
The wider family tried to help out, but the stepfather is out of work and the grandmother on a small pension. They were even refused a doorstep loan. The twins were living on a tin of beans and a few potatoes a day, while the adults went for days on only tea and the occasional biscuit. Relatives of mine remember such conditions in our family a few generations back, but that was before the war. One of my constituents—one of the parents—told me that,
“asking for food was so humiliating but the alternative was to go hungry. We were so grateful for the help of the Brick and they made us feel like it is not something to be ashamed of.”
Contrast the actions of that local Christian charity with the words of Lord Freud, Minister for Welfare Reform, who said that,
“food from a food bank…is a free good, and by definition there is an almost infinite demand for a free good.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 July 2013; Vol. 746, c. 1072.]
How utterly insulting to a family such as the one I am describing. They had built up £1,000 in rent arrears, because they were not earning enough even to cover the bus fare to work. At a loss as to how to help them, the only advice that a local charity could give them was that the partner should leave her job, because it was pushing them further into debt. Reluctantly, they went to claim jobseeker’s allowance, but were told that she had left the job voluntarily and were sanctioned for three months. The mother said:
“We were receiving 15 minutes of work a day that is around £1.10 a day. If this…wasn’t a good reason for leaving a job, I truly do not understand what is.”
That is not an accident of the system; that is the system.
The level of confusion in the Government is astonishing. The Department for Work and Pensions website states:
“We expect claimants to do all they reasonably can to look for and move into paid work. If a claimant turns down a particular vacancy (including zero-hours contract jobs) a sanction may be applied, but we will look into the circumstances of the case and consider whether they had a good reason.”
Only a couple of weeks ago, however, I had a letter from the Minister stating:
“It may be helpful to explain that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants are not required to apply for a zero hours contract job and cannot be sanctioned for refusing to accept employment under a zero hours contract or for leaving such employment voluntarily.”
She even went to the trouble of underlining some of the words in that sentence. When she responds to the debate, will she tell me how that fits with what happened to my constituents only recently? Will she tell us what the policy is? Perhaps she would like to explain it to people who are trying to navigate the system and work within it, but who find that there is no safety net.
Mr Spencer
Surely the hon. Lady has to accept that in a complicated welfare system, with officers working in jobcentres, on occasion a mistake will be made. That may happen at times. The question is, how do you put that problem right? If the rules are being set by the Government, but sadly on occasion being misinterpreted or misunderstood, we have to find a system that puts that right. Accidents will happen, but it is a question of how we put them right quickly.
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be listening: the rules are the problem and make no sense. I have just quoted two examples, one from the Minister and one from the Minister’s departmental website, that contradict one another. Neither makes any sense in the context of what happened to my constituents. I have written back to the Minister to ask what on earth is going on, though I have not had a reply yet. I hope that I will get a reply, and that all the people stuck in the same situation as the one my constituents just went through will get any reply at all.
In “The Trial” by Kafka, the hero of the novel, K, said:
“But I’m not guilty…there’s been a mistake. How is it even possible for someone to be guilty?”
The priest replied:
“That is true…but that is how the guilty speak.”
That is exactly what is happening to people in the system. There is nowhere to turn; there is no way to fight their way out of the system. That is not an accident of the system; that is the system, and it is time that the Government did something about it.
The saga for the family in my constituency continued—that was not the end of it. After the sanctions were lifted, they were told that they had to sign on every day at an unpredictable time, and that for a family with two-year-old twins. One of the parents said that once her partner
“had to take our two sick, contagious children who were suffering (from hand, foot and mouth disease) with her to a job centre appointment as the adviser said you must come in, bring them on the bus with you. Even when we replied but they have a temperature of over 40 degrees his response was if you don’t come in we will have to issue a further suspension. We live in fear that our money will be stopped and this hell will never end.”
That is indeed a hell.
Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)
I have great sympathy for some of the individual cases that the hon. Lady has talked about, but I want to introduce a note of perspective based on my own constituency experience. The last time I checked with my jobcentre, just before Christmas, fewer than 5% of all the people seen there had been sanctioned over the previous 12 months. We are talking about a minority, and she is talking about a very tiny minority of an already small minority. I also want to put in a word for the sanctions regime, because from the experience of what I have seen, the threat of sanctions has been of assistance in galvanising people to maintain their appointments and genuinely to seek work.
Lisa Nandy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for trying to bring statistics to the debate, but they do not reflect the reality. Glasgow university has found that across the country, one in five have been sanctioned, and 6,000 families in my borough alone. In the past few weeks, research from Oxford university shows that the majority of people who have been kicked off benefits due to sanctions have not gone into work. So it is simply not true to say that we are talking only about a minority.
Furthermore, although I know that the hon. Lady fights for people and against injustice—I have seen her do so on behalf of her constituents—if such things happen to families, they must be stopped. We should not tolerate what happens to families who are trying to find work and do their best. They might have to drag ill two-year-old twins across town because of the inflexibility and inhumanity that we have somehow managed to build into the system. It is a hell of low-paid jobs, zero-hours contracts and rising living costs. Frankly, the system lacks any compassion or understanding.
Can the Minister comprehend the social isolation being caused? A 39-year-old mum got in touch with me. She is struggling to walk because of spina bifida, which has deteriorated in recent years, and she has three kids. She applied for a personal independence payment, but was told—this is common—that it could take a year. She said:
“We don’t leave the house and I need help.”
A local reverend contacted me about a parishioner who had been sanctioned. She told me:
“He was living on one bowl of porridge a day and glasses of water to stave off the hunger. He sold his TV and most of his valuables. He’s a very gentle man who cannot understand how this has happened to him.”
I was contacted by a woman who took a cleaning job for 25 hours a week in Warrington, involving two buses, a train journey and a four-mile bike ride simply to get to work. It was a minimum-wage job and the travel alone came to £45 a week. When money was missing from the first pay packet—a common experience for many families who work in that industry—she was hit with rent arrears and threatened with eviction. She said:
“We only have £3 a week after our bills are paid meaning we can’t afford any shopping or gas once again.”
People are trying, but their Government quite simply are not on their side. When they ask for help, they are sanctioned. Nothing is done to stamp out the scourge of exploitative zero-hours contracts. There is no action on low pay; the Minister’s own Department accounts for more than half of the directly employed or contracted Government workers who earn less than £7.65 an hour. What could be more symbolic than the fact that her own Department has one of the worst records in Whitehall on paying the living wage? This crisis is of the Government’s own making.
We know what the real problem is: the lack of good, sustainable jobs that command decent pay. But because the Government have absolutely no answers to that problem they hit people hardest. Instead of tackling underemployment, they hit the underemployed. Instead of tackling low pay, they hit the low paid. They pick off those people who are least able to complain and while doing so they haemorrhage money on contracts to the private sector that do little to get people into work but create the living hell that my constituents have written to me about.
We are storing up so many problems for the future. The situation is pushing more and more people in my community into debt, and one of the biggest causes of that debt is the bedroom tax, which affects 4,500 households in my constituency alone. Rent arrears have gone through the roof and the vast majority are caused by one factor only-that callous, ineffective policy. Those families have never been in debt before in their lives. And it is not simply the same households—more and more people are being affected as their circumstances change, including 817 new families in my borough last year. There is quite simply nowhere for them to move to. In towns such as Wigan we built family-sized properties on purpose, because that was what people wanted and needed. We move people into those properties and then hit them with the bedroom tax and tell them to move, but there is nowhere for them to move to.
Many of those families have survived the past few years by claiming discretionary housing payments—in my constituency, the number is over 3,000. But that is senseless. We are burning money—we spent £412,000 on that in the last year alone. So what do the Government do? Instead of reversing a cruel and vicious policy that is ripping people out of their communities and pushing them into debt, they announced on Friday that they are slashing the money for discretionary housing payments by a quarter. Not that long ago, additional money for discretionary housing payments was being announced—with loud fanfare—and was aimed at disabled people and foster carers. I am really interested to hear from the Minister what assessment she has made of the potential impact of the cut on the 14,000 children who are waiting for a foster home or on people with disabilities.
The bedroom tax is senseless. It does not work. The DWP’s own analysis has shown that between May and December 2013 just 22,000 of the 500,000 households affected by the bedroom tax had downsized. It has done nothing to reduce private sector rents, either. The DWP’s figures show that rents have gone down by 76p a week, but the rent shortfall is over £6. The problem does not hit landlords; 89% of the cuts to housing benefit have hit tenants, and just 11% have hit landlords.
What is worse, on top of all that, is that many families—12,000 in Wigan—now have to pay council tax who did not have to do so before. As a result, arrears have gone up in my borough by 91%. To give hon. Members an illustration of the human cost of that, only last week my office staff were on the phone trying to stop bailiffs entering the home of an elderly couple who had got into difficulties with their rent and were desperately frightened.
The impact of all this can be seen right across my high street. Where there used to be shops, charity shops, small cafés and small businesses we now have loan sharks—people who lend at extortionate rates to those too desperate to go anywhere else. Loan sharks used to be seen as a blight on our society, but now it seems the Government are their best agent, stimulating demand and creating business for them. The signs are visible.
I will tell the Minister about the reality. It is not, as Baroness Jenkin said, that poor people do not know how to cook, but that poor people cannot afford the gas or electricity to do so. Many of my poorest constituents are on pre-payment meters. They get charged more and are cut off even if they have young kids. Once they get their benefits back they have to repay the debt before they can get the meter back on. My local reverend said:
“One family we found had no gas or electricity over the Christmas period. I put £20 on their gas card and they got only £8 of gas because it took the rest in fines and arrears.”
Margot James
I want to put on the record the context of the quote that the hon. Lady attributed to Baroness Jenkin. She said it as a comment on society as a whole, because she felt that cooking skills had been lost from one generation to the next—that was the context in which she made that remark. The hon. Lady may know that Baroness Jenkin does a huge amount of work on poverty reduction.
Lisa Nandy
At the very least, Baroness Jenkin took an interest in the issue, which is more than I can say for the Prime Minister or most of his Front-Bench colleagues. But I would say that that remark came in the context of a stream of remarks made by different Government members and Back Benchers from the hon. Lady’s own party that are hugely offensive to people who are stuck in the position I have described and are trying their best, only to find that the Government are not doing the same.
The head teacher of a school in the same area as the family whose £20 gas card was immediately eaten up by debt got in touch with me to say that the school is now having to use the pupil premium to employ learning mentors not to support children in the classroom but to go to family homes to try to sort out problems with vermin, lack of electricity and all the other things those families are not able to deal with themselves, or to find the families food or refer them to food banks. The former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), said in 2013 that those families were
“not best able to manage their finances.” —[Official Report, 9 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 681.]
That beggars belief. He was the Government Minister responsible for child welfare at the time; the fact that he even thinks that those families have finances to manage absolutely beggars belief.
The reality is that children and young people have been among the hardest hit. Barnardo’s got in touch with me when it saw I had secured this debate to tell me that increasingly it sees numbers of families in its projects who are reliant on food banks because their income is not keeping pace with the cost of living. What a waste that is. I know Barnardo’s really well. I used to work for the Children’s Society and worked closely with Barnardo’s on some of its projects for young people across the country. Barnardo’s unlocks the talent of children and young people, and helps them to develop, thrive and use their energies, passion and commitment in their local communities. Instead, in 2015, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, it is diverting its resources to simply feeding and clothing our children.
Barnardo’s told me that the sanctions regime had had a particular impact on young people, especially care leavers, young homeless teenagers and teenage parents—arguably, those young people to whom, as a society, we owe the biggest responsibility. That is especially the case for young people leaving care: we are their corporate parent and hold responsibility for them. Homeless Link told me that 58% of young people seeking help because of sanctions have a mental health problem or other problem. Nationally, 42% of all sanctions relating to JSA affect 18 to 24-year-olds, including over 1,000 young people in my town.
That generation’s wages have fallen by 10% since this Government came to power. Those young people have lost the education maintenance allowance and the future jobs fund. They have seen tuition fees hiked to £9,000 a year and a record 1 million are out of work, yet their Prime Minister has the nerve to tell them that they should be “earning or learning” or they will lose their benefits. How can they? That is my question.
Barnardo’s told me about a young mum who was sanctioned for six weeks because she was attending a school appointment about her child’s behaviour. After she turned to a loan shark, her children, who were desperate to help, went shoplifting to feed the family. Do Ministers have any idea of the desperation that their policies are causing? A local police officer said to me that
“we used to find kids nicking stuff to sell but nowadays it’s more likely to be bread.”
Police forces in Lancaster, Cleveland, Northumbria and my own area of Greater Manchester have said that food and grocery thefts are on the rise. The local chamber of commerce said
“this crisis has been…caused by excessive debt.”
To echo the words of UNICEF:
“It is no accident…It’s possible to make better choices than we’ve made.”
Under the previous Government the number of children in poverty fell by 1.1 million—I know that because I was working with children and young people in the voluntary sector at the time. It also fell, as Ministers are fond of telling us, by 300,000 in the first year of this Government, but please let us not pretend that we do not understand that those figures lag two years behind Government actions.
There is no longer any twisting the facts. Child poverty is widely predicted to rise by 2020 on relative and absolute measures—it does not matter that the Government have made all of us poorer, because poverty is still on the rise. The latest estimates show an increase of half a million children living in relative poverty under this Government and 800,000 more in absolute poverty. None of the figures takes into account rising housing costs. It is not just the lack of material means, but the gnawing anxiety that goes with waking up every day, not having enough food to eat and not knowing what will happen and what the future holds. If Government policy does not change course, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that child poverty will have doubled between 2010 and 2020. The Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013 alone could push 200,000 more children into poverty.
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)
I very much appreciate the list of anecdotes that the hon. Lady has given about people who have fallen on really hard times. There is a need for Government to act in certain ways, but surely she must understand that some responsibility lies at the door of the previous Government who caused the 7% drop in GDP and the massive deficit that the Government are trying to correct. Unfortunately, because of their mistakes, tough decisions have to be taken, but I am yet to hear anything from her about how more money can be made available from some sort of magic money tree somewhere that would allow her to reverse the decisions that the Government have taken.
Lisa Nandy
That would carry more weight if the Government had managed to do anything like balance the books in the past few years, but the economic stupidity of this sort of policy is clear. In constituencies such as mine, when money is taken out of the pockets of the poorest, they will not spend in local shops and businesses. We have seen exactly what happens in that case: shops and businesses lose trade, then staff, and the vicious cycle continues. It sounds like the hon. Gentleman has just offered the best possible defence of trying to balance the books off the backs of the poorest.
There is an alternative. Germany, Poland, Canada and Australia have all seen child poverty fall in the past four years. The UK is one of only four countries where there has been an unprecedented increase in material deprivation among children. The truth is that those are political choices. I will also say to the hon. Gentleman that we were all present for the 2012 Budget, which had devastating effects in communities such as mine. That Budget, which slashed tax credits and benefits in real terms for people who were in or out of work—some of the poorest people in the country—also handed a tax cut worth nearly £2,000 a week to people who earn more than £1 million a year. Those are political choices and to pretend otherwise is to deny the facts.
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way a second time. I guess there will always be a difference in politics between the two sides in this debate—I think that 1% of people paying 30% of income tax is actually quite a good deal for 99% of people, but let us put that to one side. What alternative is she offering? How will she pay for any of the reverses in policy that she is asking for? There has been no suggestion at all. Every time that the Opposition find an imaginary pot of money, whether it be from stopping tax avoidance in some scheme or whatever, they spend it 12 or 13 times. Give us one single way in which the Opposition will find money to spend on these schemes, please.
Lisa Nandy
I will give the hon. Gentleman not one, but several. First, put money back into the pockets of the poorest, because they will spend that money and the economy will grow. That means stamping out things such as zero-hours contracts that exploit people in the ways that I described. Secondly, raise the minimum wage, which will give people greater security in their homes—jobs that pay the rent and cover travel costs.
Lisa Nandy
That is not money out. I will explain this to the hon. Gentleman, because he obviously needs to understand but does not at present. In this country we are unique in having major structural problems in our economy, which means that poverty is higher than in most other countries even before tax and spending decisions are taken into account.
First, it is the Government’s failure not to tackle root causes such as low pay and zero-hours contracts that causes the level of poverty to be so high in the first place. Secondly, because we then need to spend so much money in income transfers to compensate for that, unfair decisions are made that benefit richer people at the expense of poorer people, which compounds the problem. That is why we have had the explosion of food banks in recent years and why, 30 years after the miners’ strike where the community in my constituency had to come together to feed and clothe our children, because of this Government we are having to do that once more.
I will tell the hon. Gentleman this as well: people are not just being caused distress, anguish and despair, but having their health and safety put at risk. On Monday, a paediatrician, Dr Colin Michie, spoke out about the increase in malnutrition-related hospital admissions in children aged under 16. Hospital admissions for malnutrition doubled between 2008 and 2012 and last year 6,520 people—a seven-year high—were admitted to hospital because of that. The Faculty of Public Health’s John Middleton said that food-related ill health was getting worse
“through extreme poverty and the use of food banks”.
People cannot afford good quality food, so malnutrition, rickets and other manifestations of extreme poor diet are becoming apparent. It is almost inconceivable that in this country in 2015 we are seeing the return of Victorian diseases. Hospital admissions for scurvy have doubled under this Government since 2010.
Mr Spencer
I wonder whether the hon. Lady could help us by giving a definition of the types of food that she means. Products such as potatoes and fresh carrots are actually the cheapest sources of food available.
Lisa Nandy
I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman went down to a local food bank in his constituency and explained to his constituents that they should be buying carrots and potatoes, they would thank him for that in May. That is the sort of attitude to people whose poverty has been caused by the Government that does his party so much harm, and deservedly so.
I will say this to the hon. Gentleman: food prices have increased by 12% in the past few years, but wages have fallen by 7.6%. Those are the facts and that is why families do not have enough to feed and clothe their children. The British Red Cross is more used to working in countries torn apart by war, famine and disaster, yet, because of the Government’s actions, a couple of years ago it had to launch an emergency appeal to feed and clothe our children.
It was Nelson Mandela who said:
“There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children”,
yet here we are, forcing parents to drag ill two-year-olds across town on buses. Children have to grow up in cold, damp conditions without gas, electricity and enough to eat. Children are admitted to hospital because of hunger. Schools, vicars and charities are stepping in to help and finding themselves overwhelmed. If that is the measure of our soul as a country, what sort of society have we become under the Government?
The truth is that it could be so different. I tried to explain that to the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) a moment ago, but I will try again—perhaps he will understand. We have got one of the highest child poverty rates in Europe—second only to Ireland—because of factors such as low pay and that is before anything is done through the state to try to tackle that. Once decisions on tax and welfare such as those that the Government have made are taken into account, child poverty goes through the roof.
The IFS shows that tax and benefit changes made by the coalition have hit the poor and families with young children hardest and reduced household incomes by £1,127 a year. Professor John Hills from the London School of Economics said it was true that the very rich, with incomes of more than £100,000, had lost out more than the average, but, when viewed as a proportion of their income, it was the poorest—those who could least afford it—who had lost the most.
It is the abject failure to tackle the root causes of these problems—low pay, under-employment and insecure work—as well as tax and benefit decisions that hit the poor hardest that is pushing more and more children into poverty. I say this to the Minister: even those flagship measures that are held up—usually by the Liberal Democrats, who are not here today—as ways of tackling poverty, such as raising the personal tax allowance, do little for the lowest paid. Many of those people do not pay tax anyway, so those measures do not help them at all. Others keep just 15p in every extra pound, because in-work benefits such as housing benefit get withdrawn.
The director of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland has said:
“All the EU countries with much lower child poverty rates than us use income transfers for poverty prevention. If they can do so much better for their children, then so can we.”
The legacy this Government are set to leave is one of rising child poverty and Budgets that have made the poor much poorer and many wealthy people wealthier still. As a country, we used to know about these things. The previous Government got more lone parents back into work. Like many other countries, we used the tax and benefit system to give families a basic income. Under this Government, however, real spending per child on early education, child care and Sure Start fell by a quarter in just three years. If the Government do not want to use the tax and benefit system to tackle child poverty, they could tackle the root causes. They could learn from Denmark or Slovenia—countries where child poverty is already relatively low, so the state has to do less heavy lifting through the tax and welfare system.
It is typical of this Government that, instead of seeking to deal with the causes, they attack the symptoms: they attack the people, not the problems. Instead of tackling child poverty, they get tough on children in poverty—and not just children, but those who try to help them. The Work and Pensions Secretary accused the Trussell Trust of publicity-seeking and scaremongering for daring to tell the public how many people it was having to feed in 21st-century Britain. The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 gags charities and campaigners and prevents them from speaking out, but it does nothing to tackle the problems in the lobbying industry and in politics. Special advisers threaten charities. The Justice Secretary takes to the Daily Mail—that bastion of social justice—to attack charities as left-wing single-issue groups, and he restricts their right to challenge the Government’s appalling actions.
That sums up exactly what this Government is all about: if you have a problem with unemployment, attack the unemployed; if you do not know what to do about immigration, attack immigrants. Bobby Kennedy once said:
“there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men…This is a slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in the winter.”
That will be the Government’s legacy: an attempt to loosen the bonds that bind us, through indifference, inaction and slow decay.
Five years ago, Conservative Members talked about broken Britain. I used to think that was an analysis; now, five years on, I have come to realise that it was actually a manifesto. This is the broken Britain they talked about, and they created it. I say this to the Minister: in the end, this will not work. It started as an attack on just the poor, but it is pulling in more and more people, and it is tearing apart communities.
The situation was summed up for me by a woman of 60. She has never been in debt in her life, but she got into arrears after her daughter moved out and she was hit by the bedroom tax. She simply cannot afford the extra rent, so she is trying to move, but she has nowhere to move to, because there are no one-bedroom properties spare in my borough. My local reverend, Denise Hayes, told me, “She has all her friends and community here. She is someone we need on the estate. She is a good example for others.”
People can be in work or out of work—half the children living in poverty today are from working households. This is not about just the poor any more—it is about children, cancer patients and pensioners. Let me tell the Minister this though: the Government should be worried. New bonds of solidarity are forming, just as they did in the 1980s, when these things happened before. Those bonds are forming in communities such as mine, as more and more people are affected and more and more refuse to give in. They can see that what is happening is an attack not just on the poor, but on our basic decency as a society. Like me, they know that Britain can do so much better.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to call the Front Benchers no later than 3.40 pm. That gives us 25 minutes. If Members can keep their remarks to about six minutes, I will be able to call everyone.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for calling the debate and for the passion with which she delivered her speech. Interestingly, in the 45 minutes she took to do so, she did not give us a single indication of what a future Labour Government might do to address some of the concerns she raised. She did not even look at how she might solve the challenges we face.
It seems fairly straightforward to me that the best way to solve an individual’s financial difficulties is to get them into work—to give them a job and let them earn their own money, so that they can provide for their family. That gives them not only the cash to improve their lives, but the self-esteem and quality of life they deserve. We should do that as a Government. If we do, we get a double whammy. If we take an individual out of the welfare system and they succeed in the workplace, more of the pie is left for those who are genuinely in difficulty and who need the support of the welfare state.
Let us look at what the Government have done over the past four and a half years. Some 1.7 million more people are in work. We have tried to get people out of the welfare system and into the workplace, so that they can improve their own lives.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
It is all well and good saying another 1.7 million people are in work, but what type of employment is it? Some of the statistics that have been published show that up to 1.4 million people are on zero-hours contracts, which, in effect, provide less than benefits.
Mr Spencer
Zero-hours contracts are not something that happened under this Government; they existed before we came to power. The Labour Government did nothing about them when they were in power.
I have met individuals in my constituency who have been offered a zero-hours contract. They took it up, went to work and became very successful. They were then offered a full-time career; they progressed through the management structure; and they are now earning a substantial salary. Zero-hours contracts can therefore sometimes be a gateway to a career.
The Government have to find a way to create such gateways, so that individuals can aspire to make their way through the system. One way of doing that is to create apprenticeships, and 2 million have been created under this Government. That is a way to give the next generation the skills they require to take up a career in the future.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I missed all the heat about part-time working. Does my hon. Friend recognise the official statistics showing that 74% of the new jobs created under this Government have been full time? The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has shown that job satisfaction among those who are on zero-hours contracts is the same as for any other employee.
Mr Spencer
Absolutely. Those statistics stand on their own.
The second way to help people, once they have succeeded in getting a job, is to cut taxes for those at the bottom of the pay structure, so that they pay no tax at all. The Government have been very successful in lifting those people completely out of the tax system.
The hon. Member for Wigan mentioned the friction between wages and inflation. Following the enormous crash under the previous Government, it is fair to say there were some severe challenges in terms of how inflation was moving forward and the ability of the economy to recover. We are now in a position where, of course, inflation is below the rate of increase in wages, so we have turned that corner and we are going in the right direction.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Why did the Conservative party support the Labour Government spending plans up to 2007, and never, as I recall, suggest that changes should be made to avoid a recession?
Mr Spencer
Of course, the Labour party now supports our funding pledges, so there is friction between what is being said about reversing some of our changes and other statements about supporting our spending regime. It will be interesting to hear the Labour Front-Bench justification of that.
In another life, I was a farmer, involved in food production and supply. Interestingly, the OECD says that 9.8% of people had difficulty affording food in 2006-07, but the figure had fallen to 8.1% in 2011-12. That shows we are going in the right direction. There will always be individuals who get themselves into difficult circumstances and where the system has frankly gone wrong. The hon. Member for Wigan raised several such cases and I have encountered some in my constituency office, when clearly the system has broken down and some incorrect decisions have been made. It is my job as a Member of Parliament to try to help people through the system and solve their ills, and we have succeeded on a number of occasions in helping individuals in difficult circumstances to work their way through the system to the right point.
Mr Spencer
I will not give way any more, because other people want to speak.
I want the Government to continue to reduce the deficit, and to make sure that the economy continues to grow and that we generate more jobs and help people out of poverty through employment. I want them to continue to cut taxes at the lowest end, so that we can raise more people out of tax altogether. I want them to create more jobs and back businesses—particularly small businesses that create real-life careers for people. I want a continuation of the welfare cap, so that we can control immigration and make sure people in work are better off and so that people who decide to go into work and get a career and who can move forward aspire to overcome their difficulties. I want better schools, to make sure that the next generation have the education that will deliver them a future, make them ready for the workplace and enable them to take careers and move forward. The only way to solve the problem is to give people the aspiration and ability, so that they can aspire out of their difficulties.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. We have only 16 minutes left before the Front-Bench speeches. Four hon. Members want to speak, which means four minutes apiece. Perhaps I could have co-operation on that.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
I shall try to adhere to that limit, Mr Crausby. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) on securing the debate and making a powerful case about the impact of Government policies on her constituents. I am a wee bit disappointed that Members are so thin on the ground for this debate. Many folk living on very low incomes feel abandoned by politicians in the present context. Today’s turnout will not dispel those impressions.
Poverty, deprivation and exclusion take many forms, but living on a low income for any length of time has long-term consequences for individuals and society. The Government’s austerity measures have made things worse for folk who are already struggling. The cumulative impact of austerity in the six years to 2016 is estimated at about £6 billion in Scotland alone—three quarters of which has come from the pockets of women. That has had a disproportionate impact on families with children and people with disabilities and health problems.
Indeed, one of the Government’s flagship austerity measures, the bedroom tax, has fallen disproportionately on low-income disabled people. In Scotland 80% of the households affected were the home of a disabled person. I believe that the proportion is slightly lower in the rest of the UK, but it is still about two thirds of the people affected. In Scotland we mitigated the bedroom tax, but we could do so only by diverting resources from other policy areas—and it remains on the statute book. The people affected by the bedroom tax are, in many cases, the same people whose support will be reduced with the introduction of personal independence payments, and who face enormous barriers in getting access to the labour market. The cumulative effects are important, and are a key reason for the symptoms that we see in communities.
The key point that I want to make today is about child poverty. There is an overwhelming wealth of evidence that children who grow up in poverty experience poorer long-term outcomes than their wealthier counterparts, not just in educational attainment and career prospects, but because they are likely to have poorer health throughout their lives, and significantly lower life expectancy. After housing costs, just over one in five adults in the UK are living in poverty, but the proportion of children living in relative poverty is 27%. That is a scandal of missed opportunities, thwarted potential and long-term problems being stored up.
Child poverty was coming down in Scotland at twice the UK rate, but according to the Child Poverty Action Group it is now projected to rise to 100,000 children by 2020, almost entirely because of the effect on families of the Government’s austerity measures. Huge cuts to tax credits and the freeze in child benefit have eroded family incomes, with parents in low-paid work among those worst hit by the Government’s austerity programme. It is critical that we understand that the vast majority of children growing up in poverty have at least one parent in work. In-work poverty is the scourge of low-paid families. The reality is that a family in which both parents work full time in minimum-wage jobs, paying an average private sector rent, will be below the poverty line. For people in low-paid jobs, work is simply not a route out of poverty any more, and a full-time salary can fall far short of a decent income.
I see that in my constituency. Even though unemployment is only about 1%, there are large numbers of people in low-paid work, and consequently there are pockets of deprivation. In the past year or two, a number of food banks have sprung up, run by church volunteers who have recognised the increasing need in the community—need that is clearly linked to benefit changes and rising living costs, and which affects people who are in work as well as those who are not. In 2012 in Scotland only 14,000 people depended on food banks, and the vast majority of those had chronic alcohol and substance abuse problems. Now the figure is more than 70,000 people —a 400% increase. I pay tribute to the people in the churches who pick up the slack in the social safety net, but we should not be in this position in the 21st century. That is why tackling low pay needs to be a priority.
In Scotland, the areas of the public sector that are devolved responsibilities now all pay the living wage, but there are still thousands of people in other economic sectors earning wages that do not cover the basics. Many employers have become living wage employers, but there is still some way to go. We should not forget that many of the low-paid sectors are still those where jobs are predominantly done by women, such as cleaning, catering and food production. The concentration of women in part-time, low-paid and often insecure work compounds other social and economic inequalities.
Improved child care is also necessary to tackle child poverty and strengthen our economy. I have no doubt that the higher levels of women participating in the labour market in Scotland and the falls in child poverty were linked to the greater entitlement to child care introduced over recent years. I hear from parents in all income groups that the problem of getting affordable child care is the major barrier to the labour market; and for women it is also a barrier within the labour market to the jobs that they are qualified for. There is an economic problem of women taking jobs around which they can juggle their family life. That holds back the economy, and it holds back people in the work force. Sanctions have been mentioned in the debate, and evidence has emerged that they hit single parents in particular. The challenge is the same as it is for people in the workplace—it is extremely difficult to juggle child care with any other commitments if there is no one who can watch the kids while someone is tending to other responsibilities.
In a country as wealthy as ours, allowing children to grow up in poverty is an abdication of our responsibilities as citizens. The inequalities that we have allowed to become acceptable have a long-term impact that leaves us all impoverished. I think that voters understand that asking those on the lowest incomes to carry the can for past economic failures is a cowardly, wrong choice. The Government badly need to change their priorities.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. Hon. Members are now down to three minutes each.
Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)
Across the House, it is accepted that employment is a good thing and that it helps people to improve their standard of living, but the problem is that it is not sufficient; it is a first step. The last few years, above all, have shown us that for very many people, it is only a preliminary step that still leaves many living in poverty. That is why we are seeing so many people who are in work having to claim housing benefit to meet their housing costs, which pushes up the overall housing benefit bill, and why so many people are still dependent on some form of help when they go into employment. The route out of the low-paid, low-hours economy is not as easy as is sometimes suggested. That is one aspect of where we are at the moment—yes, work is good, but it has not proved to be sufficient to get people out of poverty.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) mentioned issues relating to single parents. It is important to say that some measures that were helping single parents have been removed. The number of single parent specialist advisers in jobcentres, who knew the particular difficulties faced by women in that position—mainly women, but it could be men—has been reduced. There are very few such advisers. Others have reported that the flexibilities that used to exist for jobseeking and job finding have been removed or reduced, or people claim not to know about them. One of my constituents was asked, “Why can’t your mother come and help?” Her mother lives 300 miles away. She could not simply come and help while my constituent made herself available for what the jobcentre wanted, which was an evening job. The lone parent flexibilities mean that that should not happen, so again, that change appears to have happened in practice, and it is making it difficult for that particular group.
Yes, there are choices—there are always financial choices to be made. Constantly talking about raising the tax threshold is all very well, but three quarters of the gain from doing so went to earners in the top half of the income range. A lot of money has been paid out in that direction, and apparently the Conservative part of the Government—I am not sure about the other part—wants to increase that further, without telling us at all how it will be funded. The problem is that it may be funded by things we do not know about, such as a VAT increase. I notice that the Prime Minister, pressed on the matter week after week, does not say “No”—he talks about “no plans”. A VAT increase would affect those whose earnings are already under the tax threshold and who would gain nothing from any further increases in it.
Such people have lost tax credits and income in all sorts of ways. Some might seem small-scale, but family household income has gone down. There are people who have to leave work due to illness. Take a family, for example—a couple, perhaps, whose children have grown up. They may have two incomes, or one and a half incomes. If one person loses their job through ill health, their income is in that position slashed as they go on to benefit under rules introduced by this Government. After a year, some of those people are losing even their employment and support allowance, because they have a partner who is in work, although that partner may only be working part time. That loss of income, meaning that a one-and-a-half-income family becomes a family getting barely half a wage, is catastrophic for their well-being.
Many of those people had been moving towards what they hoped would be a slightly more comfortable retirement. A lot of them are older, because that is when ill health strikes—in people’s late 40s and 50s. Such people are now having, in effect, to eat up the savings that they had hoped to keep until their retirement. In my view, there are a whole lot of different ways in which people are being directly affected by this Government’s policies.
Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)
I will be as quick as I can, Mr Crausby, and try to stick to your time limit. First, I welcome the debate, even though the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made a number of political points—
Mr Raab
Not at the moment—I said on a point of substance.
The key point is the systemic challenges that our economy faces. The fact is that our economy sank to 13th place from fourth place on the global competitiveness rankings, and has now climbed steadily but surely back up to 10th. That is the reason why we have job creation at a record high. If we really care about not just the economy but the most socially disfranchised, we have to care about the unemployed—the most vulnerable in our society.
Mr Raab
I am not going to; I will make some progress. The hon. Lady spoke for a considerable amount of time and we are very pressed for time. Unemployment has fallen from 8% to 5.8%. Youth unemployment is down. Overall, there are 1.7 million more people in work. If we care about the most vulnerable in our society, that is the critical section of society.
Lisa Nandy
I was simply about to say to the hon. Gentleman that had he been here for my speech and not been 45 minutes late, he would have heard that many of the families whose stories I recounted for those who were present are actually in work, or were in work when those problems arose. A story that he missed was about one of my constituents who was sanctioned for three months for being four minutes late for an appointment. The hon. Gentleman was 45 minutes late for the debate, and he does not seem to have suffered any adverse repercussions at all.
Mr Raab
I was following the debate, but unfortunately I was in a Committee, and I did give advance warning to Mr Crausby.
The key point that the hon. Lady needs to address is that all the policies that the Labour party is coming up with will stifle job creation. I gently point out to her that in her constituency, according to the House of Commons Library, unemployment doubled between 2005 and 2010, but has fallen by 63% between 2010 and the present day. Frankly, those facts tell us everything we need to know. When it comes to income tax—[Interruption.] She might want to listen as well as speak, because this is a debate, and I have listened very carefully to what she was saying—[Interruption.]
Mr Raab
If someone is earning between £10,000 and £15,000 under this Government, they are paying 54% less tax than they were under the last Government. If someone is a millionaire—we get lots of jibes on the Government side of the House about that—they are paying 14% more. When do we ever hear that referred to?
A lot of people have talked about poverty. If we look at the inequality Gini coefficient, we see that on elderly poverty, fuel poverty, the number of people not in education, employment or training, and child poverty—on every single statistical benchmark—the level of poverty or inequality is lower now than what the last Government left behind. Where is a little bit of honesty about that?
When it comes to affordable homes, the average annual rate of the creation of affordable homes is 50% higher under this Government than the last Government. The hon. Lady might have mentioned that in her speech. What about inflation, which eats away at incomes?
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Raab did give notice that he would be late. If I am going to call Mr Lavery as well, Members are going to have to give Mr Raab the opportunity to speak.
Mr Raab
Thank you, Mr Crausby, I appreciate that.
Inflation is the other key indicator. It was at 3.4% in May 2010, but it is now down to 0.5%. That is not unalloyed good news—it is tough for savers—but it is incredibly relevant to dealing with cost of living issues, which I believe the hon. Member for Wigan cares strongly about. There is still much to do, but if we care about things such as energy prices, we should not be backing reckless interventions in the energy market that will just create spikes in retail prices. We should be investing in nuclear and shale—but was it five or six nuclear plants that were closed down under the last Government? Labour is going slow on fracking as well. Again, if we are serious about long-term issues relating to poverty in this country, those are the things we should be dealing with. If we care about food prices, we should welcome the competitive supermarket price wars that we have been seeing recently. We should be concerned about the £400 that the common agricultural policy adds to the average annual family food bill, but when do we ever hear from Labour MPs about that? We should be looking for freer trade and reform of the EU.
In conclusion, I welcome the debate, but it is important to shed some light, not merely some heat, on this contentious issue, which afflicts the most vulnerable in our society. The hon. Lady can shake her head all she likes, but the fact is that on almost every official indicator and almost every policy lever, this Government have done better than the previous Government. Not only is the economy doing better, but life is fairer for most people in terms of the things that Government can reasonably control. Those are the facts, like them or not.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
I did say that I would call the Front Benchers at 3.40 pm. It has now turned 3.40 pm, but I am going to give Ian Lavery one minute. If he goes past it, I will interrupt him.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Thank you for your extreme flexibility, Mr Crausby.
We live in a different world here in Westminster. People in the rest of the country live in a broken society. Children are suffering because of poverty. Disabled people are suffering because of poverty and the introduction of the bedroom tax. Mentally ill people are suffering greatly because of the situation in this country. Single parents are being singled out because of the situation that the Government have imposed on them. Old people are suffering because of poverty; many of them are huddling together because they cannot even afford to put money in the electricity meter or food on the table.
We live in a broken society. Poverty is preventable. Poverty is a political choice. It brings shame on the Government and on politicians to allow poverty to continue as we are experiencing it here in food bank Britain. People in work cannot afford to put food on the table—
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
What a delight it is to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Crausby.
I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), who has secured an important debate. She made a passionate speech, in which she described eloquently the impact of poverty on her constituents. Because she has given us so many concrete stories about real people, I will give an overview and talk about the national picture. However, I remind the Minister that this is the second time in the space of a month that she has been asked about sanctions. We asked her to do a number of things about sanctions during a debate in the north-east, and to check what was going on. When she winds up the debate, I would like to know whether she has done those things.
During the previous Parliament, I was privileged to be the Minister who took the Child Poverty Act 2010 through Parliament. Because of the complexity of measuring child poverty, we had four measures: relative poverty, absolute poverty, persistent poverty, and combined low income and material deprivation. The Bill was passed with all-party agreement, and everybody agreed that we wanted to make progress on all those fronts. What has been the record? The record of the Labour Government between 1997 and 2010 was a reduction of 1.8 million in the number of children in absolute poverty. The record under this Government, according to the DWP’s own statistics, which the Minister published last summer—I hope that she is listening to this—is that the number of children living in absolute poverty has gone up by half a million.
The next measure is relative poverty. Between 1997 and 2010, the number of children living in relative poverty fell by 1.3 million. The number fell by 200,000 between 2009 and 2013, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies forecasts an increase of 400,000 by the time of the election in May. Government Members have to ask themselves why absolute poverty has increased and relative poverty has reduced. What is going on here? The explanation is this. The median income in this country has dropped by 8% under this Government, whereas the income of those in the poorest decile has dropped by 5%, so everybody is poorer; it is just that those at the bottom are not quite as much poorer as are those in the middle. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) can shake his head, but those are the figures that the Government published only in July, and the Government should think about that.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. A Parliamentary Private Secretary should be seen and not heard, Mr Elphicke.
Helen Goodman
The response that we have had from Ministers and Tory Members today is precisely what the Archbishop of Canterbury describes in the book “On Rock or Sand?” as “wilful blindness”. If we are wilfully blind to the real problems in this country, we will not be able to deal with them. That is the major problem. The Government are responsible for a large number of the measures that have pushed the poorest further down.
What are we going to do instead? My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) pointed out that in-work poverty is now exploding as well. That point is also made in an excellent book by Julia Unwin, which I recommend to all hon. Members. In-work poverty is the new feature of poverty. It is caused by rising prices, a cost of living crisis and falling incomes. The Government will continue on that exploitative path, which will, in fact, increase the benefits bill by £9 billion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) pointed out this morning. However, this morning the Secretary of State was bragging about something that Barnardo’s has complained to me about, namely the taking of £50 billion from the children of this country during this Parliament.
Hon. Members have asked, “What would Labour do?” I will tell them what Labour will do. The first thing that Labour will do is to abolish the bedroom tax.
Helen Goodman
Paid for by taxing the hedge funds, as was discussed during Prime Minister’s questions only this lunchtime, when the Prime Minister refused to do that. [Interruption.]
Helen Goodman
The bedroom tax bill of £3,800 over the next Parliament will be visited on the poorest people. Two thirds of those who pay the bedroom tax are disabled. If a Tory-led Government are re-elected, those people will face having to pay another £3,800. That is why the first thing that a Labour Government will do, if we are elected, is to abolish the bedroom tax.
We will also increase the minimum wage. We will tackle the zero-hours culture. We will tax bankers’ bonuses in order to get young people into work. We will sort out the energy market. We will do something about rents. We will take steps to improve child care, so that lone mums and other mums can get out to work and support their families. We will build more houses, which will help to bring down housing costs and provide more jobs. It is a comprehensive picture, and it is a real choice for the British people.
The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. This is an incredibly important debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing it. I begin by putting what I have heard today in context. Every story that has been brought here is important, and it is important that we listen to them, but let us look at the independent figures on inequality, which show us what is happening. Income inequality is lower now than it was at the election. There are 600,000 fewer people in relative poverty than at the election. Why do I use relative poverty? There are various measures, but relative poverty is Labour’s preferred measure against which it set its targets. Labour said that it would halve relative poverty by 2010, but it missed that target. [Interruption.]
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. Ms Nandy, you have had your opportunity to speak. Let us listen to others who want to speak.
Esther McVey
There are also 300,000 fewer children living in relative poverty.
Esther McVey
I will not give way for a while, because I would like to put these figures on the record.
The top 1% of income tax payers will contribute nearly 30% of this year’s income tax bill. We talk about the richest helping most to get us out of the financial situation in which we found ourselves after Labour left office, and that is what is happening. The top 20% of income tax payers are paying 80% of the bill, which is key. We also have 390,000 fewer children living in workless households, and in-work poverty has fallen by 300,000. In fact, in-work poverty rose 20% between 1998 and 2008.
Esther McVey
I will not give way for the moment.
It is also key to know that 1.75 million more people are in work. When my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) talked about what sorts of jobs those people are doing, he was right to say that, since the election, three quarters of them are full-time jobs. In fact, in the last year 80% are full-time jobs. What sorts of jobs are they? The vast majority, 75%, are skilled, managerial and professional. If we want to look at the figures from the other point of view, we could say that, at the election, 600,000 more people were in relative poverty and there were 670,000 more workless households. We could say that there were 300,000 more children and 200,000 more pensioners in relative poverty. We could also say that there were 50,000 more households in which no member had ever worked. That is what we were picking up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) pointed out—I hope this is a point of consensus for all of us—there had been a financial crash and the GDP of the whole country had shrunk by 7%. The truth of the matter is that everybody had to bear the brunt of the crash that we had from the Labour party, but we have ensured—[Interruption.]
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. Please allow the Minister to respond.
Esther McVey
We have ensured that the richest are paying the most. We are ensuring that the richest people are now paying more than they ever paid under Labour. The hon. Member for Wigan talked about working for Barnardo’s, and I congratulate her because I am a child of Barnardo’s. When we talk about poverty and how we take people out of poverty, the key building blocks have to be education and employment, and the Government are creating those key building blocks.
When we look at this, what have we done? We have brought record rates of women into work. We are increasing and supporting lone parents into work. We have put £2.5 billion into the troubled families initiative, and we have put the same amount into the pupil premium. We have ensured that 3 million people are out of tax altogether and that 26 million people have had their tax reduced. We have increased the minimum wage to £6.50 an hour, which is the first real increase since 2008—a 3% increase—and which benefits more than 1 million people. People in full-time work on the national minimum wage are getting an extra £355 a year. All those things are key, and we are doing them.
Debbie Abrahams
Would the Minister like to comment on her point about the reduction in inequality? The OECD’s report before Christmas and the International Monetary Fund’s report from a similar time show that inequality has actually increased. In fact, we have the worst rate of inequality in 30 years. The reports show that inequality is harming growth and that the trickle-down economics to which the Government are absolutely committed does not work. It actually stifles growth and hurts human beings.
Esther McVey
I never recognise where the hon. Lady gets her figures. I have given the independent facts, which are correct. The only thing I will say is that here is a party that delivered the biggest financial crash in living memory. This is the party that said there would be 1 million more unemployed people now, but we are near to having 2 million more people in employment. [Interruption.] Labour Members would do better to listen for a change, rather than charging forward with things that really are not true. It is sometimes worth listening, rather than talking, especially when the Labour party delivered such a disaster for the UK, which we are all now having to cope and deal with. It is worth remembering that, because of our long-term economic plan, we are the fastest-growing developed nation. The UK has delivered more jobs than the rest of Europe added together. Those are the facts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton read out a list of facts about the constituency of the hon. Member for Wigan. He talked about the unemployment figures and the claimant count rising by 100% between 2005 and 2010, but let us look at what is happening in Wigan now: the employment rate is up by 7.9 percentage points; the claimant count is down by 49%; the long-term claimant count is down by 44%; the youth claimant count is down by 70%; and the long-term youth claimant count—[Interruption.]
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister must be allowed to respond.
Esther McVey
The long-term youth claimant count is down 80% on the year. In fact, youth unemployment across the country has had its biggest fall in living memory. More than 170,000 more young people now have jobs. Those are just the facts. In the north-west region, the number of workless households is down by 41,000 since 2010, which is a decrease of 1.7%.
Last week, the local paper in Wigan stated that the number of apprenticeship vacancies in Wigan has hit a record high. There has been a 72% increase in the number of apprenticeship vacancies in Wigan posted online, and the paper said:
“An upsurge in firms willing to take on apprentices has been credited with bringing about a dramatic fall in young people not in employment”.
Lisa Nandy
One reason why we have managed to get young people into apprenticeships is because the council has taken exactly the opposite approach to the Government. The council pays the living wage, has stamped out zero-hours contracts and has created apprenticeships. If everything is going so well across the country, why does the Minister think that the incidence of scurvy and the number of hospital admissions for malnutrition have exploded under her Government?
Esther McVey
The numbers I have given are for private enterprise. Equally, I do not know what the answer was when the hon. Lady stood up to explain why there was a 100% increase in the claimant count between 2005 and 2010, but our claimant count has come down. The increase in malnutrition is a debate for another time.
Esther McVey
I think it is. Many people who have gone to hospital with malnutrition have actually put on weight, which is down to a poor diet. That is a much bigger debate for another time. What we can talk about is what is happening, how we are getting people into work and how worklessness is falling in the constituency of the hon. Member for Wigan. [Interruption.] Obviously she does not want to listen to these answers because they do not play to the things she was talking about. Equally, her local paper celebrated that Wigan has received the pupil premium award. A headmaster said:
“We couldn’t be more pleased to win the award”.
The award is key to helping young people to go forward.
I listened to the hon. Lady’s stories about sanctions, and I would like to know about the specific instances. I replied to a letter the other week—I hear that she has sent me another, to which I will be writing back in due course—but if she gave me the names of the people, rather than keeping them anonymous, I could find out what happened at the jobcentre. If someone wanted to go to a funeral, it would be good cause. Somebody with learning difficulties is a vulnerable person and has good cause. There is a booklet that the hon. Lady can download from the website that outlines the guidance, which is substantial. It is a heavy document that says how people will be given good cause. Equally, there have always been sanctions in the benefit system. This is nothing new—
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. I am pleased to say that we will now move on to the next debate.
Broadband (Tech City)
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I have come to this Chamber with a very important issue. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a report yesterday on access to superfast broadband. In large parts of the UK, fewer than 50% of households can access superfast broadband, and it is clear that some rural areas are being left behind.
Although 90% of London households are able to access superfast broadband, many Londoners are left out. Surely central London should have 100% coverage by now. We should certainly expect Tech City—or Old Street roundabout, as we used to call it—to have full coverage.
I am not the first MP to raise this issue. The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) raised it in a debate on superfast broadband in September. He referred to Tech City, which borders his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who is here this afternoon, also raised this issue at Prime Minister’s questions and at business questions.
Tech City is home to a large number of new and innovative businesses—film companies, public relations companies, property companies and pollsters—which all need fast and reliable internet access and download and upload speeds. We might assume that BT is able to provide that infrastructure, and that it and other providers can offer high-speed connections to all those companies, but they are not doing so.
The Prime Minister has been bigging up Tech City for a long time. In November 2010, he said:
“British Telecom has agreed to bring forward the roll-out of superfast broadband in the area, so you have some of the fastest internet speeds in the whole of Europe…we can help make East London one of the world’s great technology centres and sow the seeds for sustainable growth throughout the economy.”
A Tech City business without a high-speed broadband connection is like a city without a road going to it, or a port without a river or seafront. Superfast broadband is vital infrastructure. It is like a fourth utility; it is Tech City’s lifeblood. I was therefore very concerned when 38 businesses from Tech City signed a petition, which was sent to me in May, complaining about the slow, unreliable broadband in the area. I took a sample case to BT, assuming that I would be assured that the problem would be ironed out without delay, and that my constituent would get the service he needed. I was shocked and surprised when BT said that although other users in the area have high-speed broadband, it was not commercially viable for it to connect up my constituent to the green cabinet outside his premises.
I raised the case with the Mayor, and I am still waiting for a complete response. I know that he cares about the issue but, as my Nan used to say, warm words butter no parsnips. I would be happy to work with the Mayor on this issue, because we simply have to do something about it.
Recently, I was contacted by other businesses in EC1 and EC2 that had exactly the same complaint. I went to see a company called Proudfoot TV—a small company that makes short films, which have to be very good quality, and which it uploads and sends around the world. It recently uploaded a two-and-a-half minute film to send to Ford. I have been asking people to guess how long it took to upload that film all day. Extraordinarily, it took nine hours.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the big problems is that advertised download speeds are an average, and that they do not take into account the important problem of uploading? That is also a problem for Shoreditch companies, because it slows down their businesses. We need to change the way that speeds are advertised.
Emily Thornberry
Absolutely. Tech City should be exporting, and if a two-and-a-half minute film cannot be exported without taking nine hours to upload, it should not be called Tech City.
Tech City serves not only the UK. Companies in my constituency have clients throughout the world, who expect those companies to have fast, reliable connections. Mr Proudfoot told me that although his business has evolved in the past 10 years, his connectivity has not improved in line with his work. He said that to send a high-quality sound file to Covent Garden, it is quicker to put it on a USB stick and cycle it round. Perhaps giving the USB stick to an owl, like Harry Potter, or sending it by carrier pigeon or even a raven, as they do in “Game of Thrones”, would be equally effective. He said that some of his employees get better broadband speeds on their domestic home connections than they do in the heart of Tech City.
Meg Hillier
I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that the editor of Tech City News, Alex Wood, each week produces a video rounding up the news in Tech City. The connection is so slow that he cannot upload the video from Old street; it has to be sent to his home address to be uploaded. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a national disgrace?
Emily Thornberry
It speaks for itself. I understand that things are difficult in central London; we have historical, narrow streets that are already full with all sorts of wires. It may well be easier to introduce superfast broadband in Bromley than in central London, but we need it in central London, and it should be a priority.
I visited another small enterprise, a company called YouthSight, whose broadband is so slow and unreliable that its 17 young employees struggle with everyday tasks such as research and communication. The company has complained on numerous occasions, and it has been visited by lots of BT engineers, but it has seen no improvement. It has a copper line, so it must put up with the speed of copper—plod, plod, plod. It is not in the Outer Hebrides; it is a two-minute walk from Old Street roundabout. The fact that the centre of London—the City and its fringes—has less access to superfast broadband than the suburbs seems contrary to common sense.
If BT remains intransigent and refuses to supply superfast broadband to that business, its only option is to buy a dedicated leased line, which can cost £5,000 for the connection and £400 per month, and there may be provisions locking it into the contract. That is not good enough. Why should small businesses in one street have to pay those huge costs when businesses in the next street get superfast broadband at a reasonable cost?
Meg Hillier
I thank my hon. Friend for her generosity in giving way. There are alternative forms of technology, but there are barriers to them. We can do two things to help. First, companies should be forced to share their infrastructure—to be fair, BT and Openreach do that in many cases. Secondly, we should change planning regulations to require landlords to ensure that their buildings have the capacity for certain technologies.
Emily Thornberry
I agree, although there are problems even with that approach, which I will come on to. If someone is willing to pay for a leased line, there is no guarantee that they will get it when they want it. Another company, also a few yards from Old Street roundabout, moved in two months ago. The previous occupants had a leased line, and that company applied to have it switched over in November. When I visited it last Friday, its staff were using mobile phones and were waiting for the leased line to be connected.
What must be done? My hon. Friend has made some proposals, and I have a suggestion. When British Telecom was privatised—it used to belong to all of us—it was given infrastructure, such as cables and cabinets, and it still has an effective monopoly. It should accept responsibility for installing superfast broadband to all existing cabinets in Tech City, and arguably across the UK. Aiming for 95% connectivity by 2017 is not ambitious enough.
I understand that London has particular problems. There are some cabinets missing, and there are some places where street cabinets cannot be installed. Some street cabinets have been taken out because they interfere with burglar alarms. I know that this is a historical city, but it must move into the 21st century. As my hon. Friend said, there are other options, such as connecting hubs inside buildings. It is not beyond the wit of man or BT to overcome those difficulties.
BT says that the Government should give it more help, that the state funding available to rural areas should also be available to cities, and that the European Union rules on state funding should be changed to allow that to happen. However, where Tech City is concerned, we need to look hard at BT’s arguments. Is it necessary for state aid to subsidise BT? After all, Openreach generates £5 billion of revenue each year.
I understand that BT has data indicating the areas where only copper lines are available. It is essential that that information is made publicly available, and I urge the Minister to ensure that BT makes it available, because frankly, if BT cannot change those copper lines to superfast broadband, it should get out of the way and let its competitors do so instead, but they need that information first.
Of course, in Tech City there are fibre cables to exchanges, but there is still no guarantee that individual small businesses can have an affordable high-speed connection. There are streets with fibre going down the middle, yet it is not connected to all the buildings on that street. That is an extraordinary situation. If we think about Victorian times, when sewers were built, can we imagine a sewer being built down the middle of the street and the company or organisation putting in that sewer refusing to connect up the buildings on that street to the sewer? If that would have been ridiculous in Victorian times, it is even more ridiculous now, is it not? Why are we going backwards, not forwards?
We should not allow this situation to drift. We have to change our attitude. This is infrastructure. Superfast broadband is not some sort of lifestyle choice for these businesses; it is their lifeblood. It is absolutely right for the Government and the Mayor of London to big up Tech City around the world and encourage it to do well, but if it is not given its absolute essence—its lifeblood—it will not thrive. There are many of these businesses, and I have met many of the youngsters involved with them. They are forward-thinking, innovative, great entrepreneurs and bright kids who will do well, but they are being held back by a company that is simply milking them, and it is about time that it stopped doing so.
Tech City cannot be built simply on hyperbole. The Mayor and the Prime Minister can continue to travel the world and tell everyone that London is a 21st-century city, but let us make sure that they lean on BT to give Tech City the tools it needs to get on with the job. We cannot make Tech City one of the world’s great technology centres and sow the seeds of sustainable growth, as the Prime Minister has said, when it takes nine hours to upload a 2.5 minute film. Tech City should not be relying on “Game of Thrones” ravens.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I thank the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) for securing this debate and for allowing me time to draw attention to the Government’s work in extending broadband.
During the last four and a half—almost five—years, we have very much moved forward in terms of broadband delivery. Superfast broadband is now available to 78% of UK premises; it was available to just 45% in 2010. In the UK, we have the highest superfast broadband coverage among EU5 countries. The average broadband speed in the UK has more than quadrupled. Superfast broadband take-up in the UK is the highest among the EU5 countries. So we have made a great deal of progress. However, I know that the issue of urban broadband continues to concern some of our colleagues, in particular issues around Tech City, because with Tech City’s prominence in the debate about how we continue to attract and grow technology companies, its connectivity sometimes gains national prominence.
When we started down this road, our focus was very much on rural areas, because we knew that the main providers and carriers of superfast broadband—Virgin and BT—were unlikely to go to many of them without some form of subsidy. I am pleased to say that that programme is well under way. We will shortly reach the halfway stage and we are well on the way to reaching our target of 90% superfast broadband by the end of this year.
Roll-out in urban areas is more problematic than in rural areas. To begin with, for example, it is not possible to get state aid to subsidise broadband roll-out in urban areas. The European Commission takes the view that the market is sufficiently competitive in urban areas not to need subsidy. However, that does not get away from the fact that there will be pockets in urban areas that some carriers do not believe are commercially viable to cover, and those areas could potentially get left behind.
Emily Thornberry
I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on what might be the problem. I hear what he says about there being competition, but the situation can be quite difficult. For example, if one street has only copper lines and the rival companies do not know that, whereas BT does, would it not be right for BT to be forced to hand over such information so that its competitors can compete and can go up and down the street, asking how many businesses need superfast broadband but do not have individual lines going into them? Then Virgin, or whoever it is, can say, “Right. We will invest in putting in our own fibre optics in that street and connect it up, because if BT won’t do it we’ll do it instead.” However, without such information, it is very difficult. We know that BT has that information, and yet it is sitting on it and not sharing it. It is in the Minister’s power to ensure that that information is disclosed.
Mr Vaizey
I am happy to correspond with the hon. Lady on that matter, because it is important that I fully understand the point she is trying to make. In the speech I am making this afternoon, I will try to address that point as well as I can, and if I have got things wrong we can correspond or indeed have a meeting about this issue, along with the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who has been very vocal about this subject, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who was referred to in the hon. Lady’s speech.
BT’s copper network is managed by Openreach, which is part of BT, and it is open to competition—what is known as local loop unbundling. That means that other operators, such as TalkTalk and Sky, can make a retail offer to residential customers and indeed to businesses that want to use, as it were, a consumer service. That has helped us to drive down the price of broadband. Indeed, those other operators are able to put their own electronics into cabinets.
Emily Thornberry
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way again. May I raise another issue with him? BT is not sufficiently transparent in relation to its policy for small and medium-sized enterprises. Some of my constituents have told me that if they ring BT on one day and speak to one person, they are told one thing, but then they ring the next day and speak to somebody else, and are told something else, or told, “Oh, we’ve got to refer it to x, y and z.” So, there is not sufficient transparency for these SMEs to understand how they can get this vital utility into their business at a price that is affordable and competitive.
Mr Vaizey
As I was saying, my understanding is that these sectors are separate parts of BT’s business. So, a residential customer who wants a BT line will get a BT line, but that line will also be open to BT’s competitors, such as TalkTalk and Sky, to run their service across that line. The business market is different, and BT is under no obligation to share its commercially sensitive data about which business customers it has and which business customers it is targeting. BT is a private company; it is not a national company. It is not running a not-for-profit service; it competes vigorously with other business providers. It is important to stress that in most areas there is a very vibrant business market, with a lot of different suppliers supplying it, whether that is in central London, Manchester or elsewhere.
Because we could not get state aid directly to subsidise the build-up of fibre, we wanted to support individual businesses to get the connections they needed. So we have made available, for example in London, connection vouchers, which would allow a business such as Proudfoot TV to apply for a voucher and to have the connection charge met by that voucher. In London, 2,500 businesses have taken advantage of that scheme. The other interesting thing we learned from that exercise was that the total number of potential suppliers—bearing in mind that the service was available in 22 cities—ran to something like 500 or 600 companies.
I hear a lot of criticism about BT in debates such as this one, and I sometimes feel that I am BT’s spokesman in the House of Commons because I am constantly having to defend it, either on customer service or on the grounds of competition, but it is interesting to note that where money, and a good margin, can be made, there is a competitive market. So, if someone is in the centre of a city such as London, with a lot of SMEs, they will find a lot of suppliers willing to build up networks and supply that marketplace. However, if someone is in a village in a very rural area, the only game in town tends to be BT. That is the problem we are addressing.
Meg Hillier
There is hot competition to challenge the Minister on that.
I thank the Minister for his comments, and for the move to reduce the cost of Openreach prices to some of the competitor companies. I say that because one of the issues is the overall cost of superfast broadband, both for businesses and residents. Would he, along with the Department for Communities and Local Government, look into this issue about changing planning, for wayleaves—to gain access across property—and to allow other technologies to be installed on or in buildings, because currently the planning rules make it harder for competitive technologies to enter the market?
Mr Vaizey
I am certainly happy to look at the planning regulations. Through the Infrastructure Bill, we were proposing some changes to the electronic communications code, mainly to help those erecting mobile masts. We withdrew those amendments when it became clear that there was some concern over whether mobile operators could use them to go on to each other’s masts and make changes. We will consult and are keen to make those kind of amendments. We would certainly look at any other planning changes that could make life easier for anyone who wants to build a mobile network, a fibre network, or something between the two.
While I am talking about mobile, it is important to remember that in most urban areas, and in particular in central London, the roll-out of 4G is continuing apace. We have the fastest take-up and roll-out of 4G of pretty much any country in the world. It is important, however, to stress the difference between the business market and the residential market. When you or I are at home, Mr Crausby, we will want a connection of 2 to 3 megabits and probably of 7 to 8 megabits, and with that connection, we would want do the normal things that one would expect, such as watching something on iPlayer or sending a document back to our office by e-mail. We would not necessarily, however, be uploading a very data-heavy two-and-a-half minute film. If a business has at its core the transmission of huge packets of data, one would expect it to be prepared to invest in the kind of business lines that are legion in London. An ethernet line is available in St John street in Islington. Virgin Media is in that street. It would cost that business perhaps £200 to £300 a month, once it had the connection established, to run it.
Another key point is that although we have some of the lowest broadband speeds anywhere in the world—the lowest compared with the EU5 and the USA—it will not astonish the Chamber to learn that the faster the speed, the higher the cost. Sometimes, my hon. Friends and colleagues say to me, “I have just been in such and such a country. You know what? The bloke I was staying with had a 1 gig connection. It was amazing. They could download a film in two minutes. It was incredible.” They never bother to ask that bloke how much he is paying for that 1 gig connection. If someone wants a 1 gig connection, they will pay more than if they want a 1 meg connection.
Emily Thornberry
The Minister has spoken about vouchers. I am sure the vouchers have been of some assistance to those businesses that have applied for them. The vouchers, I believe, are for £3,000, but to get a dedicated line costs £5,000. It then costs £400 a month and the business has to sign up to a contract that could last for many years. Those costs are a huge outlay for a small business just starting up and trying to establish itself in Tech City, exporting videos, music videos, adverts and all the sorts of things that are made in Tech City.
When I left Proudfoot TV, I bumped into a couple of BT engineers and said, “Are you going to give them some broadband? What are you up to?” They started to explain to me that they were putting in a dedicated line to a building two doors down. For Proudfoot TV to have a line put in, it would have to pay as if there had not been a line before and would have to start all over again. It would go to box 17, I believe, which is the problem in that particular area. It seems to be nonsense, when businesses have such a lot to be doing, to be unable to get such a basic utility without having to go through all these hoops and climb over all these hurdles.
Mr Vaizey
We are getting to the crux of the matter. Fundamentally, this debate is not about whether broadband is available, but whether businesses that use a huge amount of data should get a cheap broadband service. My contention is that, first, broadband is available and, secondly, it is a highly competitive marketplace. I will, however, highlight some of the changes.
The hon. Lady is quite right; there may be an established business with 10 or 20 employees that understands the need to invest in a leased line, because it is moving large amounts of data. A start-up business with one, two or three people may, however, find those kinds of costs prohibitive in the early stages. Is the market competitive enough to give them the kind of broadband speeds they need to get going? The championing, if I can put it that way, of this issue by the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch and for Islington South and Finsbury and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster on at least three occasions in the House has led to progress, so they should take pride in that. It is a good reminder to us all that it is sometimes worth raising these issues in the House, even if we sometimes think that no one is listening. Virgin Media Business is working closely with the Tech City team and is offering businesses a 50 meg symmetrical service for around £200 a month and a 100 meg symmetrical service for £249 a month. You may still say, Mr Crausby, that that is too much money, but it slightly takes the heat off BT, as it illustrates what a competitor that would dearly love to take all of BT’s business has to charge to make a return.
Meg Hillier
I appreciate the Minister’s generosity in giving way once more. He suggested that the argument boils down just to cost, but let me be clear that there are still companies in Shoreditch that cannot easily get a physical connection. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury has told me that there are also such companies on her side of the roundabout. Alternative technologies would open up the market, make it more competitive and help drive down the price.
Mr Vaizey
Our speeches almost seem to be synergising. The next point I was going to make was that thanks to the campaigning of the hon. Lady and others, Virgin and BT have said that they will increase their footprint. Virgin will cover an additional 100,000 premises in east London and BT is aiming to cover an additional 400,000 premises in cities, with 250,000 of those in city centres and 100,000 of those in central London. UK Broadband is launching a superfast wireless broadband service across central London, including the Cities of London and Westminster. CityFibre and Hyperoptic are looking at delivering those kinds of services in other cities outside of London.
On planning, we are seeking to reduce red tape by introducing legislation to permit the installation of broadband, street cabinets and new overhead lines without prior approval from local planning authorities for five years. We also introduced changes to streamline the process to support the deployment of mobile infrastructure. Those are areas where we have made progress.
The City of London has talked about building its own network. Thanks to campaigning by the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch and for Islington South and Finsbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, we had a meeting with the City of London corporation and BT. BT is trialling “fibre to the basement” technology to try to overcome some of the technical obstacles in providing broadband for multi-dwellings. I am also pleased to say that the Mayor and the London Assembly are taking ownership of the issue. He has set up a connectivity advisory group, which has been formed to bring actors together to improve digital connectivity across London.
A great deal of progress has been made, but I sympathise with any business that is looking at the kind of costs that have been mentioned. Ofcom is due to launch a consultation on business-leased lines in spring that will report, we hope, in early 2016. It will look at competition on business-leased lines.
Emily Thornberry
Is the Minister aware that if one looks at the access to superfast broadband, London looks like a doughnut? It is much easier in outer London than in the centre, and a great deal of work is being done to expose that. I hope that he remains on top of that issue, because as the picture is established, it will become clear that Government intervention is necessary.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)
Order. I am about to suspend the sitting for a Division in the House. Is the Minister about to wind up?
Radiotherapy Services (North East Hertfordshire)
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
This debate could not be better timed, because today is world cancer day, and the day on which we heard from the charity, Cancer Research UK, that although we are seeing better outcomes with cancer, more people are at risk. This is also an opportunity for me to ask for help for my constituents, who have to travel day after day, for many hours, to get their radiotherapy, which is tiring, dangerous, onerous and needs changing.
The situation that I am about to describe affects people not only in my constituency, but in Stevenage, North East Bedfordshire and Hitchin and Harpenden. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) in the Chamber to support the campaign. I am also receiving great support from the public, patients and their families in seeking to ensure that radiotherapy treatment is available to cancer patients at the Lister in Stevenage, in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I pay tribute to his work in raising the issue so strongly.
I have asked questions in Parliament and have secured today’s debate. The Minister will, I know, listen to our case, and I hope that she will intercede for us with NHS England to break the logjam, so that we finally get the Lister hospital this facility, which it needs. The hospital recently opened a new cancer centre in conjunction with Macmillan Cancer Support, and radiotherapy would be an important addition. Furthermore, our local newspaper, The Comet, has long supported the cause.
Radiotherapy for people living in the Stevenage, Letchworth, Baldock and Hitchin area, and just over the border in Bedfordshire, at the moment takes place in Mount Vernon hospital in north London, in Hillingdon. It is a great hospital and the treatment is excellent but it is a difficult journey there, either by car or by the hospital bus service. That service takes all day—it collects patients at 7.30 am, delivering them back at 4 pm. Those long daily journeys are often needed for a three-week period, which is gruelling for patients and their families.
My constituents have described the visits as tiring and stressful. One young woman who is about to start treatment says:
“I am having to go for a three week stint at Mount Vernon, after my breast cancer op at Lister. I’ve been told by people in the same boat that it’s quite a stressful journey and the parking! Lister also has a small bus service pickup from your home at 7.30 back at 4ish! Daily. This is great but after all the patients go through it would be another stressful stage of getting well and to fight cancer.”
Another said:
“I had 39 Radiotherapy sessions for prostate cancer treatment at Mount Vernon Hospital. The treatment was excellent and was given by wonderful staff. Fortunately the transport was provided but this would have been saved if Lister had the appropriate facilities.”
One of the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire told me:
“I am pleased to see you raising the question of installing a radiotherapy unit in the Lister Hospital. This treatment is sorely needed in N. Herts as the travel and journey is particularly onerous for what can be very repetitive and tiring treatment to Mount Vernon in Middlesex…from Stotfold where I live. Myself and two neighbours have had need of this treatment in the past 12 months…the requirement generated from a single road so the need is certainly there.”
Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I have already apologised to both my hon. and learned Friend and the Minister that I am not able to stay to hear the Minister’s speech. I very much want to support my hon. and learned Friend. My constituent’s point is very pertinent. The A1 runs directly down from where that constituent was talking about to the Lister. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that that is a perfect example of how a facility closer to north-east Bedfordshire would make all the difference to relieving our constituents’ suffering?
Sir Oliver Heald
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. There are many arguments for the change. One patient from east Hertfordshire, who is a constituent of mine, said:
“Being diagnosed with cancer is devastating for the person and the family and to discover that part of the treatment involves regular journeys to north London just adds to the stress that family is undergoing.”
Another aspect to consider is patients with children. One constituent wrote to me about her daughter, who is in her 30s and has three children. She needs radiotherapy at Mount Vernon and will have to find someone to travel with her and someone to look after her children on a daily basis for three weeks. Her mother says:
“This all adds to the stress of having to deal with cancer, especially at such a young age.”
She ends her letter to me:
“Here’s hoping we are successful in making someone see sense.”
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on securing this debate, which is important to my constituents in Stevenage. He and I have secured the support of the local newspaper, The Comet, and have run a petition over a number of years to improve radiotherapy access. We have dealt with thousands of people. There is no public transport available for them to get from Stevenage in north-east Hertfordshire to Hillingdon in London, so they are very much stuck with having to have private vehicles and people to support them.
Sir Oliver Heald
That is very much the nub of the issue: there is no alternative to the car or the bus, and the bus takes a day to take patients and bring them back.
The NHS is currently mapping the country to find areas where it takes more than 45 minutes by car to reach radiotherapy, in order to assess pressing need for new and satellite centres. My hon. Friend and I have been in contact with Kim Fell of NHS England about this issue. We have arranged to meet her, Ruth Derrett, who is the head of specialised services, Dr Adrian Crellin, who is the radiotherapy clinical reference group chair, and Pam Evans of the specialised commissioning team, because they think that the journey from our area takes less than 45 minutes.
We have been told that, as part of the review, the National Clinical Analysis and Specialised Applications Team has produced a map that shows the 45-minute position across our area. Apparently, the map shows that only a small proportion of the population of Stevenage travels more than 45 minutes for treatment, and questions have been asked about whether that would generate sufficient activity for the satellite service that we are asking for.
The methodology used is clearly flawed, so we are pressing on the 45 minute figure. Even if one ignores the heavy traffic congestion in our area—my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage and I have been campaigning for some years to widen the A1(M) between Stevenage and Welwyn because it is so congested, and we have recently got about £100 million for it—the AA, the RAC and everyone who does that journey all say that it takes longer than 45 minutes. The senior management at the trust that runs both hospitals, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, allows one hour 15 minutes each way for the journey. I have done the journey only once, and it took me two hours in the rush hour. I have offered to do the drive seven times at different times of the day using the three possible routes and to report the findings to NHS England. I am waiting to hear whether it considers that to be a satisfactory methodology. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage and I have suggested that the key officials might like to come with us on the journey one morning at the same time as the bus, so that they can see the challenge to the 45 minute figure.
I am arguing that Mount Vernon hospital should put a satellite radiotherapy centre at the Lister hospital. We like the Mount Vernon hospital—the treatment there is excellent—so we would like it to use its staff and machines at the Lister. The machines that they use do need to be replaced from time to time, and there are currently eight of them. I am told that fairly soon an opportunity will arise when two need to be replaced. The new machines should be sited at the Lister hospital. That would leave six at Hillingdon and allow Mount Vernon to offer its expertise to an even wider area, thereby securing its position as a cancer centre. It would be able to offer services to a larger group in Bedfordshire, for example, than it currently can. That would benefit the status of Mount Vernon hospital as well as helping the patients.
The Lister hospital has recently benefited from the opening of the wonderful Macmillan cancer care centre on its site. Radiotherapy would greatly improve the support and care available to people in our area. Patients and their relatives strongly support the idea of the move, which has been described to me as “wonderful”. Another person wrote to me to say:
“It would be fabulous to have the device at Lister. It makes sense as we have just opened a great cancer chemotherapy unit”.
I hope that the Minister might intercede on our behalf with NHS England so that our case can be properly considered. The idea that it takes 45 minutes or less from our area to Mount Vernon must be reconsidered. It is time for a satellite radiotherapy centre at the Lister, but we need help to make it happen. I intend to present a petition to Parliament in March. We already have hundreds of signatures, and it can be downloaded from my website: www.oliverheald.com. I will present it on the Floor of the House. My right hon. and hon. Friends, our constituents and I feel strongly that it is time for the change to be made. It is time that those endless journeys, hour after hour, day after day, ended.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) on securing this debate on, as he pointed out, a very apt day: world cancer day. I am still getting used to the idea of the MPs’ road trip that he appears to be planning for himself, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). I will come on to address the issue of access, but that certainly sounds like an offer that no one could refuse.
Stephen McPartland
NHS England has refused us on several occasions. We keep pushing, so we would be grateful if the Minister could persuade it to accept the offer to embark on our road trip.
Jane Ellison
I will certainly draw NHS England’s attention to the force with which the invitation was put in this debate.
Let me say a few words about the bigger picture on cancer before we go into the detail in the contribution by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire. The Government are committed to improving cancer outcomes and matching the best in Europe. As Members are aware, we do not match the best in Europe; we were certainly lagging behind some important countries when the Government came to office in 2010.
The 2011 strategy, which was backed by £750 million, set the ambition of saving an additional 5,000 lives a year. We believe that we are on track to save an additional 12,000 lives a year, far exceeding that ambition. Much of the focus has been on early diagnosis and awareness. Given the clear interest in cancer that Members have expressed by being here, I hope that they will join me in welcoming the announcement of NHS England’s cancer taskforce, which is charged with designing a new cancer strategy for the NHS to take us through to 2020.
I thought Members might be interested in the statistics for East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust over the last 12 months. Some 2,881 more patients with suspected cancers were seen than in 2010—a 49% increase. In addition, 239 more patients were treated for cancer than in 2009-10—an 11% increase. Local NHS staff, to whom I pay tribute, are therefore doing a good job of seeing more people.
Sir Oliver Heald
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that important point. About half of the patients require radiotherapy, so the numbers on that journey are getting higher and higher, and there surely comes a point when we can have our satellite.
Jane Ellison
Indeed, and I will address some of the issues my hon. and learned Friend raised, but let me say a quick word on radiotherapy more generally. The Government have set about improving these services. NHS England will be investing an additional £15 million in stereotactic ablative radiotherapy on top of the £6 million already committed. That will benefit about 750 patients a year. There is also a £23 million radiotherapy innovation fund, which has resulted in the doubling of intensity-modulated radiotherapy activity. In addition, we are investing £250 million in building two new proton beam therapy centres. A lot of investment is therefore being made in some very up-to-date and important technology.
Let me turn to local health matters. First, I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage, who are all known as doughty champions of their local health services. It is particularly good to see the latter, who champions health matters with great vigour in this place.
I am aware of the issues that have been raised. Regardless of the part of the country we live in, we would all expect patients to have ready access to radiotherapy services as part of patient care. Obviously, radiotherapy is a specialised service. It is commissioned directly by NHS England. Fortunately, it is not needed by the majority of NHS patients, but it is vital to those who do need it. The smaller number of patients involved means that the health service needs to think carefully about access—locating units to provide the maximum benefit closest to the highest possible number of people. I will go on to talk about the implications for expertise.
Such decisions are made locally, and are best made locally, by clinical leaders who have the full benefit of local knowledge. However, it is right, of course, to bring concerns to Parliament and to give Ministers a chance to understand what is happening in the local health economy, so that we are aware of the issues and can discuss them, where necessary. Decisions on where to locate specialist services need careful consideration. The issue is of particular note to those who represent more rural constituencies. Patients who live some distance from treatment centres—not only those providing radiotherapy—can, unfortunately, face repeated, long and tiring journeys. I realise that the seats of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire are not necessarily rural, but those are factors in parts of our country. My hon. and learned Friend gave us examples of the anxieties that long, tiring journeys bring, alongside the already stressful situation of being treated for cancer.
Interest in where radiotherapy services are located is understandably heightened by the NHS England review of stereotactic radiotherapy and stereotactic radio surgery services, which is being undertaken at a national level. For the benefit of Members, let me explain that those services involve a type of external beam radiotherapy treatment currently commissioned by NHS England for the treatment of patients with a wide range of cranial cancers. That consultation closed recently, on 26 January, and as part of the review, NHS England found
“an unmet need in the provision of treatment, with services distributed unevenly across the country.”
The proposed changes to the way in which stereotactic radio surgery and radiotherapy services are commissioned in England was looked at in the public consultation. Proposals include consideration of the location of services provided in the interests of ensuring equity of access, and the results are being reviewed by NHS England.
My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that NHS England has also carried out a separate, high-level exercise to assess capacity and demand for external beam radiotherapy more generally at a national level to give it a sense of the national picture. A further phase of work is proposed to take place locally, as there will be some specific local issues of which commissioners and providers will need to take account. That process is due to begin in late March.
Accessibility is characterised by an assurance that all patients are offered the most appropriate and effective treatment for their cancer. The latest research suggests that about 40% of all cancer patients should receive radiotherapy, complementing earlier recommendations made by the National Radiotherapy Advisory Group that aim to boost cancer survival through increasing access to that therapy, delivered as part of a treatment with curative intent. The England average access rate was 33% in 2007, and 38.8% in the most recent figures, which demonstrates real progress. I know, however, that there is further to go, as my hon. and learned Friend made clear in his speech.
NHS England has told me that the radiotherapy clinical reference group, which supports it in commissioning radiotherapy, is of the view that all patients should be offered equitable access to specialist radiotherapy care and treatment. The clinical reference group plans to build on the assessment of radiotherapy demand and capacity for England by considering aspects such as innovative treatments, the stock of equipment and how needs differ across areas. That national overview will enable commissioners to ensure that the right services are in the right places to meet future demand, including innovative forms of radiotherapy. Such improvements might well mean that, in future, patients need fewer episodes of treatment, so the problem of repeated tiring journeys would at least be reduced. I think we would all welcome that.
Access to radiotherapy treatment locally is a matter for NHS England to lead on. The decisions on the introduction of satellite radiotherapy centres will need to involve the local providers—in this case, East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust—and NHS England as commissioners. As my hon. and learned Friend said, his closest radiotherapy services are the excellent services at the Mount Vernon hospital, and there are also services at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge. NHS England will continue to review the need for additional radiotherapy facilities outside those centres, if such facilities would benefit sufficient numbers of patients, be economically viable and enhance the existing care pathways.
It is possible that, as a result of those discussions, it will be found that more radiotherapy services are needed, but the optimum location will be determined by a number of criteria, including the impact on nearby trusts and existing cancer pathways—in other words, in trying to balance out one lack of access, we would not want to cause a problem elsewhere. Such decisions need to be looked at in the round in the local health economy. However, my hon. and learned Friend made good points about access, and I will ensure that those are underlined.
I understand that in 2009-10 there was a capacity review of radiotherapy provision for the Mount Vernon cancer network. That concluded that although the capacity to meet future demand up to 2016 could be met by the current providers, increasing access to the north of the network was an objective that needed looking at. My hon. and learned Friend underlined that point.
Sir Oliver Heald
It is remarkable that the county of Hertfordshire, which has 1.2 million people, does not have radiotherapy facilities at all. Does my hon. Friend agree that the urgency of the matter is changed by the fact that the whole county—or at least most of it—has to go all the way down to London? That is a rather old-fashioned approach. I do not know whether she is prepared to ensure that my remarks, and the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), are relayed to NHS England.
Jane Ellison
I will certainly do that. I make a point of drawing the attention of the relevant clinical leaders to our debates, and to the strength of feeling expressed by Members on behalf of their constituents. I am of course happy to do that.
The siting of a satellite unit at either the Luton and Dunstable hospital or the Lister hospital in Stevenage was considered in the previous review, but given that the system already had sufficient capacity to meet future requirements, the report acknowledged that any satellite development would need to be planned as part of existing capacity, not additional capacity. In other words, services would have to transfer.
Any review should include an assessment of the best fit, to ensure that if a radiotherapy satellite service is a preferred solution, it is located in the right place. I understand all the points made about location and the county not having such a facility, but equally, looking purely at the geography and the county boundaries might not always lead one to completely the right conclusion. That point was, however, important and has been well underlined today. The unit has to be located in the right place, so that there is capacity, and so that the preferred location offers cost-effective treatment to a sufficiently large number of patients. That is the important point: the number of patients.
I understand, too, that my hon. and learned Friend is not talking about using old equipment, but looking at the location of new equipment. Furthermore, sometimes there is concern about involving what might be called the “penny packet” approach, scattering specialist services thinly to achieve better access. One of the challenges with that approach, however, is that while it can often make sense to people on the face of things—“Of course we want those services there”—there is always the caution about staff not getting the benefit of mutual support, and expertise in particular can become diluted. That approach might also make it sometimes more difficult to manage demand, as one unit might become overwhelmed while others are underworked.
Those factors need to be taken into account, and I underline the expertise one in particular. We all want our constituents to be seen by people who treat sufficient specialist health problems to be really expert in them. We want those experts to see enough patients to know what they are doing when they see something. Concentration of expertise is important in many areas of health and has been much focused on.
Sir Oliver Heald
I am suggesting a Mount Vernon operation—that it provides the service in the Lister. Mount Vernon would have two fewer machines, which we would have in the Lister. In that way, we hope that the expertise would be as good as it always has been, but people would not have to do the long journeys.
Jane Ellison
I completely understand that point. I expect local clinical leadership to understand the expertise and staffing available. All those factors will be taken in the round and looked at, because the work is specialist. I would expect the NHS to look at things such as his suggestion about the new machines at Mount Vernon. I will of course write, drawing attention to the particular concerns of my hon. and learned Friend and of my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage about access and the travel distances. They, however, would in turn expect the local NHS to look at issues such as the distribution of expertise to ensure that the continuity of expertise was available.
Stephen McPartland
I am grateful to the Minister, who is being generous in giving way. The local Lister hospital in Stevenage is part of the same trust as Mount Vernon. The chief executive and the cancer surgeons of the local hospital support the concept of a satellite radiotherapy unit, so the local NHS supports having such a unit in Stevenage, or nearby in Hertfordshire. The issue we have is with NHS England getting on and commissioning it. The problem is that we cannot understand how the NHS is getting travel times of 45 minutes.
Jane Ellison
I have certainly picked up from the debate the importance of the issue of travel times. I will make a particular point of drawing that to NHS England’s attention.
It is always heartening to hear that colleagues are so engaged with their local health leaders as to be working together on such things. I am sure that that will all be fed into the process of making a decision. That will have to look at the implications for the whole cancer pathway, and all the other patients who receive services as part of the cancer network.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage are hoping to meet the local NHS, as they detailed. Again, it sounds as if all the right people will be at that meeting. I strongly encourage colleagues to continue such meetings. Such a high level of engagement with local clinical leaders can only be to the benefit of their constituents. They will want to get the best and safest services for their constituents.
I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire, who was supported by other right hon. and hon. Friends, on the debate and on their interest in the issue, which they are championing on behalf of their constituents. It is great to hear that they have the local newspaper, The Comet, involved, because it is always good for local newspapers to be involved in health campaigns, drawing attention to and explaining the issues to their readership. It sounds like a real commitment to fighting cancer in their part of the country. I commend them. I will draw the debate to the attention of those who will be interested, including NHS England. I am happy to continue to liaise with Members, and to hear how they get on with their discussions and the eventual outcome of the local review.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Government Files
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement today regarding the inquiry into child sexual abuse in England and Wales.
The Cabinet Office will support the inquiry and will work with the Home Office to ensure that Departments provide the inquiry with all relevant information.
As the House is aware, the Cabinet Office last week released to The National Archives a file containing information about a former United Kingdom High Commissioner to Canada, Sir Peter Hayman. This file is now public. This file should have been submitted to the review by Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC. I regret that the file was missed in error and was not submitted at the time. However, a similar set of papers was held in the Home Office and seen by Wanless and Whittam. The complete and unredacted Cabinet Office file will be made available to Wanless and Whittam if they wish to see it, and the inquiry. However Wanless has already confirmed that the file would not have changed the conclusions of his review.
As a result of the discovery of the Sir Peter Hayman file, the Cabinet Office has conducted additional searches of its extensive papers and files. Officials have identified four additional relevant files, one of which was marked for destruction pending further checks by the Cabinet Office and The National Archives. The Cabinet Office already has in place a process for reviewing its files scheduled for destruction. I am ensuring that relevant departments have a similar process in place. These files are being shared with the inquiry, the Hart inquiry, the relevant departments, and the Metropolitan Police Service. All the complete and unredacted files will be made available to Wanless and Whittam if they wish to see them.
The files were found in a separate Cabinet Office archive of sensitive, historic papers. This archive, colloquially known as the Cabinet Secretaries’ file, was closed in 2007. It is largely uncatalogued and unregistered; a programme to review it has been underway since last year but remains in progress. Officials assure me that the available titles have now been searched and more detailed searches are ongoing. My officials will work with the inquiry to ensure it has the assurance it requires that all papers held by the Cabinet Office have been fully examined and that relevant papers are correctly identified and disclosed.
[HCWS251]
Care and Support Appeals System
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
Today I am publishing a consultation on draft regulations and statutory guidance to introduce the cap on care costs system that will complete the historic reforms set out in the Care Act. For the first time ever, the cap will protect people from the risk of catastrophic care costs and offer more people means tested financial support towards the costs of their care. Also included in this consultation are policy proposals for a new system of appeals that will enable people to challenge certain decisions made by local authorities under the Care Act.
This consultation continues the collaborative approach we have taken throughout the care and support reform programme and seeks views on the elements of the reforms that are due to come into force in April 2016.
Part one of the consultation focuses on funding reform and seeks views on draft regulations and guidance that will introduce the cap on care costs and extend access to means-tested financial support. The draft regulations and guidance set out the detail of how we propose to implement these reforms enabling local authorities to plan and prepare for implementation. Alongside this, the consultation sets out a small number of areas that we wish to further explore.
The introduction of a cap on care costs will provide people with greater clarity about what they will be expected to contribute towards the cost of their care and what help they can expect from the state. This will not only bring people much needed protection and peace of mind, but also certainty that will enable them to better plan and prepare. The extended access to means tested financial support will mean that more people will be eligible to receive financial support from their local authority towards their care costs.
Part two of the consultation seeks views on policy proposals for a new system of appeals for care and support under the Care Act and the need for a new system. These policy proposals flow from the broad consensus of support for a right of appeal that emerged as the Act progressed through Parliament. The policy proposals set the framework for a cost effective system for people to appeal against certain decisions made by local authorities under the Act which focuses on achieving early resolution.
I am placing a copy of the documents relating to this consultation in the Library of the House. These are also available on the Government’s website at: http://careact2016.dh.gov.uk. These comprise a consultation document, draft statutory guidance and regulations on the cap, policy proposals for an appeals system and an impact assessment.
[HCWS250]
Police Grant Report England and Wales
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Mike Penning)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today laid before the House, the “Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2015-16” (HC 930). The report sets out my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s determination for 2015-16 of the aggregate amount of grant that she proposes to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996, and the amount to be paid to the Greater London Authority for the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime. Copies of the report are available from the Vote Office.
At the time the provisional police grant report was published on 17 December 2014, I said that I was also considering whether a limited amount of police capital grant would be reallocated to support the communications capabilities development (CCD) programme and emergency services mobile communications programmes (ESMCP). After careful consideration I have decided that £20 million will be reallocated to support the CCD programme. This will reduce overall infrastructure costs, maintain capabilities to comply with current legislation, and develop future communications capability. More time is needed to fully define the capital requirements for ESMCP in the future and so I have decided that it is not appropriate to reallocate funding for this programme in 2015-16.
This statement also includes details of other funding streams that the Home Office, the Department of Communities and Local Government and the Welsh Government intend to provide to the police in 2015-16.
The police grant settlement 2015-16
2015-16 | |
|---|---|
Total General Funding: | £m |
Comprising…. | |
Police Core Settlement | 4,309* |
of which Home Office Police Main Grant | 4,136 |
of which National and International, Capital City Grant (MOPAC only) | 174 |
Former DCLG funding | 2,851 |
of which formula funding | 2,818 |
of which Ordnance Survey | 2 |
of which Legacy Council Tax Freeze | 31 |
Welsh Government | 135 |
Total Home Office Specific Grants: | 822** |
Comprising…. | |
Welsh Top-up | 13 |
Counter Terrorism Police Grant | 564 |
Police Innovation Fund | 70 |
Police Knowledge Fund | 5 |
Independent Police Complaints Commission (for the transfer of integrity functions) | 30 |
College of Policing (for direct entry schemes) | 5 |
City of London National and International Capital City Grant | 3 |
HMIC (for PEEL inspection regime) | 9 |
Police Special Grant | 15 |
Major Programmes | 40 |
Legacy Council Tax Freeze Grants | |
of which Council Tax 2011-12 freeze grant | 59 |
of which Council Tax 2013-14 freeze grant | 7 |
of which Council Tax 2014-15 freeze grant | 3 |
Police Private Finance Initiatives | 73 |
Total Government Funding*** | 8,190 |
% cash change in Total Government Funding**** | -3.5% |
% real change in total Government funding | -4.9% |
* **Rounded to the nearest £m ***The police will also separately receive £434.4 million in local council tax support grant. This will be paid by the Home Office. ****This is the difference in total central Government funding to the police compared to 2014-15. The reduction in core Government funding (i.e. funding that is subject to damping) is 5.1%. |
2015-16 Police Capital | £m |
|---|---|
Police Capital Grant | 89.5 |
Police Special Capital | 1 |
Communications Capabilities Development (CCD) | 20 |
NPAS | 10.4 |
Total | 120.9 |
Local Policing Body | HO core (including Rule 1) | Welsh Top-up | Welsh Government | Ex-DCLG Formula Funding | Legacy Council Tax Grants (total from HO) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
£m | £m | ||||
Avon and Somerset | 105.6 | - | - | 56.8 | 14.7 |
Bedfordshire | 40.6 | - | - | 23.5 | 4.6 |
Cambridgeshire | 48.8 | - | - | 24.5 | 6.0 |
Cheshire | 61.8 | - | - | 45.0 | 8.3 |
City of London | 18.5 | - | - | 33.8 | 0.1 |
Cleveland | 46.4 | - | - | 38.8 | 7.7 |
Cumbria | 28.9 | - | - | 31.0 | 4.8 |
Derbyshire | 62.5 | - | - | 37.9 | 8.7 |
Devon and Cornwall | 103.3 | - | - | 63.5 | 15.5 |
Dorset | 41.5 | - | - | 17.4 | 7.3 |
Durham | 43.0 | - | - | 37.2 | 6.1 |
Dyfed-Powys | 31.4 | 6.1 | 12.8 | 0.0 | - |
Essex | 103.4 | - | - | 56.3 | 13.1 |
Gloucestershire | 34.6 | - | - | 19.6 | 5.6 |
Greater London Authority | 1,040.1 | - | - | 754.1 | 119.7 |
Greater Manchester | 227.9 | - | - | 182.4 | 24.5 |
Gwent | 43.2 | - | 29.7 | 0.0 | - |
Hampshire | 120.7 | - | - | 63.5 | 12.9 |
Hertfordshire | 71.8 | - | - | 36.6 | 9.5 |
Humberside | 67.6 | - | - | 46.8 | 10.0 |
Kent | 106.9 | - | - | 67.0 | 13.3 |
Lancashire | 101.1 | - | - | 79.6 | 12.8 |
Leicestershire | 65.7 | - | - | 39.9 | 8.9 |
Lincolnshire | 38.6 | - | - | 20.4 | 6.8 |
Merseyside | 123.2 | - | - | 113.5 | 15.6 |
Norfolk | 50.5 | - | - | 28.9 | 9.3 |
North Wales | 45.4 | 6.5 | 21.3 | 0.0 | - |
North Yorkshire | 41.9 | - | - | 27.2 | 7.9 |
Northamptonshire | 43.4 | - | - | 24.3 | 6.6 |
Northumbria | 110.8 | - | - | 108.0 | 8.2 |
Nottinghamshire | 78.4 | - | - | 48.4 | 9.7 |
South Wales | 89.3 | - | 71.2 | 0.0 | - |
South Yorkshire | 101.2 | - | - | 77.9 | 10.9 |
Staffordshire | 66.9 | - | - | 40.2 | 11.3 |
Suffolk | 41.0 | - | - | 23.0 | 6.8 |
Surrey | 62.5 | - | - | 29.4 | 9.2 |
Sussex | 98.4 | - | - | 54.2 | 13.2 |
Thames Valley | 142.0 | - | - | 74.3 | 15.3 |
Warwickshire | 31.2 | - | - | 17.5 | 5.2 |
West Mercia | 66.7 | - | - | 43.6 | 12.0 |
West Midlands | 252.3 | - | - | 181.3 | 19.0 |
West Yorkshire | 172.5 | - | - | 130.1 | 16.7 |
Wiltshire | 37.7 | - | - | 20.8 | 5.2 |
Total England & Wales | 4,309.2 | 12.5 | 135.0 | 2,818.3 | 503.2 |
Local Policing Body | £m |
|---|---|
Avon and Somerset | 2.0 |
Bedfordshire | 0.8 |
Cambridgeshire | 1.0 |
Cheshire | 1.3 |
City of London | 0.7 |
Cleveland | 1.0 |
Cumbria | 0.7 |
Derbyshire | 1.2 |
Devon and Cornwall | 2.2 |
Dorset | 0.8 |
Durham | 1.0 |
Dyfed-Powys | 0.6 |
Essex | 1.8 |
Gloucestershire | 0.7 |
Greater Manchester | 4.5 |
Gwent | 0.9 |
Hampshire | 2.3 |
Hertfordshire | 1.1 |
Humberside | 1.4 |
Kent | 2.1 |
Lancashire | 2.1 |
Leicestershire | 1.3 |
Lincolnshire | 0.8 |
Merseyside | 2.6 |
Metropolitan | 23.7 |
Norfolk | 1.0 |
North Wales | 0.9 |
North Yorkshire | 0.8 |
Northamptonshire | 0.8 |
Northumbria | 2.5 |
Nottinghamshire | 1.4 |
South Wales | 1.9 |
South Yorkshire | 2.1 |
Staffordshire | 1.3 |
Suffolk | 0.9 |
Surrey | 1.2 |
Sussex | 1.8 |
Thames Valley | 2.9 |
Warwickshire | 0.8 |
West Mercia | 1.4 |
West Midlands | 4.8 |
West Yorkshire | 3.5 |
Wiltshire | 0.8 |
Total England & Wales | 89.5 |
[HCWS248]
EU Justice and Home Affairs Matters
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have prepared the fifth annual report to Parliament on the application of protocols 19 and 21 to the treaty on European Union (TEU) and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU)—“the treaties”—in relation to EU Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) matters. The report, which is today being laid before the House, is submitted on behalf of both my own Department and that of the Secretary of State for Justice.
On 9 June 2008 the then Leader of the House of Lords committed to table a report in Parliament each year setting out the decisions taken by the Government in accordance with protocol 21—“the Justice and Home Affairs opt-in protocol”—and to make that report available for debate. These commitments were designed to ensure that the views of the Scrutiny Committees should inform the Government’s decision-making process.
The Minister for Europe confirmed this commitment on behalf of the coalition Government in 2011, and this is the fifth such report. It covers the period 1 December 2013 to 30 November 2014. For completeness, the report also covers the application of protocol 19 to the treaties on the Schengen acquis integrated into the framework of the EU—“the Schengen opt-out protocol”.
Over the period covered in the report, the Government took 33 decisions on UK participation in EU Justice and Home Affairs legislative proposals. Of these, the UK opted in to 21 proposals and did not opt in to 10 proposals. The Government have also taken two decisions to opt out of proposals under the Schengen opt-out protocol during the period covered by this report. At the point of publication, two EU legislative proposals are subject to ministerial and parliamentary consideration with regard to an opt-in decision. The report also provides an indicative list of legislative proposals which are expected to be brought forward over the next 12 months that are likely to require a decision on UK participation under the Justice and Home Affairs opt-in or Schengen opt-out protocols.
[HCWS249]
Better Workplace Pensions
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Pensions (Steve Webb)
I am pleased to announce that today I intend to lay before Parliament draft regulations to ensure value for money in relevant occupational pension schemes, which provide money purchase benefits, through improved governance and measures to safeguard savers in qualifying schemes against high and unfair charges. I am also publishing the accompanying Government response to the October consultation on these measures, “Better workplace pensions: putting savers’ interests first”.
We are committed to building a pensions system that people can save into with confidence and that will help ensure financial independence in retirement. Over 5 million people have now been automatically enrolled into workplace pension schemes. By 2018, 8 to 9 million people will be saving for the first time, or saving more towards their pension.
It is vital, therefore, that workplace pension schemes are run in the interests of members, whose savings will not be diminished by excessive charges.
Since these proposals were announced last March, we have been working closely with industry stakeholders, consumer representatives and regulators to develop the detailed regulations. Today’s Command Paper is therefore the culmination of an extensive and rigorous process of analysis and consultation. It provides a response to our recent consultation on the draft regulations to implement our proposed governance and charges measures for qualifying schemes. It also announces the next stage of our work to ensure full disclosure of costs and charges throughout the value chain in workplace pension schemes, as we plan to publish a joint call for evidence with the Financial Conduct Authority in spring 2015.
For relevant workplace personal pension schemes, the Financial Conduct Authority will be introducing corresponding rules to control charges and to establish Independent Governance Committees from April 2015. Their rules, together with our regulations, will ensure that savers are protected regardless of the type of workplace pension they are saving into.
Subject to parliamentary approval, these draft regulations will be a major step towards ensuring a positive outcome for millions of people in retirement.
[HCWS247]
Grand Committee
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
European Parliamentary Elections (Forms) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the European Parliamentary Elections (Forms) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, in moving this Motion, I shall also speak to the next three Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper. The four statutory instruments before us today form a package of legislation to update the design of voter-facing forms used in all four types of elections in Northern Ireland; namely, UK parliamentary, European parliamentary, Northern Ireland Assembly and local elections.
Noble Lords will be aware that forms for elections are one of the primary ways in which voters receive information about elections and are encouraged to participate in them. Over time, some forms have become outdated and voters find some of the language used in the forms hard to understand. The Government are committed to making the process of voting as accessible as possible, while maintaining the security of the poll. In recent years, the appearance of voter-facing forms has been modernised at some polls, such as the 2012 police and crime commissioner elections and the 2014 European parliamentary elections in Great Britain.
The Government believe that there is value in using the same or similar forms for all elections in Northern Ireland to help avoid voter confusion by ensuring that information is provided in a consistent and recognisable format. It is also the Government’s view that voter-facing forms should be as similar as possible in all parts of the United Kingdom participating in an election, taking into account local differences in legislation.
The Government issued a public consultation paper on this issue in April 2014. The response from the Electoral Commission recommended that user testing be conducted in Northern Ireland and the commission subsequently commissioned Ipsos MORI to conduct user testing of the forms proposed in the consultation paper. A number of changes were made to the forms following the user testing, in consultation with the Electoral Commission and the chief electoral officer.
The forms being changed for all four elections are poll cards, postal poll cards, proxy poll cards, proxy postal poll cards, proxy papers, certificates of employment and declarations of identity, including for combined polls. Additionally, for European parliamentary, Northern Ireland Assembly and local elections, the ballot papers, directions for printing the ballot papers, declarations to be made by the companion of a voter with disabilities and guidance for voters are also being updated. Changes have been made to use a clearer font and a clearer layout, and to highlight and distinguish important information. Headings have now been added to each form to state clearly to which election it relates.
I hope that the Committee will agree that modernising these electoral forms is an important part of encouraging voter participation in the democratic process and are reassured that these changes are fully supported by the Electoral Commission and chief electoral officer. I beg to move.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very clear exposition of what is entailed in these regulations and orders. It is quite right that there should be reform and remodelling of the papers associated with elections in Northern Ireland. It is also right that a large element of standardisation is taking place within the whole of the United Kingdom. We are one country and it is right that these forms should be standardised and modernised in this way.
The forms used for elections are the main formal contact that we have with voters when they come to vote. It is essential that they be kept clear. I totally agree with the noble Baroness when she says that, over the years, some of the language has become a bit dated and confusing. I welcome bringing it up to date; that is certainly the way to go about it.
There was some consultation on the issue in Northern Ireland and I understand that seven responses were received. It was recommended that separate user testing be conducted in Northern Ireland. The Electoral Commission subsequently contracted Ipsos MORI to conduct user testing of the forms proposed in the consultation paper. It is to be hoped that that is reflected in the changes that were made.
There is not much more to say, other than that Her Majesty’s Opposition welcome the changes and support the Government in what they are doing.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
In which case, I hope that the Committee will accept the regulations.
Local Elections (Forms) (Northern Ireland) Order 2015
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Local Elections (Forms) (Northern Ireland) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Forms) Order 2015
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Forms) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Parliamentary Elections (Forms) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Parliamentary Elections (Forms) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Public Bodies (Abolition of the Library Advisory Council for England) Order 2014
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Jolly
That the Grand Committee do consider the Public Bodies (Abolition of the Library Advisory Council for England) Order 2014.
Relevant documents: 13th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 15th and 21st Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, the Advisory Council on Libraries—or the ACL, as it was known—was established by Section 2 of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. The 1964 Act set out that it was the duty of the council,
“to advise the Secretary of State upon such matters connected with the provision or use of library facilities whether under this Act or otherwise as it thinks fit and upon any questions referred to it by him”.
That was the sole statutory function of the council. The ACL comprised persons who had experience of administering library services operated by both local authorities and other bodies. The chair and members of the ACL were appointed by the Secretary of State and it met three times a year.
The abolition forms part of the Government’s public body reform programme, which sets out to reform the landscape of public bodies, to increase transparency and accountability, to cut out duplication of activity and to discontinue activities that are no longer needed. In July 2010, the then Secretary of State at DCMS announced a number of proposals in a Written Ministerial Statement, including the abolition of the ACL. In addition, the abolition was announced as part of the Cabinet Office’s public bodies review on 14 October of that year. However, the 1964 Act does not provide for the ACL’s abolition, so it was necessary to include it in Schedule 1 to the Public Bodies Act 2011 to achieve its legislative dissolution.
Since the proposed abolition of the ACL was announced, there have been no further meetings of the council and DCMS has conducted itself on the basis that ACL is effectively defunct. In that time, the role of gathering appropriate intelligence about the library sector and providing advice to the Secretary of State has been undertaken by DCMS in collaboration with local government and others within the sector, such as Arts Council England, which is the development agency for libraries, and the Society of Chief Librarians.
The ongoing requirement for the ACL results in unnecessary duplication of the knowledge and sector expertise already found among other statutory and non-statutory organisations in the library sector. The Secretary of State’s statutory duty to superintend and promote the public library service remains unchanged, so there will be no reduction in accountability. The 1964 Act places a duty on the Secretary of State to superintend and promote the improvement of the public library service provided by local authorities in England, and to secure the proper discharge by local authorities of the functions relating to libraries conferred on them as library authorities under that Act. There is also a statutory power to intervene when a library authority fails, or is suspected of failing, to provide the required service. This power has been exercised only once since 1964, with intervention by way of public inquiry in 2009 relating to proposed changes to Wirral’s library service. The advice of the ACL was not sought in connection with the use of this power.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Independent Library Report was published on 18 December. It did not include any consideration of or reference to the statutory requirements of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. However, one of the report’s key recommendations is to establish a task and finish group for libraries, which would provide the necessary leadership, be the advocate for public libraries in England and take forward programmes to support a number of specific actions, including: supporting the creation of a national digital library network; responding to the outcomes of the current e-lending pilots; and encouraging and developing the library workforce.
A 12-week consultation on the proposed abolition of the ACL commenced on 17 February and closed on 9 May 2014. Only nine responses were received to this consultation, with seven answering the specific questions. The majority considered that the advisory function should not be transferred to another body, with just over half considering that the ACL should be retained. The responses to the consultation were given careful consideration, but the departmental view remains that the function of advising the Secretary of State does not require a statutory body. The ACL is not a technical or fact-gathering body. It is inflexible, with its primary aims and membership being prescribed by a statute, and it is no longer a relevant structure.
As I have said, the function of advising the Secretary of State does not require a statutory body. The ACL duplicates the knowledge and sector expertise already found among other statutory and non-statutory organisations, and in DCMS. Here, I should like to insert an interesting point. I asked the officials to provide me with the minutes of the last two meetings of the ACL. At the last meeting, in February 2010, when the ACL did not know the outcome of the general election, a minute under “AOB” noted that DCMS’s public value programme was looking at costs and benefits of public bodies. It was also considering the future of the ACL, so the ACL seemed doomed even in 2010.
DCMS has and will continue to work with relevant bodies, including Arts Council England, the Local Government Association, the Society of Chief Librarians and the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals, to ensure appropriate intelligence about the library sector is captured. This will supplement skills and expertise available in DCMS, which of course includes qualified librarians. Furthermore, the Government consider that the establishment of the task and finish group and its range of functions further negates the requirement for the ACL.
I commend the order to the Committee.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the Committee and to my noble friend for missing her opening remarks. No doubt the library advisory council has served its time and should be wound up, as my noble friend indicated. However, does she consider that an outside process for both advice and monitoring is still desirable? This is apart from performance assessments that might be made by government and local authorities. For independent monitoring can give us some assurance of the real extent to which the library service may be improving consistent with national and local demand.
On maintaining an ever improving library service, how do we compare with our European Union partners? To our own advantage, should we perhaps take note of certain other systems and methods deployed by some of them and, if so, which ones?
Regarding further constructive developments over the next few years within the library service, which targets does my noble friend wish to draw to our attention?
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
I well understand how the library service came to be abolished. It was part of the massacre of the quangos that arose from government policy and, clearly, the time for change was ripe. The library service throughout the country is living through an ongoing crisis. At a time when there is a great diffusion of concern and good will expressed on many sides, it is important that there is a body that focuses the needs arising across the country.
First, the Minister spoke about the responsibilities being devolved to DCMS, the Arts Council and the Society of Chief Librarians. They are all very good and authoritative people but they have lots of other tasks in hand. As she will know, when several authorities hold responsibility for something, there is a danger that decisions fall through the gaps.
Secondly, the statutory duty of superintending, promoting and improving the library service falls far short of what is happening because libraries are being closed. In Lincolnshire yesterday, the council voted on which libraries to close and there was a storm of support on Twitter for libraries in Lincolnshire. That is happening all over the country. People are devoted to seeing the library service evolve a new form of library establishment, so that libraries, which are no longer just about books, become valued community enterprises. I took part in efforts to save my local library. It is now Primrose Hill Community Centre as opposed to Chalk Farm Library. Its activities have expanded and it has become a hub of community activity. Although it still promotes books, of course, it also shows films and runs reading classes for children. Libraries are evolving into this amazing new format as a consequence of the crisis that resulted from their falling into disuse. I emphasise that the ongoing policy of support for libraries is enormously important and should not be neglected.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I echo my noble friend’s remarks about the current crisis libraries are facing. They are not a luxury but a practical tool and provide vital public space for individuals and families across the country. They are a resource for parents and young children, schoolchildren who do not have a place to work at home, jobseekers who are trying to gain new skills and employment, elderly people living in isolation and community groups. Increasingly, they are incubators for new ideas and places where businesses come to fruition.
Personally, I regret that over the past four and a half years the Government have been slow to respond to the growing crisis in the sector. At a time when many library services were under threat there was no sense of urgency, coherent strategy, direction or guidance for local authorities, and no idea about what might be the minimum acceptable outcome. Libraries are provided at local level, and councils, rightly, have the first claim on leadership, but the Government have a clear duty to minimise the damage done to the library service and to provide an overarching strategic vision.
I feel a little as though I am in a “Monty Python” sketch. We are considering the case for a body in this debate on its proposed abolition, but the Ministers have told us that essentially the ACL is a defunct body, with no staff, premises, assets or liabilities. In other words, it is a dead parrot.
I, too, welcome the Independent Library Report for England, published just before Christmas. However, as Ed Vaizey, the Minister, tells us, it,
“did not include consideration of the statutory requirement of the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964”,
and,
“makes no reference to the ACL”.
I admit that I find it difficult to follow the argument that since the ILR did not consider the statutory requirement of the statutory Act or the ACL, its abolition is not dependent on the report’s publication, yet one of its primary recommendations now apparently negates the need for the ACL. As the Delegated Powers Committee suggested, the considerations of the ILR clearly intersect with the practical implementation of the duties placed upon the Secretary of State and local authorities by the 1964 Act, and it is therefore reasonable to see the outcome of the ILR as relevant to the decision on the ACL. I am sorry for all these abbreviations—they will get worse when we get to the recommendations.
Clearly, my party believes that there is a good case for a body to support development, innovation and best practice, including measures to find efficiency savings and increase impact, helping to lessen the pressure for cuts to services. That is why we welcome the conclusion of the review to establish the libraries’ task and finish group. I rather like that name. Gone are the days of a good old task force; it is now “task and finish”. Maybe that is where some of my concerns are.
Cross-party and organisational working must be at the heart of its activities. The Department for Education, the Department of Health, DCMS, BIS and the Department for Communities and Local Government, all have a role to play, as have organisations such as the British Library, Booktrust, the Reader Organisation, the National Literacy Trust, Arts Council England—as we heard from the Minister—the CILIP and the Reading Agency.
Mr Vaizey’s case for the task and finish group is that its functions are far wider than the sole advisory function of the ACL—as we heard from the Minister in her introduction—and, as he says, more importantly, it will also be focused on delivery. Unlike the ACL, the membership of the task and finish group will be flexible and dynamic, so that it can adapt to suit the specific tasks involved. The TFG will report jointly to Ministers and the Local Government Association and will be independent of government.
When, in October 2011, the Arts Council took over responsibility for supporting and developing libraries from the former Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, it did not take on the MLA’s supervisory role for libraries—again, a point raised by my noble friend. At a time when libraries are withering on the vine in many communities, oversight is even more critical than at any time before. The point the noble Earl made was absolutely right. I agree with the view that the recommended role and structure of the task and finish group are not suitable for the ACL, whose primary aim and minimum membership is prescribed by statute. However, I do not necessarily accept that the establishment of the TFG and its range of functions negate the need for statutory independent advice in the Secretary of State’s meeting his obligations under the 1964 Act. I fear that in performing its job, working with a range of authorities, it will miss that fundamental requirement that we must have a library service. And what is that library service? It is certainly not a second-hand bookshop in a local high street. It is more than that, and we need to be very careful about the standards that we set.
Mr Vaizey’s view is that, as we have heard from the Minister today, advice and guidance from stakeholders and officials at the DCMS are sufficient to meet the function of providing advice to the Secretary of State, including on the use of his statutory powers. I am not sure that the fact that nobody has taken action is necessarily evidence that there is no need for action. Clearly, with the number of library closures increasing and access to libraries diminishing, that is not the case at the moment.
Although DCMS has stated that no budget is allocated to the ACL—I think that its abolition will save approximately £2,500 a year; this is obviously not a budget consideration—I ask the Minister whether, during the period of the ACL’s inaction, any external advice to the Secretary of State has been brought into the department and, if so, what the cost of that advice was.
Baroness Jolly
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their interesting comments and searching questions about the library service. I want to respond to the outstanding points raised today—not necessarily in turn but I hope to cover them all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked about responsibility and where the buck stops. It is quite clear that the Secretary of State at the DCMS has responsibility. It is his or her duty to superintend and promote the public library service. There is no reduction in accountability here, so that is the person to whom we should all look. Oversight is critical, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, oversight was never the role of the ACL.
Threading all the way through this—it does not form part of my speech but it has formed part of the debate—is the perceived crisis within library services resulting from cuts in funding from local authorities. I think all of us have seen library services being cut in our own local authority areas, but in some areas they are mushrooming into something far more exciting than was ever there before. The noble Baroness gave us an example of that: a community facility or activity centre where volunteering is key, where information is held in not only book form—which perhaps most of us would recognise from when we were younger—but in all sorts of digital formats with digital access being available.
The task and finish group will do just that and look at the whole issue and come up with recommendations for the Secretary of State. I fully anticipate that they would involve not only ministries—for example, the Department for Education, DCMS, BIS, Communities and Local Government and, I am sure, more that I have not thought of—but Arts Council England and a whole host of other bodies. An independent report will come out of this.
My noble friend Lord Dundee asked whether we had looked at what was happening in the EU. Certainly, I anticipate that the task and finish group will consider what library services look like all over the world, not just in the EU but in other states. I imagine that will be part of its remit.
Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Scheme 2014
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices and Electronic Reporting) (England) (Amendment) Scheme 2014.
Relevant document: 18th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to present this scheme to the Committee. The scheme will provide funding to the owners of English fishing vessels for the purchase of upgraded electronic logbook software in compliance with obligations under the common fisheries policy.
Logbook and landing declaration information forms an essential element of the means by which we monitor data and manage fisheries. Under Community law, fishing vessels of over 10 metres’ overall length must keep a logbook to record estimates of catch on board vessels. They are also required to submit landing declarations containing accurate landing figures.
Traditional paper-based logbooks and landing declarations are time-consuming for fishermen to complete, and entering data from these paper records on to computerised databases is also resource-intensive for fisheries administrations. As a result, since 2010, electronic logbooks have been rolled out to the UK over-12 metre fishing fleet under the EU control regulation.
The electronic submission of fishing data brings other benefits. It allows the monitoring in real time of fishing activity as logbook information is gathered on a daily basis. It assists in the detection of attempts to misrecord catches and so contributes towards improving compliance. Clearly, the operation of electronic logbooks relies on complex software. As technology develops over time, it has become necessary to alter the format of the data that electronic logbook software stores and transmits, although fishermen will not see a significant difference in how they operate their systems. The new data format does require new software to be supplied to affected vessels, which of course comes at a cost. Given that the benefits of electronic reporting are felt most by government, I believe that it is appropriate to offer fishermen financial assistance in this process. I propose to offer grant aid of up to £1,000 for the installation of updated electronic logbook software.
In order to offer fishermen a choice of electronic logbook, we have approved five different suppliers. As a result, upgrade costs vary between £300 and £1,000. Although the cost to the public purse is low, it remains important to ensure that appropriate controls are in place. In order to ensure that costs remain fair to all parties, the Marine Management Organisation will accept applications for funding of up to a total of £1,000 per vessel. On this basis, the overall cost of the funding scheme will not exceed £330,000 for the 330 English vessels over 12 metres, and in reality will be somewhat lower. I recognise that some fishermen may wish to take the opportunity to move from one software supplier to another but that is a business decision and grant funding would not be appropriate in those circumstances.
I am pleased to be able to report that the Marine Management Organisation has made a successful bid for funding under the EU aid budget, which means that 90% of the upgrade cost will be met from that fund. I should add that we are also taking the opportunity to future-proof this legislation to provide for the possibility of funding future software changes, including any that may be necessary to monitor compliance with the new CFP regulation, and in particular the landing obligation. I commend the scheme to the Committee.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the scheme before the Committee today. However, what perhaps has not been explained is why the European Commission has altered the format of the data that must be reported, thus requiring software upgrading after only four years. Was there a flaw in the data or is it to be expected today that a four-yearly upgrade will be normal? When set against the progress being made towards the conservation and sustainability of fish stocks, does the Minister judge that these system enhancements will improve outcomes at a quicker pace?
While the cost to the public purse is modest, is the Minister satisfied that this upgrade is future-proofed? Does the noble Lord expect the new system to be effective for future controls or changes in fisheries policies over a longer timeframe? I am sure that the Marine Management Organisation will communicate successfully with the operators of all English-licensed vessels, but will the Minister outline any requirements concerning the timescales involved in this rollout, and what if any penalties would be imposed for non-compliance within that timeframe? I will be grateful to the Minister if he is able to provide any further explanation, but in the mean time I am content with the measure before the Committee.
Viscount Simon (Lab)
My Lords, while the Minister is looking for his notes, I should declare that I am a Younger Brother of Trinity House and a master mariner, which goes back many years to the 1960s, when I was last at sea. Therefore I am completely out of date with modern shipping. What the Minister has described appears to be some advancement in regulations and what happens at sea, which has been recommended. I approve.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked whether I was confident that we had future-proofed the system through the current scheme. The answer is yes. I mentioned in my opening speech that we were taking the opportunity to do just that thing.
The noble Lord asked why the EC altered the format of the data after a relatively short period. He will appreciate as much as anyone that, these days, technology is developing very rapidly. Four years is actually quite a long period, so this change has proved to be necessary. There are other benefits that we can get from the change as well, so we are taking the opportunity through the new format to improve data exchange, for example. As data-handling processes and technology continue to evolve, the Commission took the decision to implement a new software standard for electronic logbooks. Looking to the future—as the noble Lord asked me to do—I very much hope that the new system will be capable of being used for some considerable time. As I say, we have taken the opportunity of future-proofing it by allowing Ministers to approve future public funding should it be necessary.
The noble Lord asked about timescales of rollout and penalties. We are looking to roll this out during the first half of 2015. On penalties, in essence a vessel will be unable to put to sea until the new software is fitted.
I hope that that addresses most of the questions raised. I will check Hansard and, if it does not, I will write.
Public Bodies (Abolition of the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee) Order 2015
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Public Bodies (Abolition of the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee) Order 2015.
Relevant documents: 16th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 19th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, the Public Bodies (Abolition of the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee) Order delivers one of the measures promised in the outcome of the Government’s public bodies review, as announced in October 2010. We are proposing to use the powers in the Public Bodies Act 2011 to abolish the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee—the HGTAC. Section 1 of the Public Bodies Act permits a Minister to abolish by order a body or office specified in Schedule 1. The HGTAC is specified in Schedule 1. It was originally formed under the Forestry Act 1951 and was preserved in the subsequent Forestry Act 1967. No provision was made in either of these Acts for its abolition; accordingly, legislation is now required to do so.
The HGTAC has not had physical form for almost 10 years and exists now only on the statute book. It last met in 2005 and the terms of office of the last members expired in 2006. Those were not renewed by mutual agreement between the forestry commissioners and the final committee members themselves, having considered how the commission should operate, given that forestry is now a devolved policy matter.
The purpose of the HGTAC was to advise the forestry commissioners with regard to their general duty to promote,
“the establishment and maintenance … of adequate reserves of growing trees”,
across Great Britain. It was also to advise on the exercise of their powers to control the felling of trees and to make regulations. Following the devolution of forestry policy and the subsequent cessation of the HGTAC’s activities, advice is now provided to the Forestry Commission through several types of expert advisory groups and other specialist committees with specific knowledge.
As required by due process, we conducted a public consultation on the proposal to abolish the HGTAC in the spring of last year. The consultation was specifically brought to the attention of key forestry-related interests, but was also open to all stakeholders and the wider public via my department’s public website. We received only five responses. A timber-based business and consultancy felt that there could be a role for the HGTAC as the,
“public face of British timber”,
while the RSPB questioned whether the abolition would adversely affect oversight of forestry at national, GB and UK levels to ensure sustainability.
It is not appropriate for the HGTAC to be the public face of British timber. Its role was to advise the forestry commissioners in relation to the exercise of certain duties and functions, not to act as a representative body. Indeed, British timber has many public faces in the form of the various well known representative bodies within the sector, with which the commission has very good relations.
Furthermore, I believe it is not appropriate to suggest that abolishing the HGTAC would adversely affect oversight of forestry at national, GB and UK levels, for several reasons. The HGTAC has not existed nor performed any kind of advisory role for almost 10 years; it never had a UK remit; and in 2013 its remit in relation to Wales ceased to exist. The devolved arrangements now in place provide for very good advisory engagement within each Administration, and through its cross-border functions in particular, the Forestry Commission continues to support a wider overview.
Beyond those concerns, the remaining three respondents to the consultation supported the abolition. These included the Confederation of Forest Industries and the UK Forest Products Association.
There will be no jobs lost as a result of the abolition of the HGTAC, and no loss of rights, privileges or protections. Its role was purely advisory to the forestry commissioners and this is now done by other means. Its abolition does not compromise the ability of the commissioners to access the most informed advice because they are supported in that regard now by the Scottish Forestry Forum, which is supported by five regional forestry forums; the regional advisory committees in England, now called forestry and woodlands advisory committees; the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics, developed from the HGTAC’s previous Supply and Demand (of Timber) Sub-Committee; and the Expert Committee on Forest Science. Indeed, one of those bodies, the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics, is an essential quality assurance element of the Forestry Commission’s own forestry statistics publications.
In April 2013, the functions of the forestry commissioners in Wales were transferred to Welsh Ministers and Natural Resources Wales. At that time the HGTAC ceased to have a remit extending to Wales. However, it remained a cross-border body in relation to England and Scotland and, accordingly, a consent Motion to its abolishment was agreed by the Scottish Parliament on 20 January. A similar Motion has not been required in Wales because of the changes I have mentioned, and the HGTAC provisions did not extend to Northern Ireland.
As noble Lords will be aware, we have placed great emphasis on creating a more efficient policy delivery landscape through our public body reforms. There is broad agreement, as demonstrated by the support of representative bodies, that the HGTAC is no longer required. Abolishing this defunct body will also help the Forestry Commission operate more efficiently within the current devolved arrangements.
I hope from this explanation that the Committee will understand why we have decided to bring forward this order to abolish the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. I commend the order to the Committee.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend say what recent measures of government forestry policy have usefully derived from national advisory committees or, indeed, any of the other bodies to which he has just referred and which the Government may be in the habit of consulting from time to time?
How consistent has that advice been; for example, over the desirable economic target to plant more in order to import less?
The Forestry Act 1967 stressed the need for,
“adequate reserves of growing trees”.
To continue to achieve that aim, what planting and maintenance targets are now envisaged for the Forestry Commission and the private sector respectively?
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, the Government are increasing woodland creation and management at a rapid rate. We hope to have a million more trees by the end of this Parliament, which is absolutely to be welcomed. However, we have long-standing domestic and international obligations to ensure that forestry is carried out in a sustainable manner. As the Minister highlighted in his opening remarks, the RSPB in its response to the commission highlighted concerns. The explanatory document makes it clear that the role of Ministers is to ensure that these commitments are delivered, stating that while,
“it is principally for the Forestry Commissioners to determine how they should be delivering their balancing duty between the management of forests and promotion, supply, sale, utilization and conversion of timber … it is ultimately for the relevant Governments’ Ministers in England and Scotland to intervene should the Commissioners be failing in their statutory remit”.
Therefore, while I am not opposed in any way to the abolition of the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, I felt that it was proper to take this opportunity to ask the Minister what plans the Government have to monitor the effects of the increase in trees and the management we are delivering to ensure that benefits are delivered for growth in the economy, people and the environment.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to the order today. We agree with him that this advisory committee has gone the distance and that it serves no useful function, not having met since 2005, with its role having been devolved to national committees. I note that its former functions are now discharged through separate arrangements in each Administration and it has no property, rights or liabilities, so a transfer scheme under Section 23 of the Public Bodies Act 2011 is not required.
The Minister makes the order under the provisions of the Public Bodies Act 2011, and it meets the tests under that Act that it improves the exercise of public functions, does not remove any necessary protections and does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom.
Your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is content with the order and considers that the Minister’s department has handled the consultation process appropriately. I have asked the Minister on previous occasions when considering organisations under the Public Bodies Act to update the Committee on progress generally. If the Minister has any further news, that would be instructive for the Committee.
The measure today is non-contentious, the Minister’s department is to be congratulated on its presentation to the Committee, and I approve the order. Meanwhile, I would be grateful to hear from his department whether the forestry estate is now safe in public hands, and to hear what delayed his department from bringing forward legislation as promised.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ contributions. My noble friend Lord Dundee asked what recent measures of government forestry policy have usefully derived from the national advisory committees. In my opening presentation I mentioned various bodies which now act in place of the former HGTAC in advising the Forestry Commission on the discharge of its functions. However, the totality of that advice adds to the Forestry Commission’s overall ability to advise the Government on development of forestry policy. Additionally, the Expert Group on Timber and Trade Statistics has influenced policy on supply and demand of timber in that it quality-assures the Forestry Commission’s production of forestry statistics, which policy analysts interpret and use as the basis to inform the development of forestry policy.
My noble friend also asked, essentially, about how we will ensure adequate reserves of growing trees. We have not set planting targets for England, but in refreshing forestry policy we have set out an aspiration to increase woodland cover in England from 10% to 12% by 2060. That would require on average creating 5,000 hectares of new woodland per year. We readily acknowledge that that is a challenging aspiration, and we have been clear all along that it will require the Government’s support measures plus private-sector investment to make it happen. The Rural Development Programme currently supports about 2,000-plus hectares of new woodland per year, but non-RDP-funded expansion is currently quite low, at about 800 hectares.
To maintain our woodlands, we have also set an aspiration to bring 66% of them into management by 2018 and expect the proportion to rise beyond that, towards 80%, in due course. Since 2011, we have already progressed from 52% to 57% of woodlands under management.
My noble friend Lady Parminter asked how we would monitor our performance. I have already partly explained that the Forestry Commission will be responsible. It is exciting that the sector has seen British sawn timber grow its market share of UK consumption from 8% to 38% over 30 years. Softwood deliveries have grown steadily from just over 8 million tonnes in 2009 to closer to 11 million tonnes now. UK businesses have invested in some of the most advanced sawmills and panel board mills in the world. We are supporting growth in the wood-based economy in several ways. We have worked closely with the sector’s Grown in Britain initiative and welcome regional growth initiatives such as the northern Roots to Prosperity strategy.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked what progress we were making under the public bodies programme. We have made quite good progress in that area. So far, we have abolished 52 NDPBs, including the Commission for Rural Communities, and transferred the functions of British Waterways in England and Wales to the Canal & River Trust. There are now only one or two bodies still to be abolished, which are mainly defunct or non-operational.
The noble Lord asked, rather provocatively, whether the forestry estate was now safe in public hands. Yes, it is—I do not know how many times I have to say that. I think that the noble Lord is quite aware that we were unable to secure a legislative slot in this Session of Parliament, but we remain committed to setting up an independent body to manage the public forest estate.
I hope that I have answered noble Lords’ questions. I will of course check Hansard and write if I need to. I thank noble Lords for their contributions.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, the energy efficiency directive updates the EU’s legal framework for energy efficiency, with a target of saving 20% of the EU’s primary energy consumption by 2020 and of making further energy efficiency improvements after that date. The directive establishes a common framework of measures for the promotion of energy efficiency within the EU and lays down rules to remove barriers in the energy market and overcome market failures that impede efficiency.
My department has responsibility for the aspects relating to increasing the uptake of cost-beneficial cogeneration, usually known as combined heat and power, and waste heat recovery systems in the UK. The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 that we are debating today transpose in England and Wales Articles 14.5 to 14.9 of the energy efficiency directive.
The amending regulations require operators of new or substantially refurbished combustion installations of more than 20 megawatts in size to carry out a cost-benefit analysis and therefore consider whether the installation of combined heat and power, or waste heat recovery systems and the use of waste heat, could be cost-beneficial, with the aim of increasing energy efficiency.
Where cogeneration or waste heat recovery and use options are shown to be cost-beneficial, operators will have to install such systems, and this will be a requirement of their environmental permit. By installing such systems, operators will achieve cost savings. There will also be social benefits from reduced carbon emissions and improved security of energy supply. The amending regulations are consistent with our aim of protecting the environment for future generations, making our economy more environmentally sustainable and improving our quality of life and well-being.
The choice to transpose the requirement for a cost-benefit analysis by amending the existing environmental permitting regime has clear benefits for operators and regulators alike. Environmental permitting is an established process for regulating the development, operation and refurbishment of industrial installations in England and Wales. Nearly all the installations subject to the requirements of Article 14.5 of the directive are already subject to the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010, as amended. Use of this existing system therefore allows implementation of the requirements of these articles in a manner which limits burdens on operators and regulators.
My department conducted a public consultation exercise between February and April 2014. There were 20 responses to the consultation. All supported the use of the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations to transpose the requirements of the directive. A number of concerns were raised by respondents regarding the suitability and practicality of the thresholds applied in the instrument. These concerns have been taken on board and changes have been made to the regulations to reflect this.
An impact assessment was prepared for the implementation of these amending regulations which showed an estimated net cost of £12.4 million over the 10-year appraisal period. The costs to regulators are included in this figure and may be recouped through environmental permitting fees and charges.
There will clearly be benefits to improving energy efficiency for both the operator and society. The impact assessment was not able to quantify these benefits overall as it is unclear how many operators would introduce changes. However, the impact assessment included a number of case studies which, for example, suggest that if combined heat and power were installed instead of an industrial boiler, depending on the size and configuration of the boiler, the operator could see annual savings of between £1 million and £7 million, paying back their upfront investment within six years.
These amending regulations will help to ensure that operators install energy efficient systems and reduce the carbon emissions where they are cost beneficial. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that good explanation. Is there a ready supply of these combined heat and power boilers within the United Kingdom or elsewhere to enable operators to fulfil the terms of the regulations?
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I am again indebted to the Minister for his excellent introduction to the regulations. Energy efficiency has a crucial impact on energy security across the whole of the United Kingdom. It forms part of the measures to reduce emissions to meet our greenhouse gas reduction targets and is a vital part of keeping energy costs down for everyone. The Minister’s department is to be commended on taking this initiative to amend the regulations to require operators to undertake a cost-benefit analysis of installations of cogeneration. Has the Minister any evidence that this was not happening previously?
I note that these regulations have been delayed past the deadline of June 2014 following consultations, and that therefore England and Wales are following the vanguard of regulations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. How do these regulations compare? Will these measures be applied consistently across the whole of the United Kingdom to further the attainment of the UK’s international emissions reductions targets?
The success of this measure will very much depend on the individual circumstances of each application. I note that there was extensive dialogue with affected operators during the consultation process, from which the Minister’s department has taken concerns on board in drafting these regulations. However, no details about this dialogue, or of the consultation, have been provided in the Explanatory Memorandum. Can the Minister give further clarification by providing an assessment of the likely uptake of cogeneration?
Of the estimated 18 gigawatts of electrical cogeneration potential in the UK, only 8.4 will be built by 2020. It would be helpful to understand the quantum by which that might be improved by this measure. I wondered whether the consultation process had given his department any feel for what it might be, even through no impact assessment has been provided, on the grounds that the outcomes are difficult to quantify.
Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum states that guidance, which has also been subject to public consultation, is being prepared by the Environment Agency. Could the Minister give the Committee any indication of when it might be made public as this omission is likely to prolong the delay before these regulations will produce benefits? Meanwhile, I am content to agree to the regulations.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked whether there is a ready supply of combined heat and power boilers. There is indeed. On average, 120 megawatts of combined heat and power plant has been installed per annum over the past five years, which I hope indicates that there is a supply chain.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to the time it has taken to transpose the directive. There were indeed delays in finalising the text of the draft regulations, primarily due to the Government’s desire to integrate comments received by stakeholders during the public consultation. We took most of the comments received on board and reflected them in the draft regulations. In particular, we revised some of the thresholds to ensure that they fully apply the allowed derogations in the directive and avoid disproportionate burdens on British businesses, while still achieving the required level of support for energy efficiency. As he will understand, that required detailed technical discussions.
The Duke of Montrose
I thank the Minister for his answer. Can I press him further? Perhaps something that could be written down is what proportion of the current supply is based in the UK. One of our difficulties—this is something that needs to keep being emphasised—is that we keep on bringing in energy efficient technology and so on by simply buying it from abroad rather than having a home-grown industry.
Lord De Mauley
I share my noble friend’s keenness that we should, as a country, take advantage of this growth market. I do not have the figures at my fingertips, so if I may, I will write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked how the regimes compare between ourselves and the devolved Administrations. They are essentially the same across the United Kingdom. My officials have worked closely with those in the devolved Administrations to ensure this.
The noble Lord asked when the guidance will be ready. The Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales have developed cost-benefit analysis guidance to assist operators, which will be published shortly. The draft guidance was subject to consultation last year. He also referred to what he saw as a gap in the impact assessment. There is uncertainty regarding how many of the operators within the scope of this instrument would have undertaken a cost-benefit analysis without the requirement being added to their environmental permit. The outcomes, including the environmental benefits through reduced carbon emissions, will be site-dependent and will depend on operators’ decisions about how to proceed. They are therefore impossible for us to quantify at this stage. However, the impact assessment provides a number of case studies to which I referred in my opening remarks.
The noble Lord asked a question related to my noble friend’s point on how big the potential is for combined heat and power in this country. The analysis by the Department of Energy and Climate Change estimates that the total technical potential for CHP in the UK is about 13 gigawatts by 2020, of which 7.8 gigawatts is projected to be economically viable by that date. The majority of this is likely to be natural gas-fired. DECC’s final Electricity Market Reform Delivery Plan projects up to 600 megawatts of biomass CHP being deployed by 2020. The regulations will help to unlock this capacity.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked me another question. DECC’s research suggests that there are barriers which these regulations would address, such as a lack of awareness of CHP or the in-house expertise to assess potential projects. I hope that this response has answered most of the questions put by the noble Lord, and to the extent that it has not, I will of course write to him.
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, we are rightly proud of the environment in our country. Many facilities which could harm the environment or human health are regulated under the environmental permitting regime. We are today considering one type of enforcement, and as noble Lords know, enforcement is an important part of environmental regulation. In the past, it has generally relied on criminal prosecution with fines and imprisonment, or formal cautions which result in a criminal record. For some cases, prosecution and cautions can be heavy-handed and slow. Currently, there is no proportionate alternative for offences under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. The regulations we are considering today will enable the Environment Agency to accept enforcement undertakings for certain offences at facilities where an environment permit is required.
Originally introduced in 2008, enforcement undertakings give greater flexibility to regulators in the way they secure compliance, reserving criminal prosecution for the most serious offences. The Environment Agency started to use enforcement undertakings, as well as other civil sanctions, for some of its regulatory activities in January 2011. These regulations will allow it to start accepting enforcement undertakings for offences in the environmental permitting regime.
Enforcement undertakings are voluntary offers made by offenders to restore and remediate damage and, importantly, to ensure compliance both now and in the future. There are around 90,000 Environment Agency permits which cover a diverse range of facilities including scrapyards, landfill sites, sewage works, chemical plants and nuclear power stations. It is a relatively new framework that has brought clarity and cohesion to permitting regulation without reducing levels of protection for the environment and human health. It is important to confirm that the worst offenders will continue to be prosecuted. Enforcement undertakings will be most appropriate for normally compliant people and businesses as long as they address the causes and effects of their offending. Where they are used, they will streamline enforcement, put compliance and restoration first, and encourage dialogue between the Environment Agency and business.
Let me give your Lordships an example of where these regulations could be used. I shall take an industrial company with high environmental performance standards which accidentally pollutes a river with sediment run-off from an on-site development project. Rather than being subject to prosecution, the company could in the future offer an enforcement undertaking. That offer might explain how the company would prevent the offence happening again, perhaps by changing procedures and possibly by making a board member responsible for future development projects and environmental performance as a whole. The enforcement undertaking would also quantify the environmental harm that had been caused and propose investment to that value, perhaps to a local environmental project or charity that works to improve the river which has been polluted.
As regards how the decision on accepting the offer of an enforcement undertaking is made, the Environment Agency, Defra’s regulator, has already put in place robust guidance and governance for its civil sanctions powers. In deciding appropriate enforcement, it will continue to apply a stringent assessment of what it calls “public interest” factors. In my example, if the offender’s compliance history had previously been good, the offence was not foreseeable and the environmental effect was minor, it may be appropriate to accept an enforcement undertaking. The regulations we are considering would extend enforcement undertakings to the Environment Agency’s largest regulatory regime. It is estimated that around 50 prosecutions or formal cautions could be avoided each year.
The Duke of Montrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this measure. I am most grateful to see that the regulations start off by allowing enforcement undertakings in the case of any infringement of pollution. I declare my interest as a farmer and I am looking at the subject from that angle. Of course, at the moment farmers who pollute or allow noxious substances to escape from their farms are subject to penalties under the common agricultural policy and the good agricultural and environmental condition standards. Farmers can be penalised by those, first; and secondly, the Environment Agency can impose penalties. Usually the idea is that a small penalty is imposed as a warning, but there is power to impose a very much heavier penalty. I am wondering whether these enforcement undertakings will work in tandem or whether they will be the opening gun of trying to enforce regulations when people are not complying properly and causing pollution or environmental damage.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
Once again, the Minister has provided the Committee with an excellent introduction to, and explanation of, the regulations. The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, brought up the situation regarding farming and these regulations. In case there should be any anxieties, I declare my interest as an owner of a dairy farm. However, my reading of the regulations is that of the nine classes of regulated activity to which they pertain, none applies to dairy farming—except, possibly, the water discharge activity. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could clarify the extent to which farming is affected by these regulations, and how they might work together with the regulations under the common agricultural policy.
The Minister has clarified that these regulations introduce no new requirements and make no changes to existing offences and existing enforcement mechanisms, but merely allow the Environment Agency to accept enforcement undertakings when they are on offer. I agree that the order is constructive in that it allows the Environment Agency greater flexibility in its approach to transgressions, and follows his department’s Fairer and Better Environmental Enforcement review, which was initiated by the previous Labour Government. The regulations will make a positive addition to the Environment Agency’s ability to do its job well. The benefits to society include giving priority to restoration of harm ahead of criminal convictions.
The Explanatory Memorandum states, with regard to guidance, that the department will write to the Environment Agency setting out the expectation of how these enforcement undertakings will be used to ensure that enforcement is in accordance with Better Regulation principles. Will the Minister update the Committee on this progress? When does he expect that the Environment Agency will be able to publish its guidance on enforcement matters?
As the Minister explained, the Explanatory Memorandum provides no impact assessment, on the basis that the order has no impact on business or other organisations unless they fail to comply with the law. However, this was the subject of extensive discussions in the other place. The changes proposed in 2010 would have significantly reduced costs to both the Environment Agency and Natural England. As the Minister said, at the very least the order will help to free up the Environment Agency’s time.
In addition, since 2010 it is understood that consideration has been given to costs recovery. Did the Minister’s department give any consideration to recovery of the Environment Agency’s costs for monitoring and administering the new enforcement undertakings element of the order? Will he confirm that the Environment Agency can recover its costs from the order? The reply of the Minister in the other place rather missed the point to a certain extent, in his statement that it has no effect on business. It should surely be possible to produce an impact assessment on the benefits to business in this Better Regulation measure. After all, it is the aim of Better Regulation to bring benefits.
Finally, the ability to quantify the value of ecosystem services has also developed greatly since 2010. Are the Government able to give an estimate of the ecosystem services benefit of the increased compliance resulting from this change? I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify his department’s approach to the benefits of this order.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose asked how farmers will be affected by these changes. Under the new system, farmers will be treated in the same way as any other business. The regulations will enable farmers who have a general approach to compliance to propose enforcement undertakings to the Environment Agency as part of the regime. It will form part of the way in which they can resolve issues. He has reminded me that I should probably declare an interest as a landowner.
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked a number of questions. He asked about guidance. I am not sure I am going to be able to satisfy him entirely today but I can say that my department will be writing to the Environment Agency, setting out the expectation of how environmental permitting enforcement undertakings will be used. It has already consulted on and will pay heed to the existing guidance on the use of environmental undertakings, which is currently being reviewed. That is probably as far as I can go today on that point.
The noble Lord asked about costs recovery. The regulations do not affect the level of inspection or enforcement. Enforcement undertakings will be an alternative to prosecution in suitable cases. Advice and guidance from the Environment Agency will remain the foundation of the environmental enforcement system. I do not think they will have an upward impact on costs at all. I think he also asked why there is no impact assessment, which I hope I explained. No impact assessment is needed for what is, in effect, a voluntary measure that will impact only on those who are not compliant and who voluntarily offer enforcement undertakings. For the delivery of this final part of the Fairer and Better Environmental Enforcement review, we have chosen to rely on the original impact assessment from 2010.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the question I asked. I well understand the logic in both the Explanatory Memorandum and the noble Lord’s words that this has no impact and does not require any new regulation to be complied with. Nevertheless, this is a measure that will bring benefits, so I wonder whether any assessment has been made to quantify what is likely to result from the benefits of better regulation.
Lord De Mauley
I referred to what I think is the best estimate we can make although, as the noble Lord will understand, it is quite difficult to do because it depends on take-up. However, if I can add anything to what I have already said in my opening remarks, I will write to him.
The noble Lord also asked whether I can update the Committee on the Environment Agency’s guidance. I have already said a few words about that. The agency has its guidance, trained staff and an established approval and governance process, which includes oversight by a director-level national panel to promote consistency and the sharing of full information. On that basis, I hope that I have answered most of the questions that have been put to me, but to the extent that I have not, I will write.
House of Lords
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Death of a Member: Baroness Platt of Writtle
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Platt of Writtle, on 1 February. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.
Autism
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Uddin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to understand the causes of autism spectrum disorders and speed up diagnosis.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw the House’s attention to my declared interest.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, there are a number of current government-funded research projects linked to autism. These include a Medical Research Council study to identify why certain genetic mutations can cause problems during brain development. By following the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s guidelines and toolkits, autism diagnosis can be speeded up. NHS England also has plans to use its local audit teams to provide assurance that people’s experiences of the diagnostic process are acceptable.
Baroness Uddin
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that thoughtful reply. He and I agree completely that there have been massive improvements in diagnosis over past decades. However, according to the Government’s Think Autism document, reports by the National Autistic Society and the BME organisation Include Me TOO, the experience of many parents seems to be that there are significant disparities and underdiagnosis, particularly among the BME communities. Given the crucial importance of timely diagnosis to the future prospects of someone with autism, how does the Minister’s department intend to address this currently patchy and inconsistent assessment service for all those who are identified as needing a full diagnosis on time and according to the Government’s own standards, and how does it intend to monitor progress?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that timely diagnosis of autism is extremely important. I am glad she recognises that progress has been made. I believe that to be true but we know that there is more to be done. The update to the autism strategy, called Think Autism, draws specific attention to the needs of BME communities, and there is a specific action point within that document. I can tell the noble Baroness that we will include that specifically in the statutory guidance that follows on from the strategy. That guidance will be issued shortly.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, where I live, the daughter of a very nice man in the supermarket has just been diagnosed at the age of six. The problem is not the diagnosis—that has been made—but the fact that there seem to be no facilities of any sort to help him. He has been referred to the local borough by his Member of Parliament—an opposition Member, I might add, but a very nice man—and he has taken up the matter with the council, but nothing has happened. Is this, again, a problem of treatment as between care and health services, and what can be done to bridge the gap?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the answer to my noble friend’s question lies in more professionals being trained in autism and services supporting rather better the needs of children and adults with autism, and a lot of work is going on on those fronts. We are also asking local authorities to focus, in particular, on their own performance and to report back on the progress they are making on autism diagnosis, and indeed on other issues in Public Health England’s national autism self-assessment exercise. That process will draw out the shortcomings that exist in certain parts of the country.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, there is evidence that some 25,000 children in England with autism have not been thoroughly diagnosed. The National Autistic Society, of which I am a vice-president, found in a survey that 34% of autistic people had to wait more than three years for a diagnosis. What are the Government doing to speed up this diagnosis and to ensure that it takes place within three months of a referral, which is the NICE recommendation?
Earl Howe
My Lords, part of this depends on the system working in a joined-up way between the National Health Service, local authorities and all the services upon which they depend. A great deal more training is going on, as I have mentioned. In December the Department of Health, the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and Public Health England issued a new national autism self-assessment exercise, as I have mentioned. Much can be achieved, as we are impressing on local authorities, through low-level preventive support, and there are duties around prevention in the Care Act that local authorities now have in this area.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, what is the relationship between the Department for Education and the Department of Health, particularly in spotting those at the higher-functioning end of the spectrum, for whom it may not become apparent that they have a problem until later in life rather than in the educational system?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the new statutory framework for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, SEND, is designed to improve the integrated working across health, education and social care so as to deliver improved outcomes for a child and his or her family. Clinical commissioning groups and local authorities will be working together according to that statutory framework.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, the Minister clearly accepts that speed of diagnosis ensures that a child or young person gets into treatment faster. The faster they are in treatment, the more likely they are to make some progress in how they are able to function. However, does he accept that there is a disconnect between that diagnosis and the service delivery, particularly with under-fives, where children are waiting a considerable time for their local authorities to sponsor them into nurseries or facilities? What is happening to ensure that that improves?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. That is exactly why we have given clinical commissioning groups new duties to commission services for nought to 25 year-olds and young people to ensure that procedures are in place, to agree a plan of action, to secure provision which meets a child’s or young person’s reasonable health needs in every case, and to work with the local authority to contribute to the local offer of services for children in this position. That is now a statutory duty and I think it is a step forward.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister referred to training. Health Education England is one of the bodies charged with delivering the new strategy for transforming care for people with learning disabilities, including autism. Is it not extraordinary, therefore, that it does not keep a record of which universities deliver courses for nurse training in learning disabilities? Will the Minister ensure that such information is available so that training courses are properly monitored, with autism being a key component of such nurse training?
Electoral Registration
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to support National Voter Registration Day.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Government welcome all initiatives to promote engagement and voter registration, particularly Bite the Ballot’s National Voter Registration Day, as well as the work of others such as the British Youth Council’s Make Your Mark and vInspired’s Swing the Vote. Among other government activities ahead of National Voter Registration Day, we announced today that organisations that work with people who are underrepresented on the electoral register, including students and other young people, and people from black and ethnic minorities, will share some £2.5 million of additional funding.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I cannot say how much I appreciate the Minister’s Answer and the moves we are making in this direction. We appreciate everything that is happening. I hope that this House will be enthusiastic about enrolling young people and giving support to all these voluntary organisations and to the youngsters who work day and night to try to get as many young people as possible registered. I hope that we will give them support, and with great enthusiasm. We thank those organisations—I am proud to be president of one of them—for all that they have done. They have earned their spurs at this moment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, it is up to all of us involved in politics and all parties to promote maximum registration between now and May. The Deputy Prime Minister went on “The Last Leg” late last Friday night—I think not a programme that most Members of this House watch, but very popular with young people. I will be talking at an event tonight with a group of young Explorer Scouts from Tower Hamlets to show our support for Scout and Scout leader work in encouraging people to vote with the Cabinet Office’s programme, Rock Enrol!
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, we are now told that there are 7.5 million potential voters missing from the national register. That is up on 2010 yet we have a general election within a few months. Why has that happened?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My understanding is that the adjustment between 6 million and 7.5 million from 2010 to 2012 was in line with the census. I am told by the statisticians that it represents an actual stabilisation. As I have said at this Dispatch Box many times before, the major reason why people who are not registered say that they have not registered is because they are not interested in politics and not interested in voting. I repeat that it is up to all of us to do our utmost in the next 90 days to enthuse particularly young people and those most disengaged from politics to re-engage, to register and then to vote.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not think that the Government are creating a very dangerous precedent by insisting, in the new powers for the Scottish Parliament, that changes in the franchise—or indeed boundaries—require a two-thirds majority?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I am not entirely sure that the Government are creating a dangerous precedent. I suspect that the noble Lord and I may disagree on the age at which people might start to vote.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as the chair of the All-Party Group on Voter Registration. According to Electoral Commission research, 30% of our young people aged 18 to 24 are not on the register of electors. If this was the situation in any other country in the world 93 days before a general election, the British Government would be urging the country to pull its finger out and get people on to the register. The problem is that this is in their own backyard and entirely of their own making. What are the Government going to do to get people on the register before applications close on 20 April?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Government have engaged in a range of activities on social media and are using National Voter Registration Day as a means of raising national attention. Two of my ministerial colleagues are speaking in parallel at a barracks tomorrow to deal with the problem of underregistration among defence personnel. The Government will also, through the FCO, be attempting to raise the amazingly low level of overseas registration. We are working on this, but I repeat that the Government cannot do all of it on their own. I put something out on Liberal Democrat Voice, my own party’s site, two weeks ago encouraging all our activists to engage with local schools and other bodies. I am sure that the Labour Party is doing the same, in so far as it can.
Lord Lexden (Con)
In view of the success of the work done in schools in Northern Ireland by its chief electoral officer, will the Government encourage his counterparts throughout the country to publicise the details of the work that they are doing in schools and the results that flow from that?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I have been in active conversation with electoral registration officers over the last year and more. The Government have just provided another £6.8 million for electoral registration officers, targeted on particular areas which have low registration, by and large in the cities. I also stress that the provision of online registration, which has been going now for a year and through which 3.33 million people have already registered, is very much one of the ways we get at young people. Knowing young people, including my own children, I think this is something that young people are likely to register on at the last minute.
Lord Storey (LD)
My noble friend may be aware of an electoral registration app that can be downloaded on to smartphones, which was launched in Dundee. Have the Government any plans to use smartphone technology to increase voter registration?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, you can register online on smartphones. The Government are also using social and other media to add links to the registration website and to remind people as they use social media that now is the time to register to vote.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that we all wish my noble friend success in his mission to Tower Hamlets this evening. Could I ask him to reconsider the Government’s attitude on compulsory registration? It would really be very sensible, and I am glad to see noble Lords opposite nodding. I hope the Government will consider it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the Government are not convinced about compulsory voting, which raises some large questions about the relationship between the citizen and the state—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Excuse me, registration. It raises some large questions about the relationship between the citizen and the state, which perhaps the next Parliament will discuss.
Ebola
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent progress they have made on tackling Ebola in West Africa.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Northover) (LD)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is leading the international response to the Ebola crisis in Sierra Leone. It is clear that this strategy is working. There are signs that the infection rate is falling in Sierra Leone. This is real progress and a cause for cautious optimism that we can beat this disease. We remain focused on defeating the outbreak completely.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, just before Christmas, Professor Chris Whitty, chief scientific adviser to DfID, said in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee in the other place:
“There is a high chance that when we look back on this epidemic more people who did not have Ebola will have died as a result of the Ebola epidemic”.
Does the Minister agree that this reinforces the case for universal healthcare systems, free at the point of access, and that we should use this language in a stand-alone health goal in the forthcoming UN negotiations to replace the MDGs?
Baroness Northover
It is clear that there have been problems with other diseases in the affected areas, as people have not come forward for treatment, so the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is extremely important that in the future we take forward the strengthening of their health provision—that is clearly necessary. It is essential when the new SDGs are agreed that health is there, underpinning what happens in terms of human development.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, do the Government have any plans for a post-Ebola crisis in Africa? Owing to transport and communications breakdown and to movement restrictions, farmers have not been able to sell last year’s harvest and they therefore do not have the cash to buy the inputs for the following year’s harvest. Therefore, it is at the next harvest—that is, this year—when the real nutritional crises are going to start in all the countries of west Africa. I hope that the Government are making plans to deal with that inevitable crisis.
Baroness Northover
The international community is well aware of the challenge that the noble Lord has mentioned. The UNDP will complete its regional Ebola recovery assessments by the end of February. Those will be comprehensive and address those kinds of questions.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, during a pastoral visit to Sierra Leone in mid-December, I heard affirmation of the extraordinary commitment of British forces and British work in that country. There was much expression of admiration and gratitude. There was also much concern about future outbreaks of Ebola. What thinking have the Government given to how future outbreaks might be prevented?
Baroness Northover
I am very pleased to see the most reverend Primate in his place—a number of us were extremely concerned when he came back from Sierra Leone and was not himself well, so it is great to see him here. He is absolutely right: the international community is focusing on trying to ensure that we do not find ourselves in this situation again. The WHO has looked at its own reform and other international bodies will too, but it is vital that we learn the lessons of this particular epidemic.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, the pharmaceutical industry claims that the reason why an Ebola vaccine had not been developed was that the number of victims was likely to be small compared to, for example, malaria. Does it have nothing to do with the poverty of the people affected or their inability to pay a market price for the drug? Does my noble friend agree that, but for the heroic efforts of hundreds of mainly local health workers, the Ebola outbreak could have become a pandemic, with possibly millions of victims, all for the want of a vaccine? Are the Government pressing industry to accept, in poor countries, production costs-plus payments for the vaccine, as happens for AIDS treatments in poor countries, with significant success?
Baroness Northover
My noble friend is right that there are models for how this might be taken forward and he is right that there were real risks of a pandemic. The United Kingdom and its NHS workers have actually played a pretty key role in stemming that, so that it did not become a pandemic. Certainly, in terms of the development of vaccines, that is another area that we need to investigate.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)
My Lords, we have known about Ebola for 40 years, yet we still have no vaccine and no cure. Does the Minister agree that the cost of bringing that drug forward and taking it through the necessary regulatory process means that pharmaceutical companies prefer to focus on the diseases of the rich than on poor people’s diseases in Sierra Leone?
Baroness Northover
I am quite encouraged by what is happening in terms of vaccines for Ebola. As the noble Baroness might be aware, clinical trials have already started in Liberia, and the UK and the CDC are looking at rolling out trials in Sierra Leone.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, while congratulating the brave volunteers who have done so much to bring this epidemic under control, and while it is good news that there is light at the end of the tunnel, would my noble friend consider asking the World Health Organization to publish its internal review on why the early response to this epidemic was so bad and why it downplayed the problem when it had already become known to other agencies?
Baroness Northover
I am sure that there will be continued discussion as to the lessons we must learn. However, it was welcome that the WHO held a special session to look at some of those lessons and try to take that forward.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, while welcoming the progress that the noble Baroness outlined and the recognition that I understand is to come of British citizens who contributed to that progress, would she agree that the next phase of the fight in Sierra Leone will be even more challenging: not to let up on the drive to zero cases in the current outbreak; to make up for the healthcare that has not been given in terms of immunisations, maternity and neonatal care, malaria and NTDs; and to provide the structures for robust responses to any outbreaks that might occur in future?
Baroness Northover
Indeed, the noble Baroness is right that we cannot be complacent. As I am sure she knows, we need 42 days of an Ebola-free situation in all the relevant countries. We then need to reconstruct. That needs to be transparent and accountable. When I met the relevant Ministers from Sierra Leone, that was certainly something I emphasised from the UK Government.
NHS: Financial Tariff for 2015-16
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the rejection by National Health Service Trusts of the financial tariff proposals drawn up by Monitor for 2015–16.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the frustration and uncertainty this delay will cause providers and commissioners. My department is working closely with Monitor and NHS England to consider which option to pursue that provides the fairest settlement for different NHS organisations while ensuring that patients continue to receive the best possible care.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Can he confirm that this is the first time that NHS trusts have rejected the tariff on the grounds that they can no longer provide safe and quality care and meet financial targets next year on the basis of the tariff laid down by Monitor? Can he also confirm that the finance director of the NHS Trust Development Authority told Monitor that he does not consider that the efficiency requirement for next year can be met without risking quality of care? When will the Government take responsibility for the financial disaster coming upon the NHS?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it should not cause us any surprise that, at a time of financial stringency in the NHS and increasing demand, it should have proved more difficult than usual to arrive at a settled position on the tariff. The process is undoubtedly complex and challenging but we will continue to work with and support Monitor and NHS England in managing this in a way that attempts to be as fair as possible to all parts of the system.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, given the historic underfunding of mental health services in this country, will the Government make representations to Monitor to ensure that mental health trusts are not required to make savings at the same rate as other trusts?
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, a great deal of concern has been expressed by specialist providers, particularly in the heart field where there is a review ongoing at the moment, that there might well be a reduction in funding. That would be disastrous for services. Can the Minister reassure those groups that there will be a fair assessment in relation to specialist provision?
Earl Howe
It is the view of Monitor and NHS England that providers of specialised services should make every effort to deliver care that is both clinically appropriate and cost-effective in order to manage demand—where, after all, their clinicians have significant influence. NHS England considers the proposed rule to be warranted—this is about the 50:50 split in the tariff—because rapidly growing expenditure that exceeds population prevalence growth is unlikely to reflect efficient and effective services, which, when one thinks about it, are in patients’ best interests overall.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
Going back to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I am sure the Minister will have seen recent reports showing that there is a serious shortage of mental health beds in the health service at the moment. Indeed, I believe that at one point in the very recent past there were no more than four or five available in the entirety of the UK—or certainly in England. Parity of esteem is a fine phrase, but is it really being played out in practice?
Earl Howe
My Lords, it would require a full-scale debate for me to lay out in full all the things that we are doing to promote parity of esteem in the health service. The noble Baroness is right that in certain parts of the country there has been acute pressure on bed numbers, but bed numbers have been increased in some of those areas, and NHS England is paying close attention to the need to ensure that those who need in-patient treatment receive it.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister look carefully at the bureaucratic burden on clinicians? A number of clinicians have raised with me the fact that there is too heavy a burden, and that because of that burden, they are not being as efficient as they might be.
Earl Howe
My Lords, yes of course the bureaucratic nature of commissioning needs to be minimised and we do all we can to achieve that. However, the need to ensure that we make a careful distinction between commissioners and providers does, I am afraid, mean that rather a lot of numerical work has to go along with that and, as is right, discussion between commissioners and providers to ensure that the system works smoothly.
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
My Lords, Choose and Book has been a success story for the Government. It is a hidden gem. Will this be affected by the level of tariffs that are to be offered and will patients have a real choice?
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, given the appalling performance of ambulance services—certainly in London, and, I suspect, in the rest of the country—what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the tariff means that people will receive the emergency call-outs that they would expect on the basis of the funding that should be being made available?
Earl Howe
This is part and parcel of the discussions going on at the moment. There is a balance of interests here—above all, the interests of NHS patients, but within the system, the interests of those who hold the budget and the interests of those who provide the service. The risks relate, on the one hand, to affordability, and, on the other hand, to financial and service stability, and the need not to sacrifice quality in the process.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister care to comment on his former colleague in his department who views the reorganisation of the National Health Service as the biggest mistake this Government made? As we come towards the end of this coalition Government, some of us watch in horror as an increasing number of people within the coalition stand up and say, “It weren’t me, guv”, and, “I didn’t agree with it”. Does the Minister accept that his party, this coalition and the Liberal Democrats did not actually ask the people whether they should do this? They told them that they would not do it.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I remain a staunch defender of the 2012 Act. In this context, the 2012 Act did two things that were different. It gave responsibility for setting the tariff to an independent body instead of to the Department of Health and Ministers. I believe that that was a good thing. It also provided a statutory right, which did not exist before, for the NHS to be consulted on the tariff. I believe we should keep those two elements of the Act—as well as the rest of it.
Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the draft regulations and order laid before the House on 8, 11 and 17 December 2014 be approved.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 29 January
Independent Panel Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the House of Commons earlier this afternoon. The Statement is as follows:
“As the House will know, the Government established this inquiry so we could get to the bottom of whether important institutions—public sector bodies as well as non-state organisations—have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. In my last Statement to the House about the inquiry in November, I said that in appointing two chairmen who had failed to win the trust of survivors, we had got things wrong. I said that as we worked out how to move forward, we would listen to survivors and their representatives, and I said that if we stay patient and work together, we will have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to find out what has happened in the past and is still happening now, and stop it happening in the future.
Since my last Statement, I have held meetings with young survivors, with adult survivors and with groups that represent thousands of survivors in total. During those meetings many people shared their experiences, no matter how painful or how difficult it was to speak out. In doing so, the young survivors displayed immense courage, as did the older survivors who showed me how abuse that took place decades ago can feel as if it took place yesterday, and how they have had to live with the consequences of that abuse their whole adult lives. I am grateful to all of them.
Throughout those meetings, for every person who told their story there was one common goal—to save others from the abuse they had suffered. So let me be clear: I am now more determined than ever to expose the people behind these despicable crimes, the people and institutions that knew about the abuse but did not act or failed to help when it was their duty—sometimes their very purpose—to do so, and the people and institutions that in some cases positively covered up evidence of abuse. Other common themes emerged from those meetings and from the wider feedback that survivors have given me. While there is no single point of view from the many thousands who have suffered—and that means not every survivor will agree with everything that I announce today—there is a remarkable degree of consensus on what is needed for this inquiry as it goes about its important work.
Survivors have been clear about the type of chairman who would command their confidence. They have said that they want to see powers of compulsion to make all witnesses give evidence. They have said that we need to revise the inquiry’s terms of reference. They have raised the importance of help and support as the inquiry triggers memories that cause great pain. Finally, they have emphasised the importance of prosecuting the perpetrators of these terrible crimes where evidence emerges.
I will turn first to the matter of the chairman. After my last Statement, the Home Office received more than 150 nominations from survivors, their representatives, MPs, Peers and members of the public. In addition, the Home Office contacted Commonwealth countries, via the Foreign Office, to identify any suitable candidates. Each and every name was assessed against a set of criteria, incorporating the views of survivors on the most important factors. These included appropriate skills to carry out a complex task; experience of the subject matter; and the absence of any direct links to any individual about whom they may have concerns or any institution, or organisation, that might fall under the scope of the inquiry. A copy of these criteria will be placed today in the House Library, and published in full on GOV.UK.
Following an initial sift, due diligence checks were carried out on all the remaining names, which included academics, social workers, people from the charitable sector and a significant number of judges and members of the legal profession. This list was narrowed down to a shortlist of those who matched the set of criteria and were most suited to taking on this undoubtedly challenging role. I then took the views of a small group of survivors, who are all members of larger groups and who represent more than 100,000 individual survivors in total. As the House may recall, in responding to an Urgent Question on 22 January, I said that I would reach my decision by the end of January and update the House shortly thereafter.
Based on the clear feedback from survivors and the assessment of the nominations against the agreed criteria, I can tell the House that I plan to appoint Justice Lowell Goddard as the new chairman of the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse.
Justice Goddard is a judge of the High Court of New Zealand and is a highly respected member of the judiciary who has been at the forefront of criminal law and procedure. As chairman of the Independent Police Conduct Authority of New Zealand, she conducted an inquiry into the policing of child abuse in New Zealand and she is also a member of the United Nations sub-committee on the prevention of torture. She will bring a wealth of expertise to the role of chairman and, crucially, she will be as removed as possible from the organisations and institutions that might become the focus of the inquiry.
I can confirm that I have discussed Justice Goddard’s appointment with the shadow Home Secretary, and I am grateful to the right honourable lady for her constructive comments and bipartisan approach. The House will also recall that I agreed with the right honourable Member for Leicester East, Keith Vaz, that the nominated panel chairman would attend a pre-appointment hearing before the Home Affairs Select Committee. This will bring further transparency to the appointment process and I can confirm that the chairman of the committee has agreed that this confirmation hearing will take place on 11 February. I have asked the committee to publish its report as soon as possible.
I would now like to turn to the form of the inquiry. As I said at the Home Affairs Select Committee on 15 December, I am clear that the inquiry should have the power to compel witnesses to give evidence. I also said there were three ways to do this: first, by establishing a royal commission; secondly, by converting the current inquiry into a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005, subject to consultation with the chairman once appointed; or, thirdly, to set up a new statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005.
Having taken in-depth legal advice and having discussed the option with survivors, I have concluded that a royal commission would not have the same robustness in law as a statutory inquiry. In particular, it would not have the same clarity over its powers to compel witnesses to give evidence. I have decided not to convert the current inquiry, because doing so would not address the concerns of survivors about the degree of transparency in the original appointments process. I have therefore decided on the third option of establishing a new statutory inquiry with a panel.
I want to make clear that this is by no means a criticism of the current panel members, who were selected on the basis of their expertise and commitment to getting to the truth about child abuse in this country. The fact that the panel is being dissolved has nothing to do with their ability or integrity, and I want to place on record my gratitude to them for the work that they have done so far. I have asked the panel to produce a report on their work so far, which I am sure will provide valuable assistance to the incoming chairman.
In order to make sure that the appointment of the new panel is as transparent as possible, I will publish the criteria by which each new member will be selected in the House Library and in full on GOV.UK. I hope that the original members and the expert adviser to the panel, Professor Alexis Jay, will put themselves forward to be considered against these criteria if they so wish. I can also confirm that Ben Emmerson QC will remain as counsel to the inquiry. I will discuss the make-up of the new panel with Justice Goddard, but I am clear that each member must have the right skills and expertise to do the job, satisfy the statutory requirements of impartiality and also command the confidence of survivors.
So the process is being reset and that means that I will also revisit the terms of reference. In accordance with the Inquiries Act, these will need to be discussed with Justice Goddard, but I want to assure survivors and the House that I have heard the strong call that the inquiry’s remit should go back further than the current time limit of 1970.
There are, however, good reasons for confining the inquiry’s scope to England and Wales. The Hart inquiry in Northern Ireland and the Oldham inquiry in Jersey are already underway, while the Scottish Government have announced their own inquiry into child abuse, but I shall discuss this with the new chairman. In the event that the geographical scope remains the same, I propose that a clear protocol is agreed to make sure that no information falls through the cracks, and no people or institutions escape scrutiny, censure or justice.
I wish once more to reassure the House that the Official Secrets Act will not be a bar to giving evidence to this inquiry. I am clear that the inquiry will have the full co-operation of government and access to all relevant information, including secret information where appropriate. I shall be writing to Secretaries of State to ask for their full co-operation, and will ask the Cabinet Secretary to write to all departments and agencies—and public sector organisations, including local authorities—setting out the need for full transparency and co-operation with the inquiry.
I turn to the important issue of support. Survivors have fought hard for this inquiry, knowing the intense emotional toll that it will take. Charities have already reported a huge increase in demand for their services as more and more people come forward, many for the first time. That is why in December I announced a £2 million fund available to non-statutory organisations that had seen an increase in demand as a direct result of the announcement of the child abuse inquiry. A further £2.85 million fund for non-statutory organisations providing support across England and Wales was also announced. I am pleased to announce that these funds are now available and organisations can bid for them. Going forward, further support will be needed for those who wish to give evidence to the inquiry and for the many thousands of people who may be affected by its work. It is essential that these people are given the help they need, and I expect appropriate government funding to be made available at the next spending review.
The final issue that survivors have raised with me is the need to do everything we can to ensure that the perpetrators of child sexual abuse are prosecuted wherever possible, and of course I share that aim. I confirm that there will be a co-ordinated national policing response that will link directly into the inquiry and will be able to follow up any lead that the inquiry uncovers which requires a policing response. This will be led by Simon Bailey, the national policing lead for child protection and abuse investigations, as part of Operation Hydrant, which will co-ordinate all child abuse investigations concerning people of public prominence or those offences that took place in institutional settings. The Hydrant team will be responsible for the recording of all referrals from the inquiry that relate to potentially criminal abuse and failures to act. It will also oversee the quality of responses from police forces to any requests for information from the panel. It is also important that there is a central point of contact within the Crown Prosecution Service for any referrals resulting from the inquiry. I confirm that the Director of Public Prosecutions has appointed her legal adviser, Neil Moore, to this vital role.
There is one separate but related matter on which I promised to update the House. As part of the review that the Home Office commissioned from Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam QC last July, we asked a number of other government departments, as well as the Security Service and the police, to undertake a careful search of their records. Following reports in the press last month about a Cabinet Office file title listed in the National Archives, the Cabinet Office has undertaken urgent work to establish why this file was not identified as part of the original search of the Wanless and Whittam review, and whether it was a duplicate of a file that was held by the Home Office and seen by Wanless and Whittam during their review. This work has established that it was not an exact duplicate; the two files are different, but contain much of the same material. The Cabinet Office file has additional material that the Home Office file does not, and vice versa. The additional Cabinet Office material falls within in the scope of the Wanless and Whittam review. My officials have spoken to Peter Wanless and summarised the additional information that it contains, and he has confirmed that it would not have changed the conclusions of his review.
None the less, this file should have been identified when the Home Office first asked the Cabinet Office to conduct searches in connection with the Wanless and Whittam review. My right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will today lay a Written Ministerial Statement explaining that as a result of the discovery of this file the Cabinet Office has undertaken additional searches of its papers and files. As a result, Cabinet Office officials have identified a small number of additional files that should also have been identified and passed to Peter Wanless and Richard Whittam last summer. I have said that they must be shared with Wanless and Whittam immediately; with the Goddard inquiry and the Hart inquiry, should they wish to see them; and with the police, which my right honourable friend has agreed to. It is imperative that the whole Government co-operate fully with the independent panel inquiry into child sexual abuse and provide full access to any information that is requested. I have of course asked for these files, in common with all other relevant documents held by the Government, to be made available to the inquiry so that it leaves no stone unturned in its bid to get to the truth.
This brings me to my final point. I have said before, and I shall say again, that what we have seen so far in Rotherham, Oxford and Greater Manchester and elsewhere is only the tip of the iceberg. This afternoon, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will give a Statement on Louise Casey’s report into Rotherham Borough Council, which will contain further evidence of its failure to protect vulnerable children. With every passing day and every new revelation, it is clear that the sexual abuse of children has taken place, and is still taking place, on a scale that we still cannot fully comprehend.
What we do know is that the authorities have, in different ways, let down too many children and adult survivors. In many cases, people in positions of authority have abused their power. Now those of us in privileged positions of public service must show that we have listened, we have heard and we have learnt, and that we will come together not to avoid difficult questions but to expose hard truths. Most importantly, we will keep in mind the people on whose behalf we seek justice—the survivors of these appalling crimes. On that note, I would like to end by thanking survivors for their patience, their determination and their willingness to help us to get this right.
I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the Home Secretary’s Statement, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating it for us today. There can be few things worse for a child than to be sexually and violently abused by adults, but one of those things has to be not to be believed that it ever happened. However, the most shocking thing has to be for someone, somehow, to muster the courage to speak out, and when they are believed, to be ignored because of that belief, and for the crime to be covered up to protect the guilty. That this abuse and lack of justice has involved well known and establishment figures and institutions compounds the pain, horror and disgust.
In her Statement the Home Secretary said that,
“what we have seen so far … is only the tip of the iceberg”.
She added that it was,
“on a scale that we still cannot fully comprehend”.
She is absolutely right. What is emerging is a catalogue of serious, systematic abuse over decades and across the country by those who believed they were above the law. But however distressing, however uncomfortable and however shocking, we have to comprehend it, because only then will we be able to get to the truth, and justice, for the survivors of that abuse, and also for those who have not survived.
However, we need to do far more than just understand the truth. It was quite moving to hear the part of the Home Secretary’s Statement where she reported that the common goal, and one of the factors that motivates and drives survivors to relive the horror of their experiences, is, as she put it, to protect and save others. The challenge for the inquiry is not only to meet the expectations of the needed investigation but to make recommendations for the future.
We called for a full statutory inquiry more than two years ago. The Home Secretary announced an inquiry more than six months ago. The false starts, the confusion and the problems have been hugely damaging. There have been issues around personnel and about the remit and the purpose, and survivors have not felt fully engaged in the process. We want this inquiry to be as effective as possible and to have the confidence of survivors and the public. So we welcome that it will now be a statutory inquiry, and we welcome, as hinted in the Statement, the extension of the remit to cover pre-1970 offences. If the Minister could clarify that further, it would be helpful.
We welcome the discussions that the Home Secretary has now had with survivors prior to appointing Justice Lowell Goddard to chair the panel. We certainly welcome the agreement that the Home Affairs Select Committee should hold a pre-appointment hearing. I have just a few questions for the Minister. Clearly, the confidence of abuse survivors is absolutely essential. Will there be any consultation and engagement with survivors regarding the appointment of the new panel and the ongoing shape and work of the inquiry?
Noble Lords are well aware of the very serious and quite devastating allegations of cover-ups and conspiracies in Whitehall and Westminster regarding the most serious crimes of sexual and violent abuse. Even today, the Home Secretary has had to update Parliament and the Minister for the Cabinet Office on the continuing chaos of missing files, and possibly duplicated files, after a Cabinet Office file was accidentally found by the press in the National Archives. Can the Minister confirm that the files of all government agencies and departments, including Downing Street and the security services, will be searched, and that Justice Goddard will have all the access that she requests?
The Home Secretary was direct and robust when she was asked about a cover-up. What will be the investigative capacity of Justice Goddard’s inquiry? Will she be able to select her own advisers and counsel? I note from the Statement that Ben Emmerson has been reappointed. Was that done with the approval of the new chairman? We all want to see those who are responsible brought to justice wherever possible, but noble Lords will be aware, as it has been raised before, of those who are responsible for online sex abuse not being interviewed by the police quickly enough. I have raised this issue with the Minister before in Questions and debates. If in the past we have had the problem that the police have not acted quickly enough against those who are now abusing children or looking at online images, can he be confident that they have the resources they need fully to investigate and prosecute past crimes while still policing the present and protecting children from abuse today? Can he explain something about the relationship and co-operation with Simon Bailey’s work and that of the National Crime Agency and CEOP?
Finally, the Minister will be aware of the issues that can arise when an inquiry which, of necessity, is thorough and meticulous, takes a long time, even years, to complete its work. What monitoring and progress-reporting arrangements will be in place? Can he confirm that if evidence comes to light before the conclusion of the inquiry that could lead to a prosecution, that evidence will be acted on without delay?
We welcome the Statement, and I hope the noble Lord can clarify some of the points I have raised today.
Lord Bates
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her characteristic bipartisan approach on this. I know from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that one of the most important things for survivors, particularly as we approach the end of this Parliament, is confidence that we are acting in a cross-party way so that there will not be disruption thereafter. That will be welcomed by them.
I shall deal with a number of the points that the noble Baroness raised. In relation to the missing files, as I have said, my right honourable friend has been very clear that we do not know whether there was a cover-up. That is one of the things that we need to get clear. We need to focus on it and get to the bottom of it. The Home Secretary and the Cabinet Secretary have written round, and we expect early and full compliance with that inquiry, as should have been the case with the earlier Wanless and Whittam review.
The noble Baroness asked about Ben Emmerson QC as the counsel. That was discussed with Justice Goddard and she is content with that approach. The noble Baroness also asked about the important issue of timing. We have been hearing evidence lately about the Chilcot review dragging on. That is not something that we want to do. The Home Secretary has said that she is considering—but will first discuss with the chairman of the panel, of course—whether there might be a target date. However, we would certainly expect to get regular updates and for survivors to be kept updated about the progress being made. Any evidence that comes to light must be passed immediately. That is the crucial role which Chief Constable Simon Bailey will play. He will be the link, the conduit, and the link with the Director of Public Prosecution’s office, so that we ensure that any prosecutions and information are dealt with immediately.
I think those were the principal points that the noble Baroness raised. If there are other points, I will come back to them later. I am grateful for her support.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, before the clerk starts the Clock for Back-Bench contributions, and as there are many noble Lords in the Chamber today for this very important statement, I thought it might be helpful if I reminded the House that Statements are an opportunity for brief questions. We want to ensure that the maximum number of noble Lords who are interested and wish to ask my noble friend Lord Bates a question get an opportunity to do so. If we could ensure that we follow the guidance in the Companion and keep to brief questions, I would be grateful.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, this is a welcome Statement which makes clear that the Home Secretary has given a great deal of thought to this important matter. We wish Justice Goddard great success. We are particularly pleased that it is going to be a statutory inquiry, which is a great achievement. I notice from the Statement that the Home Secretary intends to revisit the terms of reference. Does the Minister agree that it is very important that great precision is attached to the terms of reference for an inquiry that will perhaps cover more than 50 years? To avoid disappointment and possible legal challenge, the terms of reference are the essential component for the success of this inquiry.
Lord Bates
The noble Lord, Lord Laming, speaks with great experience in these areas, and he is absolutely right that the terms of reference are critical. The Inquiries Act 2005 stipulates that the terms of reference must be drawn up with the chairman of the panel. I know that one of the first things that the Home Secretary will turn to is what the scope of the panel should be, so that we can ensure that we get to the truth as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, I am afraid that this is not a question but a brief statement, if I may. On behalf of the Church of England, we welcome—
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
Thank you very much. Would the Minister agree that we in the Church of England welcome this inquiry hugely as well as the appointment of a new chair? We acknowledge our own failures as a church in the past, and assure the House that we have already instituted our own inquiries well in advance of the establishing of this panel. We will of course co-operate with the panel in absolutely every way we can.
Lord Bates
We are grateful for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle’s statement on that. I do not think that any of us can claim to have got it absolutely right. The important thing is that we get it right going forward for the survivors.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, may we commend the Home Secretary for her persistence, because I think that she has got it right this time? We, too, have been calling for a statutory inquiry and we very much welcome that. I welcome the greater transparency—for example, the confirmation hearings that we are getting now—and I particularly welcome the direct line to the police and the CPS which we have with this structure. However, I have one concern, and that is the terms of reference and the structure of the inquiry. The scope of the inquiry is absolutely enormous. Although the inquiry is not likely to take 50 years, it will go back 50 years and it will take many years. Now, justice delayed is justice denied, and what I am concerned about is whether the Government will liaise with Justice Goddard and try to come up with a structure that will allow periodic reports—of considerable substance—upon which the services across the country can act. If we have to wait until right at the very end, many opportunities for improving what we do will have been missed.
Lord Bates
My noble friend is absolutely right that we do need to get it right and the terms of reference are key. When we set up the initial independent panel, she will recall that we planned to have six-monthly statements. I thought that was a good arrangement, but one of the whole points of setting it up under the independent Inquiries Act is that the terms of reference have to be agreed with the new chairman. That will be very important, but the fact that we have a former High Court judge—a member of the judiciary with great experience of getting through complex and difficult situations and getting to the heart of the truth—should help us in that task.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, join others in congratulating the Home Secretary on this appointment. Justice Lowell Goddard is someone known to a number of us in the legal profession, and I am sure our judges know her well. She is highly respected and has a great deal of experience. New Zealand has particular experience in dealing with these very problems—indeed, another judge, Carolyn Henwood, led an inquiry into child abuse in children’s homes—so there is a wealth of experience there.
I want to ask this question, because I heard mention of whether the appointment of Ben Emmerson was something that would be agreed to. Ben Emmerson QC is a fearless counsel. Surely the Minister would agree in appointing him that there is a very important role for there to be someone who understands the British system—the British class system, the nature of the British establishment and matters which might not be as quickly understood by someone from a different jurisdiction.
My second question is about the Official Secrets Act. As I understood it, the Minister said that no one would be able to hide behind the Official Secrets Act so as not to answer questions in relation to the inquiry. I should like reassurance about that, because a number of the victims say that, in having their desire to pursue complaints dismissed, they were at times told that matters of national security or public interest meant that inquiries should not proceed. That would be a detriment to the kind of inquiry which is sought by survivors and all of us to clear these matters up.
Lord Bates
I welcome the noble Baroness’s support for Justice Goddard from her personal experience of her, and for Ben Emmerson QC. We have been very clear that the Official Secrets Act should be no bar to anyone coming forward with evidence. There are means under the Inquiries Act whereby, if need be, certain evidence can be supplied to the inquiry with restrictions around it, but the Official Secrets Act cannot be used as a screen to hide behind.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, the inquiry will have a start date in terms of looking back, but will it have an end date in terms of when it starts now? My concern is that abuse is happening now. I am grateful to the Minister for announcing that there will be funds to help organisations that are working in the field, but during the years when the inquiry is making its judgments, other cases will come forward. How will the inquiry deal with present abuse, because we will not stop it now unless we really make a huge effort?
Lord Bates
That is perhaps why other inquiries are there. We have seen the incredible inquiry that has been taking place in Rotherham. There is no reason why action cannot take place. Justice Goddard will appear before the Home Affairs Select Committee on 11 February. We would not want to prejudge that, but assuming that she is cleared, thereafter the terms of reference and the appointment of the panel will be a key part of her initial objectives, and then to just get on with it as quickly as possible.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, in the 1960s, the 1970s and up to date, many children from BAME backgrounds were placed in care and were sexually abused—that is a known fact—and many have gone on to suffer greatly with mental illness and have never spoken about it. They need to do that with someone whom they can identify with culturally. What representation will there be on the panel with whom those older people will be able to identify, so that they can finally speak out about the horrific abuse that they have had to go through? They need to have someone whom they can identify with before they can come out and say exactly what has happened to them. Will there be BAME representation on the panel?
Lord Bates
The panel’s composition has not been agreed yet; that is something on which Justice Goddard will rightly take the lead, but it is also very important that BAME community leaders and other senior figures in those communities urge people to come forward. I know that it is painful, but there is support. The greatest contribution that they can make from the experience that they have been through is to try to do everything they can to ensure that it does not happen to other people.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)
My Lords, in commending the Government for now coming forward with a statutory inquiry, can I ask the noble Lord whether he agrees that it is a matter of great regret that it has taken so long? There are a number of lessons therefore to be learnt about the issues that any Government should take into account when considering whether to have a statutory inquiry. Particularly on issues pertaining to vulnerable children, does he further agree that now is the time to set out a proper procedure to assist any new holder of an inquiry to know how efficaciously to put in place the preparatory processes which should be in place if anyone is to undertake a job as huge as this one will undoubtedly be?
Lord Bates
The noble and learned Baroness is absolutely right, in the sense that we all learnt a huge amount through this process. The Home Secretary has apologised—she apologised in October because she felt that she had got it wrong and let down the victims. That was a key point. When it was initially set up, the model was the Hillsborough inquiry, which had been quick and effective, got to the heart of the issues, identified some issues for the police to follow up and managed to command the confidence of those people who had suffered because of those events. That was the model. It did not work on this occasion, so we now have a statutory inquiry. We are learning as we go, and the sadness is that sometimes you learn through not getting it right.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Government for setting aside £2.85 million and other additional funds to meet the therapeutic needs of those touched by this inquiry. However, can the Minister make it quite clear whether the inquiry’s remit includes recommendations on what therapy should be available to adults who experienced sexual abuse and that if, for instance, the recommendation is for long-term talking therapy, either individually or in a group, there can be some expectation that resources will be found to meet those therapeutic needs?
Lord Bates
I think there is some very deep expertise among those in the charitable sector who have been working on this. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has had conversations with the Health Secretary about what mental support can be made available to victims and survivors of these crimes. We are learning about that process, but we will provide that additional support as well as the support that we have provided to the voluntary organisations which already do tremendous work in this area.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, will there be updates to Parliament from time to time on target dates for reporting in order to try to avoid another Chilcot?
Lord Bates
That will be very important, and of course your Lordships can routinely hold the Executive to account through the provision of reports. Given that this inquiry is independent of government, it will also be important that systems and processes are in place by which both Houses of Parliament can be regularly informed about progress.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Rotherham report. The report out today finds that Rotherham Borough Council has been involved in covering up information and suppressing whistleblowers, and it concludes that those closely associated with past failures need to let others make a fresh start. Does the Minister agree that any officer or councillor who is implicated in that report, or who stood back and did nothing, should resign immediately from Rotherham Borough Council?
Lord Bates
The Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was a damning critique, based on Louise Casey’s work. I understand that in fact the entire cabinet of Rotherham Borough Council today resigned en bloc, and commissioners are in the process of being appointed while the position is resolved. In doing so, cabinet members did the right thing in recognising their culpability and their failing of the children of Rotherham.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, following the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the possibility that there may be some interim reporting as this inquiry progresses, and reflecting on the disappointment that everybody feels about how the Chilcot report has evolved, can the Minister say what effect the so-called Maxwellisation process is likely to have on the progress of this inquiry? I assume—although I may be wrong—that people who give evidence and are subsequently criticised by the report will have to be consulted about how that criticism is made public.
Lord Bates
Of course, a lot of the work which will be done by the inquiry will be in the public domain. That is one of the major differences that we will see between the two inquiries. However, it is very important that it does not drag on and that we get to the heart of the issue as quickly as possible, learn the lessons and ensure that those who are responsible for the failures and for the deeds that took place are actually brought to justice.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister clarify, for the avoidance of all doubt, that this inquiry will not be delayed when it is ready for publication by having to consult those who might be named critically, ensuring that they have the opportunity to see what is said about them?
Lord Bates
That was the point raised by the noble Baroness. In many ways, this highlights one of the difficulties that we have had to wrestle with. Because of the way in which the independent panel was set up before, the Home Secretary had a degree of control over it, but that was felt not to give confidence to the survivors. Then it was set up under the Inquiries Act 2005, and that degree of control was lost. There are no easy solutions to the problems that we are having. That is why the appointment of the chairman is so critical; she is somebody who is very focused on getting to the heart of the truth and doing so expeditiously.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Is it not the case that delays such as these, particularly in the case of the Chilcot inquiry, are very much to be regretted? Nevertheless, all such inquiries are bound by the rules of natural justice, and Maxwellisation is only a crystallisation and a spelling out of those particular rules, and cannot be avoided.
Lord Bates
That natural justice element is there. Also we are very conscious that sometimes people have been wrongly accused and their lives have been destroyed as a result. So it is an onerous responsibility on all of us to make sure that we get this right and do so in a calm and focused but absolutely resolute way so that we learn the lessons of how we can protect our children in future.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that people who are giving evidence to this inquiry may expose things about their earlier lives that are extremely painful for them? Reliving those experiences can be very traumatic and damaging if not handled properly. Would it be the Home Secretary’s intention to make sure that there is proper support for those who are invited to give evidence to the inquiry?
Lord Bates
The noble Lord is absolutely right. There are two elements here—one is the emotional price and the other is a financial price which people pay in coming forward. We want them to come forward; we do not want anything to be a barrier, so the Home Secretary believes that it is absolutely critical that we have in place sufficient resource to be able to meet their needs and care for them when they do the courageous thing of coming forward and reliving those horrific experiences.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 13B. Clause 25 provides that “due regard” must be given—I emphasise the word “due”—to,
“the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”.
I have to say, preliminary to speaking to the detail of this amendment, that the more that I have thought about it, in one sense the less concerned I am about Clause 25(1). It is not the heavy duty that in some ways it has been presented as, but probably in some ways it simply encapsulates common sense. That is in one sense. Where I find a real problem is in the elaborate infrastructure or superstructure—I am not sure which it is—that has been built around this simple proposition and the context in which the clause, and the whole of Part 5, is now being viewed: the feeling among the Muslim communities that they are being got at. That is why I am still of the view that it would be far better not to have a statutory duty with all the bureaucracy, costs and difficulties that that carries. However, my amendment is much more modest than that principle.
As I said, Clause 25(1) provides for “due regard”. Under Clause 28, the Secretary of State is to issue guidance, and under subsection (2) of that clause the authorities must “have regard” to the guidance. Therefore, is the heavier duty the duty in Clause 25? Is there significance in the difference? Is it technical perhaps that Clause 25 is about a statutory duty and that Clause 28 is about guidance, which does not have the same status as legislation and therefore less regard might be had to it? However, what was a two-faceted question became triple-faceted when the Government laid an amendment on freedom of expression in universities. I do not want to anticipate the debate on that issue but I note that the institutions are to pay “particular regard” to the freedom of speech duty in the 1986 Act. So we now have three levels. Indeed, the Secretary of State is to have “particular regard” to that duty when issuing guidance and considering directions.
It is clearly important to understand the relative weight of these terms. In respect of education, perhaps the freedom of expression duty, because it prompts particular regard, trumps the duty concerning preventing people being drawn into terrorism. On reading all this again, I have to say that, as well as being about the relative weight, it is about which duty is the one in the new clause. In other words, the hierarchy seems to be particular regard, due regard and then plain regard. I am looking for assistance from the Minister on this.
Amendment 13B provides that,
“each specified authority shall have”—
why not?—
“regard to the impact … on local communities”,
which I have put in the plural, and on people connected with the authority, and,
“of the manner of the exercise”,
of this on local communities.
Among various briefings over the past few days, I have received the response to the Prevent duty guidance consultation from the London Borough of Sutton. I should like to share with your Lordships some of the comments that have been made. It states:
“There is a further issue of risk of negative impact from the duty if it is undertaken without careful consideration of local context. There is already evidence to suggest that the delivery of interventions such as around female genital mutilation and honour based violence adding to polarisation of communities. The interventions are important but must be delivered with understanding”.
In the response, a young Muslim woman is quoted as asking,
“‘why in my class are the girls taken out and spoken to about FGM and honour based violence and everyone looks at me and the other girl in a headscarf—these things have nothing to do with my life and are not risks I’m interested in. I’d rather know more about how to stay safe walking across my park’”.
As the London Borough of Sutton response says:
“The guidance is silent on such issues”.
The phraseology of this amendment was prompted by an amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, towards the end of the last day in Committee on the new Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. We have quite properly spent time in our debates emphasising the importance of a positive approach to community engagement—in other words, engagement, not disengagement—and it being a continuing process. Time and again, it has been put to Members of your Lordships’ House that the Muslim communities feel that they are viewed as the problem; namely, that if you are a Muslim, if you are not a terrorist you are a potential terrorist and you need to prove that you are not. Obviously, that is the most enormous slur or slander on the vast majority of Muslims, and it is very counterproductive in that it is polarising and alienating.
My amendment refers to the impact on communities, pupils, clients, patients and so on. As has been said to me, there are questions about workability, functionality and encroachment into the private sphere by the state. I mention the manner in which the duty is exercised because attitudes show in actions and words, and we all know that it is not only what we do but the way that we do it. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)
We had a considerable debate in Committee on these issues. I shall speak to Amendment 13B and about the danger of making the Prevent strategy statutory rather than voluntary and the fear that it might prove to be counterproductive. It is clear, however, that the Government feel strongly that these powers need to be statutory to ensure that those authorities which to date have lagged behind in their observance of the Prevent strategy recognise their obligations.
Amendment 13B, therefore, takes a somewhat different tack, as my noble friend mentioned. We had some discussion also about the importance of community involvement and working with the grain of community culture and the mores in different areas. In other words, it is vital that the implementation of the Prevent strategy should be flexible in approach and take into account the sensibilities of different communities.
These points were stressed, in particular, by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece—neither of whom is in the Chamber today—in relation to Muslim communities. Again, this point was raised in the example quoted by my noble friend Lady Hamwee of the advice given by Sutton. However, it applies just as much to other communities, where institutions and customs will vary from one to another. In some, the civic organisations—the mayor’s office and the agencies run from that office—may be the dominant players; in others, organisations such as the YMCA, third sector youth groups or faith groups may be most influential. It is a matter of recognising that one size does not fit all. Those behind the Prevent strategy must work with the grain of each community rather than trying to impose a standardised agenda on all.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, I should like to speak in defence of the amendment, because, more and more, parliamentary legislation is identifying Muslims as “the others”, or the enemy within. The “otherisation” of an entire community through insensitive approaches which do not give them the leeway to fit in is the surest way of driving them away and towards actions that are undesirable on all sides, and which their religion forbids.
If people are defined by their religion, and if the strategy is such that they cannot find a person to whom they can comment or a position to which they can adhere, then, given the difficulty of the alienation created by these labels, I fear that violence will become an alternative. I hope that the House will take heed and offer a far more inclusive approach rather than one which is intent on labelling certain groups and faith groups as “others”.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend the Minister as I suspect—I do not know—that he will not agree to the amendment.
First, I say to the noble Baroness who has just spoken that there is no mention of a particular community in the legislation. It is because, as we all know, it is predominantly people from the Muslim community who have been carrying out these appalling atrocities that those labels are being banded about. The Muslim community has to accept and understand why that is.
Furthermore, the other day I heard about something which I think amplifies why what the Government are seeking to achieve is incredibly difficult. I understand why they want to put this duty on a statutory basis. What I am going to say is almost more shocking to me than what happened in Paris. Somebody I know quite well was telling me the other day that his wife was shopping in a supermarket about three weeks ago in Manchester. She was scouring the shelves, as we do, when she stopped because she could not help overhearing a group of young British Asian Muslim girls talking about going to Syria.
This makes my heart jump when I talk about it and when I think about it. What does that say? It says that there are young people out there of different ages, and probably from different financial backgrounds, who have varying exposure to other faiths and so on and who, we are now hearing, find the idea of going to Syria quite cool. In other words, the importance of Prevent and of the need to try to deter these young people from thinking that somehow it is the right thing is absolutely paramount now. Therefore, we have to find every which way to send out a message, even though it may seem rather severe because it is on the face of the Bill. The threat that we face is severe.
Some of the people coming back from Syria now have carried out the most appalling atrocities. We do not want them talking to these girls, whether it is in supermarkets, in schools or in clubs—wherever it is—and encouraging them to think that it is cool. There has to be another point of view. There has to be a way that we encourage—we urge—all public authorities to do what they can to help these girls and many others like them who may be taken down the wrong path. I understand where my noble friend is coming from and the spirit of these amendments, but I do not think that we should shy away from sending a powerful message through this legislation that we have to do everything to support young people in preventing harm.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 13A and 13B. I want to comment on my noble friend Lady Buscombe’s contribution a minute ago. I am not sure that it helped the Minister. I think it explained why we need Amendments 13A and 13B, because the most important thing about implementing Prevent is to recognise that each of our communities differs and that each community, area and specified authority should have due regard to the impact in order to understand it and to pass that message back to central government to understand the change in the nature of terrorism and radicalisation.
That is why I believe that Amendment 13B is valid. It is an extra tool in the box to make sure that we are monitoring what is happening, at whatever level and in whatever specified authority, to the range of people it is going to affect—including, interestingly, pupils who are under sixth form and under student age. What is happening is not consistent across the country. There may be young girls in one area talking about going to Syria; there are young Muslim British girls in other areas who are appalled by that. As a society we need to understand the nuances of that. The briefing that we have had from the Muslim Council of Britain sets that out very clearly. The one thing that we must do is to make sure that we do not have alienation on a grand scale. We need to understand that what is happening is not the same in every single community.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend in Amendment 13A. I want to share my experience as a former leader of Sheffield City Council to say how difficult this is. We make a grave mistake by talking about the Muslim community as though it is a homogenous group of people. They are people with many different beliefs, different processes and different understandings of what is happening worldwide. When I was leader of Sheffield City Council, very strict central guidelines came in with Prevent. That ended up setting not just community against community but different people of the same community against each other, because we were not allowed to have leeway to make judgments or to put in place policies and practices that were relevant to our local context.
What became clear to me, and to many other council leaders across the country, was that unless we got it right from a bottom-up approach, by working with and for those different people in the community, we would alienate more people than we brought in. One of the key findings of the Audit Commission report on the last Prevent programme back in 2008 was that there should be more of a bottom-up than a top-down approach. I have no doubt that the Government’s intentions are well meaning. I have no doubt that there is a view that if you have a set of guidelines from somebody in Whitehall, it is applicable across the country. However, my personal experience tells me that it is best to be more bottom-up than top-down on these issues, otherwise we will not just set community against community but cause tension because of the people within those communities who have different opinions.
I ask the Minister to consider this amendment very seriously. Past experience of my own and the Audit Commission report of 2008 make it very clear: a top-down approach which does not take this into consideration as a major part of implementing Prevent will have unintended consequences and will mean that we have good intentions but bad implementation of something that we all support.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, commend this amendment for very serious consideration by the Government. We all have different experiences in life. As the House will know, I have spent a good deal of my life with the developing world, and have learnt a great deal from the experience. To put it as succinctly as I can, if I have learnt one overriding message above all, it is that if you are trying to strengthen communities you must not talk at them or about them but with them.
I may have mentioned this in the House before and, in that case, I do not apologise for repeating it. I remember the Bishop of San Cristobal making a brave stand for the Indians in Chiapas, in Mexico, who were being persecuted very badly. I said to him, “Have you got a message for us back in Britain?”. He said, “Yes, I have. What is important is solidarity. You speak about people, you talk to them, but how often do you really listen to them, work with them and build with them their strength and future?” We cannot overemphasise the danger and the urgency in this situation, but whatever we do, we must not inadvertently stereotype people and put them on the defensive, because that does not help. Even in the most normal times—if we can talk about normal times with all our recent experiences—successful policing always seems to me to be the policing that works with the community and not just in it. From that standpoint, this amendment touches on very important principles about building confidence and building upwards.
It strikes me, just from my experience as a citizen, like most other people in this House, that the great horror of terrorism is that it involves a very small number of people. Terrorism works most effectively when there is a climate of ambivalence around the people who do the terrible things. There are people who sometimes feel, “I could never do that, and it’s horrible, but I can understand people doing that because of how they find the reality of living in this situation”.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, as somebody who has been deputy leader of Luton Borough Council, I support my colleague’s amendment. Luton has been in the media because of its extremists, and we do have a small number of people who hold extreme views. Nevertheless, it is on record that out of the 22—or now perhaps 24—mosques in the town, none of them allows those few extremists to use its platforms to spread their messages. Some of them have worked with ex-offenders and those who might have been involved in other activities.
Might I give an example of how this is going to affect them? One of the imams of those mosques, whom I knew very well, was working on a project with ex-offenders. It was a successful, well recognised piece of work that he had been involved with for years. He had worked with internationally recognised charities in Syria. Recently, when he gave in his passport to be renewed, the passport was held. We do not know the reasons; he has approached me and said, “Can you help me?”. He has tried to speak to the Passport Office; he spoke to the crime commissioner and his local Member of Parliament, but he is not getting anywhere. He said to me, “Lord Hussain, if I have done something wrong, just tell me that I have done something wrong. If it is wrong for me to go to work with a charity in Syria, I will not go to work with those charities in Syria, much as I would like to. But I don’t think I have done anything wrong”.
We have to give proper training to our staff in order to carry out these laws. Experience shows what went on when we tried to implement stop and search, a piece of legislation that the police actually admitted that they were not sufficiently trained to carry out. My fear is that we are going to alienate communities if we do not accept the amendments, which I support.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly on this. I was reflecting on my own student days when we had serious problems with extremists in Leicester, but extremists as referred to in the Prevent draft guidance—from the extreme right-wing. We had numerous problems and things were at times quite frightening. I also recall attacks on gay bars in London by extremists who were anti-gay. We have to be very equal and balanced when we talk about extremism.
I was grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, when he talked about Muslim communities as being as broad and wide as any other communities that share a set of beliefs or religion. I can equate that with some Muslim friends of mine who do not all think the same. I was slightly disappointed by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. In my experience, when there have been attacks where Muslims have been blamed or some Muslims have been responsible, the greatest condemnation has come from those who are Muslim.
Baroness Buscombe
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I never in the least bit insinuated that that was my point of view. I was just trying to explain why people out there have applied labels to the people who have carried out these atrocities. That is nothing to do with my point of view. I would never label that community as being one. I think that various noble Lords misunderstood me and I am sorry if they have misunderstood me. That was not what I was talking about. I was talking about the fact that this legislation does not actually mention any particular community—that is nowhere in the Bill—and therefore presumption should not be made in that regard.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That clarification is helpful and I am grateful for that. I did not know that the noble Baroness was able to intervene on Report and was unsure whether to accept the intervention, but it was a very helpful clarification.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, I first raised this issue about the impact on communities when talking about the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. On this issue the Minister and other noble Lords have in numerous contributions made it clear that the views of communities and the impact on them must be taken into account. Looking again at the guidance we are debating—I sent out for copies—it goes some way to doing that but, given the comments that have been made, it may be that the guidance could be a little clearer and more explicit on this issue. I am sure that when exercising this duty under Prevent we will all be seeking the same objective, which is to prevent people turning to or being drawn into extremism that could lead to violent behaviour. The sentiments are exactly right and what every Member of your Lordships’ House has said since the beginning of the debate, but if the noble Lord could clarify that and put it on record, and perhaps consider how the guidance could be made more explicit in that regard, that would be helpful.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a good curtain-raiser debate because we will come back to this issue in five successive groups, looking at different aspects of the Prevent strategy. I was lulled into a slightly false sense of security by my noble friend Lady Hamwee when she said that the more she read, the more she felt that the clause made sense and her amendment was perhaps not necessary. She then elaborated on it in a way that provoked a very helpful debate.
I should say two things in the context of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lady Buscombe. When we talk about communities here, it is helpful to start from the position that everyone is equal before the law. Everyone is of equal value and they have the same vote and the same rights. Everyone is equal in our society. That is part of what a democratic society is about and what we are seeking to protect and uphold through this strategy. In a sense, to overfocus on particular groups is sometimes not helpful. All these measures are about prevention of terrorism and extremism. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned, there is far-right extremism, such as the murder of Mohammed Saleem, an 82 year-old, and bombs being placed nearby. Some 25% of the people on the Channel programme at present are from extreme right organisations. We have faced a lot of violent threats such as violence in Northern Ireland. We fear violence from animal rights groups and far-right groups. There are a range of people who would seek to attack that central principle that all people are equal, and are of equal value and worth in our society. That is what is really under attack.
We must never be drawn into a situation where, for fear of offence, we are not able to speak that truth. I do not want to link too far back, but I am afraid my mind is still full of the horrors of what we were talking about before—
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
I apologise. I have just rushed into the Chamber and caught my noble friend’s words. What interests me is the phrase used in the guidelines to which we shall come later. That phrase is “non-violent extremism”. My noble friend has talked about extremism and terrorism, but will he talk specifically about non-violent extremism? We heard the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, about the teaching of Plato and other people talked about classes in which they had discussed the pros and cons of authoritarianism versus democracy. I once attended a meeting at Queen Mary College where a lot of Muslim students said—very politely and while making it clear that they opposed violence and terrorism—that they did not believe in western-style democracy. That was what the discussion was about. What sort of non-violent extremism are the Government worried about? Some people might consider some forms of modern art to be non-violent extremism.
Lord Bates
The definition that we are working to—I shall put it on the record for my noble friend as we have been through this a number of times in Committee—is,
“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”.
We also include in our definition of extremism calls for the death of members of our Armed Forces. People may want to argue with that or take issue with it, but that is the definition we are working to.
The point that I wanted to make, in referring back to the earlier Statement, relates to something that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked me about. In Rotherham, one of the central findings of Louise Casey’s report was that because of “cultural sensitivities”, people had failed in their duty to protect children at risk in that area. We cannot be in that position. All that we are interested in here is protecting the liberty of the entire community of the United Kingdom. That includes people of all faiths and none, from a range of different backgrounds and traditions. I wanted, first, to put a marker down for that principle—that we need to focus above all on the values of democracy and individual liberty, which some people would seek to undermine.
The second point made was a fair one—that what we should be doing with Prevent is, at best, not something imposed from the top down. The noble Lords, Lord Hussain, Lord Scriven and Lord Judd, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee made that point. That is why, in the consultation on the guidance, we have said that we want people to come up with their own plan. We cannot not have a plan for dealing with something that is focused on trying to undermine the things that free speech, universities, schools and British values are all about. We cannot step aside from that. But if ideas come from the bottom up, so much the better. That would be entirely compliant with the spirit and the letter of the Bill.
I shall now deal with a couple of the specific points in the amendments. Amendment 13A probes the use of the word “due ” in the context of the requirement in Clause 25 to have “due regard” to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. The amendment probes why the word “due” appears here but not in Clause 28, which requires specified authorities simply to “have regard” to guidance issued relating to compliance with the Prevent duty. This is quite a technical drafting point, but I will seek to address my noble friend’s concerns. The term “due” in Clause 25 indicates that, in the exercise of their functions, specified authorities will need to have regard to a number of different factors and the intention is that by stipulating that they must have,
“due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”,
they place sufficient, proportionate weight on this consideration among the many that are relevant to the performance of those functions. In complying with the Prevent duty, however, authorities should have regard to only one guidance document, so there is not the same requirement to weigh up competing guidance and “due” is therefore unnecessary here.
Baroness Hamwee
Before the Minister sits down, has he had any inspiration about the term “particular regard” which might help the House?
Lord Bates
The short answer is that that inspiration is perhaps on its way to me. Perhaps I may come back to that on a later group of amendments, if the noble Baroness would allow me.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I thought that I gave notice to the Bill team, whose heads are no doubt spinning with the speed, but something may be on its way.
Lord Bates
I can tell the noble Baroness that the “particular regard” element is actually in relation to the Secretary of State’s duty. It is to say that she must have particular regard to the duties under freedoms of speech. The difference between due and particular in this context is that the latter, in all cases, elevates the freedom of speech consideration among all the considerations that must be borne in mind, whereas specifying that due regard must be had to a factor simply underscores the importance of that factor while leaving the degree to which it must be elevated by the specified authority to be determined by the circumstances of the case.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
I cannot resist asking: how is this going to go down with schoolmasters and the rest?
Lord Bates
I will leave that to the schoolmasters. However, in this regard, my noble friend should find this reassuring because we are saying that the Secretary of State should have a particular regard. That is a higher threshold to be aware of: the importance of academic freedom of speech within universities. It is a higher test and it is appropriate to say that before she offers direction, she ought to be able to satisfy whether that test has been met. I shall hand back to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, as I said, there is something of a hierarchy in this. “Having regard” implies proportionality, whether it is “due regard” or simply “regard”. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation. However, I should like regard to be had to the impact of this part of the Bill and to the manner of the exercise of the duty. I am grateful to noble Lords who have commented and who have supported that proposition. The bottom-up approach is precisely what I am seeking to articulate.
The Minister and other noble Lords have referred to far-right extremism. I have acknowledged that in previous debates as well. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, it is the current context that has caused so many comments from members of Muslim communities. That is why so many of us have made such reference to it. I too am shocked—but not surprised—by her report of girls talking about going to Syria. She asked, “What does that say?”. To me, it says let us look for the best way of addressing this issue. All the comments I have made about a bottom-up approach are directed to doing that. The noble Baroness, Lady Afshar, said that, and she is nodding vigorously now.
I am sorry that the Minister has not been able to suggest further ways of acknowledging this approach and these concerns. However, the guidance is not complete. Although the consultation is closed, over the last few days responses have indicated that points made by Members of your Lordships’ House will be taken into account in finalising the guidance. I hope that this approach will have at least that status, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, suggested. That would give a degree of comfort. I beg leave to withdraw my pedantic amendment.
Lord Hope of Craighead
“( ) The general duty under subsection (1) is subject, in England and Wales, to the duty in section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (freedom of speech in universities, polytechnics and colleges), and in Scotland, to the need to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured in universities and other further and higher education institutions.”
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, it falls to me to move Amendment 14 which is the first of five amendments in this group. I want to make it clear that the fact that I am speaking first and that my name is listed first on the amendment has nothing to do with the relative quality of the contributions which I and the three noble Baronesses who have added their names to this amendment made in Committee. My contribution was much lighter than theirs and I am sure they will have much more to say as the debate develops.
This group also contains Amendment 15, in my name and in the names of the noble Baronesses, as well as government Amendment 15D which is a significant amendment. It has been designed to meet some of the concerns which have been expressed about freedom of speech—especially academic freedom of speech in higher education institutions and, in particular, in universities.
As became clear in Committee, there are three aspects to this problem. The first is how to reconcile what the Government are proposing in the Bill as it stands—the duty which is being imposed on universities and other higher education institutions by the provisions of Section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. This is a duty to secure freedom of speech in the institutions listed in this subsection. That is the first chapter, on how to reconcile these apparently competing duties.
The second deals with how to achieve the same reconciliation in relation to Scotland, bearing in mind that Part 5 of the Bill applies to Scotland just as it does to England and Wales, and that the 1986 Act does not extend to Scotland so there is no statutory duty on the universities and other institutions in those terms. Nevertheless, one would think—having regard to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, among other things—that the right to freedom of speech was just as powerful in Scotland as it was in the other jurisdiction.
The third point relates to how to reconcile the duty to secure freedom of speech with the guidance being proposed in the consultation paper. On the first point, I pay particular tribute to the Minister and his team for the way in which they have responded to the particular problem about reconciling the two competing statutory provisions. They have done so with commendable speed, given the rate at which we have been proceeding from Committee to Report. For my part, it seems that Amendment 15D, which the Minister will speak to later in the group, deals exactly with that point and makes it clear that the two duties can live together in the way in which the amendment describes. I express gratitude for what the noble Lord is proposing, which is a step in the right direction, although a small one.
My amendment is divided into two parts. The first deals with the position in England and Wales in relation to the 1986 Act; the second deals with the position in Scotland. That matter is not addressed by Amendment 15D, nor was it mentioned in the very helpful letter that the Minister wrote on 3 February which explains the reason for Amendment 15D but does not deal with the points that I raised about Scotland. I shall briefly repeat what I said in Committee. I drew attention to a fact that we are all aware of: that education north of the border is a devolved matter. We are dealing with a statute that deals with a reserved matter, the prevention of terrorism. There is an obvious need to reconcile these two matters, which no doubt is being achieved by discussions with the Scottish Government and consideration as to how best to meld the Scottish position with that for England and Wales.
The problem to which I tried to draw attention was this: the vehicle that is being used for the Prevent system, both north and south of the border, is all built into Part 5 of the Act. One would like to think that one would find everything one needed in statute to deal with the Scottish position, as one certainly does for dealing with the position in England and Wales. It is the absence of a reference to Scotland and the need to preserve freedom of speech, and at least respect the right to it, that have caused me concern. I raised this in Committee but so far there seems to be no answer.
There is a real puzzle about what exactly the Government’s thinking is about the position in Scotland, because the Bill is silent about it. It may be that because of the shortness of time the necessary discussions with the Scottish Government have not yet been completed; indeed, I would understand the need for those discussions to proceed to a solution. If that is the reason, then my fears would be allayed to some extent. But one is still left with the problem that the Bill will leave this House—and, if nothing is done about it, will no doubt leave the House of Commons as well—without anything in it that addresses the problem. With respect, that seems to be an unsatisfactory situation, bearing in mind that one is trying to achieve exactly the same thing in Scotland as one is seeking south of the border.
So there is something missing here, and I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s explanation of what is being done to address the situation. My suggestion when we talked about this last time was that once the Bill is enacted, I imagine that the only way one can deal with the Scottish position, if it needs to be dealt with, is by fresh enactment, which is a very heavy-handed way of dealing with the problem. One would rather see the matter dealt with now before the Bill leaves Parliament and is enacted.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 14, to which I have added my name. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for combining his original amendment with the amendment by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Once again, I declare an interest as emeritus professor at Loughborough University.
In Committee, the consensus in favour of amending this part of the Bill was striking. Noble Lords did not consider that the Government had made a persuasive case for putting a statutory duty on higher education institutions—moving “from co-operation to co-option”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, put it. Where was the evidence base? Until the evidence for the necessity of such a statutory duty is marshalled, to use the Minister’s phrase, it is not possible to assess it.
Concerns were raised on grounds of both practice and principle. Warnings were given on unintended consequences and counterproductive effects, including the erosion of trust between staff and students, which could undermine any attempts to engage with students who might be tempted down the road towards terrorism. I do not think that anyone was reassured by ministerial assertions that academic freedom and freedom of speech would not be endangered. Indeed, I think that it is fair to say that the majority of those who spoke were in favour of the total exclusion of the HE sector. However, I am a realist, and, given the Minister’s welcome commitment to reflect and bring forward an amendment, which he has done, in a spirit of compromise, I have not retabled the JCHR amendment designed to exclude HE institutions from the duty altogether, or to provide a narrower exemption for their academic functions.
We all agree on the value of academic freedom and freedom of speech. As yesterday’s letter to the Guardian, signed by 524 professors—I can tell the House that trying to organise 524 professors is like herding cats, so to get them all to sign was quite an achievement—put it:
“One of the purposes of post-compulsory education is to foster critical thinking in staff, students and society more widely. Our universities and colleges are centres for debate and open discussion, where received wisdom can be challenged and controversial ideas put forward in the spirit of academic endeavour”.
Since last week’s debate, I have received a copy of a legal opinion provided for the University and College Union—my former union—by Robert Moretto QC, who has advised government departments, including the Home Office, in the past. I pay tribute to UCU for showing leadership on this matter. The opinion states:
“It is difficult in my view to square the Prevent duty with academic freedom enshrined in, for example, the Education (No. 2) Act 1986”,
and that,
“the Prevent duty as set out in the Draft Guidance appears to envisage that decisions may be taken”,
which prevent lawful speech.
The opinion also raises questions about possible incompatibility with the Human Rights Act in particular situations. This opinion lends weight to the JCHR’s concerns that the legal uncertainty created by the new duty in relation to existing duties concerning academic freedom and freedom of speech will have a seriously inhibiting effect on bona fide academic debate.
This takes us to the nub of what we have to decide today. While I very much welcome the fact that the Minister has tabled an amendment which makes explicit reference to the freedom of speech duty in the Education (No. 2) Act, it does not provide the clarity that HE institutions need. Here I am afraid that I part company with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. An obligation to have regard is a familiar device of the legislative drafter when faced with duties which might conflict in practice. We see it in Sections 12 and 13 of the Human Rights Act, for example. The problem is that it still means that the Bill says nothing about the hierarchy of duties, and it leaves it to other things to influence decisions where the duties come into conflict. In effect, this means the Home Secretary’s guidance.
I note that the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Macdonald and Lord Pannick, refers to “due regard”, as does the new Prevent duty in Clause 25(1). There was an exchange a moment ago about “particular regard” and “due regard”, and I have to admit that I did not understand the Minister’s explanation of where he saw the difference. I am not quite sure why the Government have chosen “particular regard” in this instance as opposed to “due regard”. I think that the Minister said that he regards “particular regard” as stronger than “due regard”. It would be helpful if he could confirm that later, because my understanding is that “due regard” carries greater legal clarity because of the case law interpreting the same phrase in the public sector equality duty. If he can confirm that by using “particular regard” he wants it to be stronger than “due regard”, I would be happy with that.
Amendment 14 provides the necessary clarity by making it explicit that the new Prevent duty is subject to the existing freedom of speech duty. In Committee, the Minister said there are good reasons why the freedom of speech duty should not be elevated above the Prevent duty, principally that freedom of speech is not open-ended or absolute. Of course the existing freedom of speech duty is subservient to the laws the Minister listed in Committee, including criminal law on the use of threatening words or inviting support for a proscribed terrorist organisation, and the civil law on defamation. In other words, there is already a duty to secure freedom of speech within the law.
This amendment would not change that, but it would make it clear that the Prevent duty could not be used to prevent lawful speech, and the importance of protecting lawful speech is underlined by Universities UK in its response to the draft guidance. I cannot see why the Government should resist that if they genuinely believe in protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom in our universities. Universities are looking for clarity and an explicit statement in law that in the context of higher education, freedom of speech and academic freedom within the law carry greater weight then the Prevent duty. The amendment has the support of Universities UK, UCU and million+.
We have an important decision to make today. Universities and other institutions are looking to us to provide them with the clarity they need to operate the new Prevent duty in a way that does not have a chilling effect on academic freedom. When he has heard the debate, and in light of the strength of feeling expressed in Committee, I hope that the Minister might be prevailed upon to reflect further before Third Reading, even though I accept that he has already moved some way from the original position of the Government—and once more I thank him for that.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 14 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I have put my name to this amendment, which is designed to give absolute clarity to the continued protection under the law of freedom of speech in our universities, something which the Joint Committee on Human Rights strongly recommended in its legislative scrutiny report. This amendment is very simple. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has spoken clearly on its effect. It locates the statutory duty to protect freedom of speech squarely in Clause 25. It gives clarity to the fact that the new statutory Prevent duty, subject to the existing obligations of universities, polytechnics and colleges to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure freedom of speech within the law, is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers.
I thank the Minister for his movement and recognition of some of what was said in Committee. However, throughout his amendment he adverts to the duty in relation to freedom of speech in universities which is imposed by Section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, in terms both of the relationship between the new duty and the duties imposed under that Act on the universities, and of making the Secretary of State have “particular regard” to that duty in any guidance or directions issued. The difficulty I have is that surely universities must not only have particular regard but also comply with their obligations under Section 43. Therefore if they are trying to have due regard to a duty to prevent people being drawn into terrorism at the same time as having particular regard to something which they must do anyway, there is a conflict for them in the hierarchy, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred.
With respect, the amendment tabled by the Minister, Amendment 15D, is not as clear or effective as Amendment 14. I urge him to think very carefully about its limitations, and to accept the very real concerns articulated by so many leading academics and university vice-chancellors and chancellors that this Bill will seriously affect freedom of speech in the country. It will also affect our international reputation as the guardians of freedom of speech. The Prevent duty, as articulated in this context, would be a very blunt instrument. It will not prevent terrorists from using our universities as breeding and grooming grounds. That is best done by using more sophisticated means to identify and infiltrate groups who seek to recruit to terrorism through coffee shops, bars and things like that. We have a real battle to fight, but we must be cautious in the processes that we use so as to secure maximum impact in the fight, not to generate further unnecessary problems.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, there is no doubt that freedom of speech in universities is utterly essential. Without it, there can be no concept of a real university. Freedom of speech is of course a basic human right, but in a university it is the very bedrock on which its concept is founded.
A week ago, in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, reminded us that if a university loses freedom of speech—the right to discuss, examine, disseminate and comment on all manner of opinions in the widest possible range—it becomes an intellectual closed shop. I do not think that it could be better put than that. It is against that template that one has to consider all these matters.
I raise a point which follows very closely that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It relates to Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. The question is whether what is proposed by the Minister in Amendment 15D goes far enough. The fact that “particular regard” has to be paid leaves an open question as to exactly how the two concepts can sit together: the concept in Section 43 of freedom of speech in a university and the concept of statutory guidance, around which the clauses of Part 5 are built. To my mind, it still leaves a dubiety. That is why I support Amendment 14.
I am not sure exactly what wording should be used to improve the situation—it is always dangerous to try to make legislation on the hoof—but I should have thought that one could look to a different precedent. In Section 1 of the Children Act 1989, a court is enjoined, in dealing with a child’s case, to consider seven or eight different situations, but it is stated that the welfare of the child shall be regarded as the “paramount consideration”. Whether the word used is paramount or prime it could so be made clear that, where the two matters—the principles of Section 43 and those set out in the statutory directive—are in conflict, Section 43 should remain paramount.
Section 43 does not stand alone. Another very relevant section is Section 202 of the Education Reform Act 1988. That protects the employment of a person who may be teaching out-of-the-way subjects. Section 202 states that university commissioners,
“shall have regard to the need … to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions”.
Why has Section 202 not been included in the same bounty as Section 43 of the 1986 Act in the Minister’s amendment? I am sure that he will pay close attention to that situation.
I also wish to raise a point which may or may not have relevance, which is the position of Wales. Like Scotland, Wales enjoys devolved powers in relation to higher education. Does the problem identified by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, apply to Wales? I do not think so, but I would like to be totally reassured on that point. These are not simple matters, but they are well worth our best and most detailed and concentrated attention at this very moment. I have very great respect for the Minister and indeed I have some sympathy with him, because 47 years ago—hard as that is to believe—I held exactly the same position in the other place as he does now, and dealt with the same subjects. These are matters which deserve our very best concentration.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (LD)
In speaking to my Amendment 14A, I again declare an interest as warden of Wadham College, Oxford. Last week in Committee I put my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the purpose of which was to remove universities entirely from the ambit of the Bill. I did so because of what seemed to me to be the self-evidently paramount importance of free speech in universities, and because the obligations that the Bill placed on universities appeared to conflict with their statutory duties under the Education Act 1986 to secure freedom of speech, not only in their institutions but for visiting speakers.
It is fair to say that in debate in Committee there was overwhelming support for the proposal that universities should be removed from the ambit of the Bill. I remain firmly of the view that the definition of “non-violent extremism”, which the Minister has recently set out again, is absolutely hopeless in its application to universities. This is because one can with the greatest of ease imagine all sorts of discussions, lectures and seminars taking place on topics which would be caught by the Government’s definition, and people in those lectures and seminars expressing intellectual views which would also fall under the definition. As far as I am concerned, it is hopeless for the Government to seek to apply such a definition to universities, which are particular places of debate, discussion and intellectual inquiry.
There was overwhelming support in debates—virtually every Peer who spoke did so in favour of the removal of universities from the scope of the Bill—yet, when winding up, those on the Opposition Front Bench made clear that they would be unable to support such a proposition, so last week I tabled a further amendment. The purpose of this Amendment 14A was to secure some reassurance that any risk that the Bill would undermine academic freedom would be mitigated, by placing in the Bill an obligation on universities to approach their duties under it in the light of their pre-existing free speech obligations under the Education Act. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, obviously I was pleased when on Monday the Government tabled their own amendment, which in effect secures the same thing.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I should have liked much more on this, for all the reasons which she articulated so ably. I should be delighted if the Government were minded to accede to her amendment. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be important that we secure the Government’s acknowledgment—and an acknowledgment on the face of the Bill—that these provisions apply to universities only within the critical context of their statutory freedom of expression duties. This is so that in future it cannot be argued that those duties are displaced by the passage of the Bill: they are not. The Government’s amendment seems to me to make explicit that they are not. I am grateful to the Minister for securing the Government’s movement, such as it is, on this important and fundamental issue.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Today I found a piece of satire that said:
“Top universities a ‘breeding ground’ for Tories, warn Islamic groups”.
Accompanying this, there was a photograph of the Bullingdon Club from a certain era.
In my experience—and I, too, declare an interest as being the principal of Mansfield College, Oxford—universities are more or less breeding grounds for people who want to get a job. In fact, in many universities, there is not enough debate and sharing of ideas, because the real drama is around acquiring the kind of qualifications that will do well in the job market. Universities, as has been said, should and must be places for the exchange of ideas. Yet already there are concerns that, even as it stands, there are real pressures on universities around the issue of inviting speakers. For example, there was a piece in the Guardian’s online comment pages by Dr Karma Nabulsi, an academic at Oxford who speaks regularly at other universities, saying that constraints are already felt by universities—that if, for example, someone seeks to invite in a speaker on Islam, for comparative religion, some universities become very sensitive and anxious. If there is an invitation to a speaker on Islamic studies or the history of religion, anxiety is expressed and often the support of the police is encouraged and advice is sought from external sources. So the chilling effect is very worrying for the academic world.
When I chaired the British Council in that period from 1998 to 2004, we did a lot of work in eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. One of the great things about going to universities there, when we did various projects, was how academics talked about the iconic value of academic freedom, which they associated with Britain and of which they had been deprived for so long. That is something that we should feel proud of. In this Chamber, particularly, we often go back to this business of the pride that we take in British values and wax lyrical about the importance of freedom and liberty—yet, at the same time, here we are, when it comes to the bit, going into retreat.
I support the position taken by my noble friend Lady Lister. I feel that universities should not have been included in this legislation and that voluntarism is the way forward. We should not be creating a statutory duty because adult institutions of learning are different. They are where the great debates happen—the exchange of ideas—and they are the crucible in which people formulate ideas and in which ideas can be challenged. You could create a different set of arguments as to why you exclude universities. However, given that that is not going to be the direction of travel—and I greatly regret that my Front Bench is being required to retreat from taking that principled stand—I urge on this House to consider the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lady Lister. I welcome and pay tribute to the Minister for seeking to keep pushing this issue to a better place, and I thank the Home Office for doing that, and for the efforts of those involved. However, we are still not there. We are getting a parity as between the duties, when we should be saying that academic freedom has to be prioritised; it should be the duty which has primacy, because it is so important and something that we value so greatly when we talk about “British values”.
I know that we are getting towards the closing days of this Parliament and that there is anxiety about not spilling over in our time, but I urge the Minister to go back before Third Reading and see whether we cannot have a formulation that gives primacy to academic freedom. The complaints and anxieties of the many academics as well as others in the academic world who have expressed concern are not trivial; they are being expressed for a reason. That is one reason why our institutions of higher and further education are respected around the world. We have to be the protectors of this, and I hope that we can find a formulation that is better than the one that we currently have.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 14. This is one of those moments when I feel, as I suspect other noble Lords also feel, quite frustrated by the procedures of this House. In a way, it is a pity that we cannot hear from my noble friend the Minister about his amendment ahead of the debate. If that were possible we could perhaps give our reasons why some of us feel that, although we are hugely grateful to him for tabling it, his amendment is still—to put it politely—a little timid. There remains a lack of clarity. But there we are; we have the situation as it stands.
Obviously, I support Amendment 14. As a fellow member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I will not seek to repeat everything that other JCHR members—including the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady O’Loan and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—have said already. We looked at this subject extremely carefully when we considered the legislation as a committee.
Although we are, as I say, grateful that my noble friend has brought forward his amendment, he will not be surprised to hear that there is still a lack of clarity. I think that that was demonstrated by the letter in the Guardian yesterday. It was sent by 500 signatories who are genuinely concerned about academic freedom. I would point out one part of the letter in particular. It states:
“Ensuring colleges and universities can continue to debate difficult and unpopular issues is a vital part”—
of responding—
“to acts of terror against UK”,
citizens. It said that it is important,
“to maintain and defend an open, democratic society in which discriminatory behaviour of any kind is effectively challenged”.
We want to be sure that when this legislation leaves your Lordships’ House, there is real clarity and an acceptance and understanding among the academic community and others that we have done all that we can to ensure that the Prevent duty cannot be used to prevent lawful speech. As I said on Second Reading and again in Committee, for so many young people, university is their first opportunity away from home to be able to debate openly and freely and to hear other points of view from different cultures. Therefore, to send out a message that that possibility has been diffused in any way would be a great mistake.
I wonder why—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has said—my noble friend the Minister’s amendment does not deal with Scotland. Perhaps that silence is due to the Bill team’s lack of time to respond to our request for referencing Scotland. Perhaps it is to do with negotiations; perhaps it is because the Minister has a strong argument for why Scotland should not be included. We are, as I said, somewhat compromised, because although we will hear from my noble friend, we will not be able to respond.
I hope my noble friend is able to take on board the fact—I think that this feeling is shared around your Lordships’ House—that we have come an awfully long way since the meeting that took place only, probably, three weeks ago. My noble friend as well as the Minister from another place came and gave us and others in another part of your Lordships’ House the time to listen to the concerns of the academic community and others about these clauses. I should perhaps declare that I am not a member of the academic community. We very much hope that we can be more persuasive today.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a long and fascinating debate and, like other speakers, I pay tribute to the Minister for his rationality, willingness to conciliate and awareness of the seriousness of these issues. Like my noble friends who have spoken, I wish that we were able to go further and to have a government amendment which expressed terms such as “statutory duty” and “the role of university personnel” with much greater clarity. As on previous occasions, I wish our Front Bench had not been less than wholehearted on this matter and taken a view, which many of us knew nothing about, which apparently has guaranteed academic freedom—so that is all right then. It is not a satisfactory position.
I speak not as a party person but as someone who has spent his entire career in the university world. I was a university teacher—I am a university teacher now in my retirement in King’s College—and I was a vice-chancellor for seven years. Universities are a unique marketplace for ideas—that is their ultimate purpose. They may additionally assist with creating wealth and giving local employment but their main function is to be uninhibitedly and courageously involved in ideas, particularly language. If we are talking about terms such as “terrorism” or elements which are conducive or similar to terrorism, you need extreme clarity, including the capacity to debate these matters.
I was concerned when we had a helpful meeting the other day that the reasonableness of the Minister was not paralleled by his government colleague, who talked not about terrorism but about pathways to terrorism. It seems that if you produce a concept which is in the mind of terrorists you are automatically creating a pathway. However, pathways cover many things. They can emerge in an unexpected way and can lead nowhere or everywhere. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred to the University of Wales, where he knows I had the pleasure of working with him, and how a pathway, when we were talking about the theme of nationalism, led to one or two misguided people blowing up buildings. That was not a necessary consequence of that debate. The effect of opening up the theme of what nationalism was—its different political and cultural expressions and so on—had a civilising effect and nationalism resulted not in bombs but in devolution being debated in this House and on the statute book. Pathway is a dangerous concept. Non-violent extremism has been dismissed as nonsensical by other noble Lords and I need not stress that again.
I wish to make two more points: this duty is unworkable and it is wrong. It is unworkable because I can say that as a vice-chancellor—perhaps other vice-chancellors will disagree—it would not have been possible to carry out this role, this statutory duty: we would be obliged by the nature of our professional role not to apply it. As I say, the purpose is for universities to be free to debate ideas. You would be forced to discuss with student societies who they were going to invite, whether alternative views would be presented and what the general tone would be. You would, in effect, be censoring or monitoring the interchange of ideas in a way which is not compatible with being the head of or a senior figure in a university.
The nature and the force of the statutory duty and the way in which it would be exercised are still not clear in the Bill. It appears to have satisfied our Front Bench but it has not satisfied me or people such as my noble friends who have first-hand experience of working in universities. So, first, it is completely unworkable. It would destroy the very essence of collegial collaboration within a university institution and the element of trust which is absolutely essential to the way in which a university operates.
Finally, this duty is wrong. It is trying to undermine precious, unique and special institutions in this country which are honoured all over the world. These institutions do different things: they are impressive for their intellectual standards, which are widely acknowledged and admired, and for their internationalism. The whole point of being in a university is that everyone is equal there; you do not identify or marginalise any particular minority groups. To even suggest that universities should do anything other than what they do and act as a kind of thought police is deeply damaging to something which has been a pride of the history of this country for many centuries.
I hope that the Minister, with the tolerance, rationality and courtesy that he has shown, will feel able to go further and pursue the path suggested by other noble Lords of removing universities from the Bill.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the former Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, in which role I received complaints from students from every university. So I have that experience in addition to having spent decades at Oxford.
I take the unusual position that whether or not these amendments are passed it will make absolutely no difference to the law. They are tautologous. They say that one has to have regard to freedom of speech within the law. However, if the Bill is passed, freedom of speech within the law will mean that the law in this Bill is incorporated, so it will not take you any further.
Sadly, over the past 30 years academic freedom, which is one thing, and freedom of speech in the universities, which is another, have been savaged. I wish I could share the rosy view of academic freedom put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Morgan and Lord Elystan-Morgan. Some noble Lords may recall that in 1988 all university statutes were arbitrarily removed and new ones imposed without consent which removed academic tenure. The House must know that the selection of students is controlled, one way and another, by the state to the nth degree, as is the direction of research. I do not have the time to go into it but academic freedom has been greatly undermined.
As to freedom of speech, again, sadly, there are umpteen laws that reduce it in the university. I do not have time to go into all of them but they include protection against harassment and racial and religious hatred. Can your Lordships imagine what would happen if someone turned up as a lecturer or as a visitor to say that one race was inferior to another? They would not get to the end of their lecture, I can assure you. There are some things that ought not to be said—and, indeed, are not said—but there is no absolute freedom of speech. The Equality Act 2010 put special duties on universities to promote racial harmony between different groups on campus and the Terrorism Acts of 2000 and 2006 likewise curbed freedom of speech. I am sorry to shatter the illusion but it is not there any more, not as we would wish it to be. To say that in promoting the objects of this Act, as it will be, the universities will have to have regard to freedom of speech within the law simply means that they will have to have regard, whatever that means, to freedom of speech as already curtailed as I have described, plus as it will be curtailed, for good or ill, by this Act. So I do not mind whether or not the amendments are accepted because they do not mean much legally.
I remind the House that it is not in the academic arena where the trouble, if any, arises; it is with the visiting speakers and the societies. Under the Education Act 1986 universities already have onerous duties in regard to risk assessment, stopping speeches if necessary and checking on visiting speakers. They have codes of practice on this which, I have to say, are very often ignored. There is nothing new about this. They chafe, but it has been the law for 20 or 30 years that there have to be checks on visiting speakers.
However, this has not stopped some speakers from being howled down. Again, I have not the time to give examples, but I can assure noble Lords that visiting ambassadors sometimes get howled down; that other speakers get hassled and jostled; that there are meetings where cries go up of “Kill the Jews” and that sort of thing, when the Middle East is debated. It is not a happy situation. I wish it were better, but it is not. Basically, I am saying that this will not make much difference. We should also recall that some 30% of those convicted of offence—
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Will she accept that this Bill does make a difference, even with these provisions in it? Universities will now be under a legal obligation to follow directions imposed by the Government, which goes beyond the legislation to which she has already referred.
Baroness Deech
It is the amendments which I do not think will make any difference. Whether the noble Lord’s dire predictions will be the case remains to be seen but I am very worried about the situation that already exists with interference. I have a list—again I will not trouble your Lordships with it. There are lists of convicted terrorists who sadly went through our universities—the underpants bomber on the plane, the man who drove his car into Glasgow airport, and so on. I only wish it were as some noble Lords remember in their youth, but it is not. Because of the umpteen laws that we already have about circumscribing freedom of speech, whether or not we pass these amendments will not, in my view, make any difference, sadly.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, we ought to realise that we are talking not just about the problems of terrorism but about something which has been much wider than that. I am very concerned about the situation in which we now find ourselves.
It is 55 years since my right honourable friend Kenneth Clarke and I debated with Sir Oswald Mosley in front of 2,000 students at Cambridge University. There were many who wanted him banned, but we said that if there was to be a new generation of students who understood the threat of fascism, they had to hear the arguments and we had to respond to them. We had the response because the Jewish Society went to huge trouble to give us all the evidence from Sir Oswald Mosley’s activities before the war. Noble Lords may remember that that would have been a time when we were a generation who knew nothing of this, but I venture to say that a whole group of people went away from university knowing how to argue the case and understanding what this very emollient, brilliant speaker was really like. It was from that moment that I became an even more enthusiastic supporter of the concept of the freedom of speech as a mechanism against extremism.
I want to say to my noble friend that we are at this moment in a very dangerous position. A close friend of mine, an Anglican priest—a man whom I would vouch for in any circumstances—has just been sacked as the episcopal chaplain to Yale because he dared to write a letter in response to others in the New York Times. It was a very moderate and reasonable letter in which he talked about the activities in Gaza of Prime Minister Netanyahu. No one in this House would have thought that an unsuitable letter to write, but he was sacked.
In the past few years, there have been many occasions in universities when people who hold unpopular views have been unplatformed in one way or another—for example, people who want to argue the case against abortion. I think that is an argument that it is proper to have on whatever side you stand. However, there are universities where it is almost impossible to have that debate.
One of the problems that we are faced with is that my noble friend has a real difficulty. We have a terrorist threat which is greater than we have had certainly in our lifetimes. It is a threat which is particularly difficult because it is associated not only in the popular mind but, because of certain facts, with a section of the community. Therefore, those of us who seek racial integration have to be extremely careful in the way in which we handle this threat, but we also have to recognise that it is a threat. It is not acceptable just to say, “Well, you know, we will just have to put up with it”. That is not where we are today.
I understand my noble friend’s problem, but I remind him that down the ages the threat of terrorism has been used to restrict the freedoms which the terrorists wish to remove. That is the fundamental problem. I worry immediately when we ask universities to inform upon and to investigate, and to assess what is a proper debate and what is not a proper debate, because I happen to believe that there are no improper debates in universities. There are improper actions as a result of debates; there are improper actions during debates; but to put a case and to argue the case is an essential part of university education.
I thank my noble friend for his amendment. If he had not tabled this amendment, I think I would have found myself very hard put to support any of this part of the Bill. However, I hope that he will have listened carefully to what others have said. I do not want universities to be able to use this as an excuse for interfering not only in these subjects but in others. That is my worry. It is not the worry as put forward in the excellent speech of the introducer of the lead amendment. My worry is that, by analogy, people will say, “Just as we have to think about terrorism in this way, so we have to think about this or that unpopular view”, whether it is an issue of left or right, an issue of morality or an issue of politics. I hope that my noble friend will give me an assurance that, if he feels that he cannot say that his amendment covers that, he will go away and think again to ensure that the narrowness which he hoped to apply to this matter is sufficiently safeguarded. I do not want to have a world in which today’s version of those students cannot have that debate with today’s Sir Oswald Mosley—with today’s fascists, communists, or extremists of any kind. If that were true, we would have sold out on a central British value.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Deben may remember that the subsection in the 1986 Act was embedded in that Act precisely to combat the no-platform developments that had taken place in the 1980s. Like others, I hope that the Minister will have listened to this debate and may be able to give us greater clarification than there is in the amendment he has brought forward. We had a debate in the first group about the hierarchy of regard—due regard and particular regard—which perhaps has relevance to this. It would be good if one could feel that that was embedded.
Amendment 14C is in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Hamwee, Lady Brinton and Lady Williams of Crosby. So far in this debate, as we did very largely in the debate in Committee, we have talked about universities, and I was very pleased to see that the Minister’s amendment makes express reference to further education colleges. Many noble Lords may not realise that there are some 850,000 young people, aged 16 to 18 studying in further education colleges compared to 441,000 in schools. A very large number of young people in further education colleges—something like 100,000—are studying for higher education qualifications. So further education colleges are a very important part of the hierarchy.
I have a specific question for the Minister: where do sixth form colleges fall? There is explicit mention of further education colleges but there is no mention of sixth form colleges, which were in fact, under recent legislation, made into a separate category of college. Perhaps I can leave that thought with the Minister, and he and his Bill team can ponder on it and see whether it is perhaps necessary to make some minor further amendment.
Amendment 14C, which I want to speak to, is a very different amendment from the ones to date. It is a fairly straightforward amendment, which asks that the guidance, when issued,
“shall recognise the respective duties of specified authorities in the education sector … to secure freedom of speech … to promote tolerance and encourage respect for democracy and … participation in it … to offer a broad and balanced curriculum promoting spiritual, moral and cultural development”.
As I say, it is less specific, but in some ways a lot broader, than the other amendments that are being considered in this group.
Schools are already subject to a fair number of statutory duties which embody these issues. The Education and Skills Act 2008 requires schools to promote British values and respect for the civil and criminal law, to further tolerance and harmony between different cultural traditions, and to encourage respect for democracy and support for participation in it. The Education Act 2002, which is referred to in the Academies Act 2010, requires schools to offer,
“a balanced and broadly based curriculum which … promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of … the school and of society, and … prepares pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life”.
The Education Act 1996 includes duties not to express,
“partisan political views in the teaching of any subject”,
or to allow pupils to pursue “partisan political activities”.
We have rather deliberately widened the framework in the amendment we have put forward. It is important to recognise that very many young people of the ages of 15, 16 and 17 who are in schools or colleges are very susceptible to the propaganda of extremism. They are active users of Facebook and other social media and, as adolescents, are keen to challenge authority. Throughout their lives, they have often lived, through television, with violence and horror. Our education institutions, as a whole, have a very important role to balance these influences and, as we say in this amendment,
“to promote tolerance and … respect for democracy”.
We talk about British values, but surely at the heart of British values is freedom of speech.
Lord Judd
My Lords, not for the first time in my political life, I applauded every word of the noble Lord, Lord Deben. I hope that that does not embarrass him. Thank God for what he said, and I hope his noble friend the Minister listened, because it was a very powerful argument. In talking about his noble friend listening, I want to put on the record that I believe that the Minister we have leading for the Government on this debate does listen. What he has put forward today is an indication of how he listens and how he is prepared to argue in government for what he has heard. I beg him to accept that those of us who want to encourage him to persuade his friends to go still further are not doing this with any sense of hostility but are trying to support him in the pathway he has now chosen to take towards the position that the rest of us find ourselves in.
I hope that I will be forgiven if, just for a moment, I introduce an international perspective of a different kind in this debate. I am sure that I was not alone this morning as I heard and studied the reports of the latest depravity by ISIS. I almost despaired—if humankind is capable of this, what can happen? But then I found myself turning back very strongly to the conviction which I have had, probably tentatively, from a young age that peace, understanding, stability and decency are built in the minds of men and women. It is not therefore a cliché to say that we are in a battle for hearts and minds—we are. Central to that battle for hearts and minds—the powerhouse of it—is higher education and the universities. That is why the arguments that we have been hearing from all sides today have been so important.
I sometimes allow a little element of cynicism to creep into my mind and think that some of the proposals that come forward, not least what originally came forward from the Government here, might almost have been scripted by the highly intelligent, ruthless leaders of movements such as ISIS. This was almost beginning to do exactly what they want us to do in beginning to undermine and limit those things which are central to the fabric of everything that we say we believe in.
From that standpoint, I hope that the Government will see the profound dangers of a gigantic own goal and of a victory for the ruthless extremists. This is the time when we have to make absolutely clear that we stand for something totally different. The central powerhouse of that is thought, analysis and creative intelligence, and the workplace for that is the universities of our society. It is not just what course should be done, what is acceptable or what lecture is not acceptable; it is the whole atmosphere and ethos of the place. Anything that undermines that destroys something that is an absolute lodestar of the things we say we believe in.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 14A, to which the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, spoke. I very much welcome Amendment 15D, tabled by the Minister, which goes a very long way to addressing the concerns that were expressed around the House in Committee and have been expressed again here today. It puts on the face of the Bill that these new Prevent duties for universities are to be read and understood alongside their duties to protect freedom of speech—and, indeed, that particular regard must be given to free speech.
Some noble Lords have expressed concern today about a lack of clarity, but free speech is not absolute, even in universities. It has to be balanced against other considerations; the balance must depend on the particular circumstances, and the guidance will be of particular importance in this regard. All the more welcome, therefore, is the amendment that we will discuss in a later group that ensures that the guidance must be approved by a positive resolution of both Houses.
I most respectfully do not agree with my former tutor, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that Amendment 15D will make no difference to the law of the land. I would expect the courts to say, reading the new clause as part of the Bill, that the Part 5 duties must not unreasonably or unnecessarily restrict or impede the performance of the universities’ core function, which is and remains to promote academic inquiry.
I have two questions for the Minister concerning his Amendment 15D. The first arises out of the fact that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, and me refers both to freedom of expression and academic freedom. The Minister’s amendment does not mention academic freedom. Can the Minister confirm—I hope he can give a positive response to this—that it is unnecessary expressly to mention academic freedom in his amendment, because in the context of a university, academic freedom is implicit in the very notion of securing freedom of expression? That would be my understanding, but I would very much welcome his reassurance on that.
Secondly, there are limits to the scope of the Minister’s Amendment 15D, because it incorporates the duty of freedom of expression in relation to three aspects of Part 5 of the Bill. New subsection (2) applies freedom of expression to the duty of universities under Clause 25(1). New subsection (3) applies this freedom of expression duty to the role of the Secretary of the State in issuing guidance under Clause 28 and the role of the Secretary of State when considering whether to issue directions under Clause 29.
However, there are two important aspects of the Part 5 scheme to which this new clause on freedom of expression does not appear to apply. One is the duty of universities under Clause 28(2) to “have regard” to the guidance, and the other concerns the duties of monitoring authorities under Clause 30. The freedom of expression duty applies to neither of those important matters, and I am concerned about that. So this is my second question. Will the Minister tell us—he might be unable or unwilling to answer today, but I would very much welcome an answer before Third Reading on Monday—whether there is a reason why his new freedom of expression clause, which I welcome, does not apply to Clause 28(2), the duty of universities to have regard to the guidance, or Clause 30, the duty of monitoring authorities? Would he please look at the matter before Third Reading to consider whether it might be better to include those matters also within this new provision?
Baroness Brinton
I have attached my name to Amendment 14C, and rather than repeat the points made by my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford, I will say just that I endorse them. I will make a comment and then ask my noble friend the Minister a question on his Amendment 15D—which, as many other noble Lords have said this evening, takes us some way forward. I am grateful to the Minister and his civil servants for coming back with a proposal that means that we can actually discuss some of the boundaries—and therein lies my question. This relates to guidance: in particular, we discussed in Committee the revisions of the guidance to some of the very specific duties about checking presentations and making sure that people had been trained in specified authorities.
I have a more fundamental question about paragraph 50 in the current guidance, which I do not believe was proposed to be amended. It says that,
“universities must take seriously their responsibility to exclude those promoting extremist views that support or are conducive to terrorism”.
It is the phrase, “their responsibility to exclude”, that I want to focus on.
I am not sure that the qualifying statement,
“that support or are conducive to terrorism”,
is sufficiently clear as to provide reassurance. It is already illegal to directly or indirectly encourage others to commit terrorist acts, and universities are obliged to exclude those who do so. Beyond this, it is not clear which views should be understood to be conducive to terrorism. Non-violent extremism is not generally unlawful, and the Prevent strategy defines extremism as,
“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values”.
These values and concepts include those that are rightly the subject of debate and consideration in universities. It is not appropriate for universities to be required to exclude those who lawfully oppose them.
In a letter to the Times on Monday, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills stated that the Bill,
“addresses terrorism and not extremism”,
which he described as, “a highly subjective concept”. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that the Secretary of State’s comments will be fully reflected in future versions of the guidance; and that universities will not be required to exclude from campuses those who, while acting within the law, advocate views that are classed as extreme.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I will briefly remark on the labyrinthine complexity of the law in relation to education and universities as it is already. I have a terrible anxiety that this Bill—well intentioned as it may be—along with the guidance, will add a dimension of further complexity that will be counterproductive to a quite significant degree. It is going to make the task of the authorities in schools and universities—and I should declare an interest as a former chancellor of the University of Essex—burdensome to a remarkable degree. I support this group of amendments, but very much hope that the Minister, who has a gargantuan task in shepherding through this Bill, will tell us whether there is any prospect at all that this side of the finalisation of our deliberations, anything could be done to cast light and clarity on what I believe is a forest fit only for lawyers.
Finally, I echo what many others have said, most recently the noble Lord, Lord Deben: that it is so easy to contrive a situation in legislation that is counterproductive. I have a fear bordering on a certainty that the good intentions of the Bill will prove to be just that: because what I believe the Government have not taken nearly enough into account is that universities are engines of enlightenment, truth, fact and tolerance. However, what is being imposed upon them will have a chilling and bureaucratic effect, particularly—I repeat—via the guidance that, we must not forget, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights put it, will expose universities to being found,
“in breach of the new duty and therefore subject to direction by the Secretary of State and, ultimately, a mandatory court order backed by criminal sanctions for contempt of court”.
I fear that it will end up undermining the unique virtues of the university sector. Of course, that would be the ultimate farce because the Bill is designed to uphold the values of which universities are exemplars.
Baroness Afshar
My Lords, I speak as a teacher of courses on Islam and the Middle East, in both the UK and Strasbourg. I support the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, as I am beginning to feel that it will be impossible to teach a course that explains what Muslims think, what their ideas are or the way they think without at one point or another being accused of promoting terrorism. My courses are controversial. Particularly, Muslims object to what I say. Parents of Muslim women object to what I say, as do many British people. I would like to feel that universities remain places where people such as myself can teach courses that are controversial but can be enlightening and prevent future terrorists from finding that they have no refuge anywhere.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bates has done an amazing job in inching this legislation slowly towards becoming a bearable and acceptable piece of law. However, we are not there yet. I put on record my thanks for my noble friend’s two amendments. One of them still awaits greater clarification. I am still not clear what the hierarchy is of, in particular, “due” and other kinds of regard. It is important that that is made clear. In doing so, I hope that my noble friend will recognise—as I am sure he will—that the heart of university education lies in academic freedom. Therefore, it is not one of a number of considerations but at the very centre of what it is to have a free system of tertiary education. My noble friend can get there but we need another little heave before he does.
The second thing I thank my noble friend for is the movement towards making sure that the so-called guidance is subjected to parliamentary consideration. We all appreciate that very much, not just because it helps to make the guidance itself clearer and reflect the experience of Parliament but because it is essential in dealing with terrorism that we bring into the pattern the greatest possible commitment by Parliament and all parts of university, not least including students. I will talk a little further about that later. At this point, I simply contribute the thought that it is critical that Parliament should be a significant part of the whole of this legislation so that it can exercise its wisdom, experience and commitment. Secondly, as we discussed, I hope my noble friend, for whom I have a great deal of respect, will recognise that academic freedom is not one of a number of priorities but the central one.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I add my voice to these questions about the guidance that may be issued. I very much welcome the fact that such guidance would have to be approved by both Houses before it came into force but we have heard about one sort of guidance which raises particular fears for anybody who cares about freedom of speech or academic freedom.
I must declare an interest. Yesterday evening, I was a visiting lecturer at Canterbury Christ Church University, speaking on an extremely dangerous topic: freedom of expression. I distinguished different conceptions of freedom of expression and had a very engaged audience who had a great deal to say and came from many directions. Now, I said the other day in our debate that I am not one of those lecturers who always has her full text available in advance. I give too many visiting lectures in the course of a year—probably about 40—for that. At that rate, as this is an ancillary, unpaid activity, I cannot be held responsible for producing text at some defined moment such as a fortnight ahead. I would simply have to give it up. I hope the Minister realises how much of the intellectual life of our country flows through visiting occasions—seminars, lectures, panel discussions and the like—in and also beyond universities for which providing prior texts is just not feasible.
I have a definite point to make here. The first arguments about freedom of expression—which we then called freedom of speech or freedom of the press in this country—opposed the idea of prior restraint. The former Member of Parliament for Hull, Mr John Milton, put this argument admirably in the mid-17th century in his great work, Areopagitica. Prior restraint is what he called “licensing” and “misdoubt”. Can the Minister give the House an undertaking that we will not get into prior restraint, thereby taking British values back to where they were in the middle of the 17th century, if not further? Without prior restraint, some things can go on. It is not enough but I think the House would probably welcome an undertaking from the Minister when he winds up that prior restraint will not be one of the methods by which guidance is imposed.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
My Lords, I will be extremely brief but I support the very powerful speech made by my noble friend Lord Deben. I was actually in the audience when he and Kenneth Clarke debated with Sir Oswald Mosley. I remember shouting out some rather abrasive heckles at Sir Oswald Mosley and getting a rather rude reply. My noble friend was absolutely right in what he said: the meeting demonstrated very much the shortcomings of the arguments put forward by Sir Oswald Mosley, and the British movement before the war as well.
I have one or two points about the guidelines. I know we will come to an amendment on them later, but given the way that this House works I suspect a lot of future debates will get collapsed into this particular amendment. As I said earlier when I intervened rather rudely on the Minister, what particularly bothers me is this whole concept of non-violent extremism. I listened to his answer but, to be honest, did not really feel that it really met the point—I will study it very carefully in the Official Report tomorrow in case I missed something.
The point I addressed particularly was about this meeting where I spoke, along with the editor of the Sunday Telegraph, at Queen Mary college in London. The meeting consisted entirely of Muslim students, a large number of whom made it very clear that they did not support terrorism or violence but wished to dispute the basis of western democracy and elections. They preferred a more consultative process—shura—rather than western democracy, and I and the editor of the Sunday Telegraph argued with them. I believe that it was a good thing to hold that meeting openly, on the campus, and have that thoroughly aired. At the end of the meeting, some expressed some sympathy with what was said and some did not. However, I do not believe for one minute that it would have been right to ban such a meeting. That seems to be an example of exactly this phrase, “non-violent extremism”. We should be careful here. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, so many things restrict freedom of speech in this country already.
There are many things in the guidelines that I think are open to argument. The noble Lord, Lord Morgan, highlighted the talk of “pathways”. That struck a chord with me, because there is a sentence about,
“intervening to stop people moving from extremist (albeit legal) groups into terrorist-related activity”.
How, precisely, is one to stop people moving from a legal group into something that is illegal? There is also the sentence:
“Islamic extremists specifically attack the principles of civic participation”.
That relates directly to the meeting that I attended at Queen Mary college in London—and I would say it was a very good thing that we discussed whether to participate or not to participate.
Various people have commented on the guidance for speakers at universities, and stressed the point—I shall not make it again—that it is most unlikely that speakers will have a full text. I gave a lecture at a university last week, and I shall not disclose, for fear of offending the university, how late I left the preparation of my remarks.
The guidance also mentions:
“A system for assessing and rating risks”.
If ever I heard of a box-ticking exercise, it is “rating risks”. Are people going to give someone seven out of 10 because he is more dangerous than someone who only gets five out of 10? This, I am afraid, reminds me of the FSA—or the FCA, as it now is—which thinks that it will somehow prevent a financial disaster if risks are rated on a scale of one to 10.
Lastly, there is the point that my noble friend Lord Renfrew raised last week in an intervention on the Minister, when he asked, “What about societies at universities, as opposed to universities themselves?”. If my recollection is right, and if I heard the Minister correctly, I think he said that there would be no problem with societies. However, the guidance document contains a whole section on “Student unions and societies”, in which we are told that they must have regard to who comes to speak to them, what the speaker’s platform is, what supervision there is to see that people can be allowed to challenge them, and so on. There are even phrases about “managing prayer … facilities”. Why should prayers be managed by some sort of authority? This all seems to me far too intrusive, and I would be grateful if the Minister gave the assurance that a lot of these things will be looked at—and, I hope, dropped.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Lamont. It may give my noble friends some comfort—or perhaps some concern—when I say that I have many a grey hair from having held these very conversations over a period of four years. Conversations have gone on within government over and over again about what the definitions of “extremism” and “non-violent extremism” are and about where legitimate debate ends and concerns about terrorism and extremism start. Fortunately, the Government did move to a position of providing further definition, but that now has consequences that affect what we are trying to do with the Bill.
I want to raise two specific practical issues in relation to the amendments. The first is about Islamic societies. There is no doubt that there is a battle of ideas within Islam. Certainly there are conversations going on among British Muslims about the flexibility within Islam and the parameters of how Islam should be interpreted, especially within a state where it exists in a minority form, as opposed to a country where Islam is in the majority. These are very real discussions, which need to be had. They will determine what Islam looks like in Britain in a decade’s time and how Britain can feel at ease with a religion that is more comfortable within that environment.
Those debates need to be had, and they are being had, and one of the places where they need to take place is within universities. Specifically, they need to take place in Islamic societies within universities. We have all heard of individual incidents of Islamic societies in universities having had speakers, or having said something, or having configured their meeting, in a way that could be considered unacceptable. Many British Muslim parents who send their children to universities have, in the past, sat down and had “the talk”. That talk does not relate to drugs, sex or anything else that may be more freely available at university. It relates to Islamic societies, and it goes something like this: “When you go there, you need to be careful about some of the ideas you’ll hear. You may want to stay away from those ideas, because you could get in with a group who may have very extreme ideas, and those are not the people we want you to get involved with”.
However, the talk in my household goes further. It says, “Yes, you will meet people who don’t have great ideas, and have ideas you may not agree with. That’s why you’re going to university, because part of your job is to challenge those ideas. So make sure you turn up at Islamic societies. Don’t let people with extreme views take over those societies just because the majority of you want to stay away because they have views you don’t agree with”. But if the provisions in the Bill are enacted without these amendments, the talk from parents like me will become, “Stay away completely, because you could be caught up in something that would label you as an extremist”. That would not be encouraging debate—that very real debate that needs to happen within Islam about the battle of ideas and about what British Islam will look like in a decade. We must not stifle that debate.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office and as a former chancellor of the University of Hull. I have therefore listened to this debate with great interest and concern. I find myself in a situation that was described in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I agreed with everything he said then, although I shall not repeat it.
The debate has swayed around the issue, and it seems very difficult for us to try to assign primacy between the duties under the Bill and the duties towards freedom of speech. The duty of preserving freedom of speech is, as so many speakers have said, of fundamental importance. However, we have seen that it is possible for people who wish to do so to be rather successful in radicalisation within the restrictions on freedom of speech within the law, so I have sympathy with what the Government are trying to achieve.
The merit of Amendment 14A proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Macdonald and Lord Pannick, and Amendment 15D proposed by the Government is that while the duties obviously conflict, the ultimate choice of what to do is left to the universities. No primacy on one or the other duty is expressed. The decision is left, presumably case by case, to the universities. That seems to be almost the only position possible if we are to retain some kind of inhibition on radicalisation in places of higher education.
Lord Scott of Foscote (CB)
My Lords, there have been some memorable speeches this evening. I want to add just a word or two. I have an interest: I have four children, two of whom are Muslims, and 12 grandchildren, seven of whom are Muslims. They are as indignant as anybody else about the outrages that are committed from time to time by members of their religion. They would be wholly supportive of everything that has been said in this debate.
Amendment 15D, as proposed by the Minister, seems to deal satisfactorily—with some exceptions which I propose to mention—with the main issue in this debate; that is, to reconcile the conflict between, on the one hand, the duty on universities to encourage and allow freedom of expression, and, on the other, the Clause 25(1) duty to protect people from being influenced into terrorism. Amendment 15D seems to deal with that, subject to some grammatical points on its second subsection where it refers to the two relevant duties.
One of the duties, imposed by Clause 25(1), is to protect people against terrorism; the other, under the Education Act (No. 2) 1986, is to allow and encourage freedom of speech. Those two duties are often in conflict, and the reconciliation between them is sought to be done with subsection (2) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 15D. It says:
“When carrying out the duty imposed by section 25(1)”—
which is the protection against terrorism, “a specified authority”, such as a university,
“to which this section applies must, if subject to the duty imposed by section 43(1) of”,
the Education Act,
“have particular regard to it”.
I read that several times as I was quite uncertain which of the two duties the “it” referred to. I hope it was referring to the freedom of speech duty but, as a reading of the subsection shows, it is grammatically perfectly capable of referring to the Clause 25(1) duty. That really ought to be sorted out before this amendment becomes final. It could be dealt with perfectly easily by ending subsection (2) with the words: “having particular regard to the freedom of speech duty”.
In subsection (3) of the proposed new clause, there is again this ambiguity as to what “that duty” refers to. There are two duties and it might be referring to either. I think that the duty being referred to in subsection (3) is probably the Clause 25(1) duty. These might be described as pedantic points, but they are the sorts of points that a chancery barrister, as I was when I began my legal career, would love to make in taking up the time of a judge in court. Goodness knows what answer the judge would give: different judges might give different answers, and that would mean that the legislation had a flaw in it. It is an ambiguity that needs to be corrected.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, I apologise that I have not intervened before on any stages of the Bill. I come from Cambridge, where the Government have succeeded in something that, in my experience, has never happened before in my 12 years there: they have united the Cambridge colleges, in deep concern about the impact of this provision on the universities. I declare an interest in that I am a fellow of Emmanuel College. I was a master for 10 years and still deliver a couple of lectures for the university and interview for admission.
I was also, for a period, Permanent Secretary at the Home Office. As such, I cannot speak to the Minister in private, so I will have to do it in public. I have a real concern. I understand absolutely the awful nature of the problem that he has. I have some experience of terrorism; I know what it is like from the inside. I know how—if it is not too bad a word—frightening it can be when you have a problem like this. However, if I were speaking truth unto power, I would say that I do not think that this is going to work. That is my real worry, Minister.
There are a number of reasons why it will not work. One of them is that the Government need the universities and their challenge, analysis and intellect—the Minister has heard that said eloquently around the Chamber. But the Government are setting themselves up against that. In fact, in a parody, they are almost protecting radicalism from challenge. This needs the fresh air of challenge. Perversely, the Minister is protecting terrorism and radicalism by protecting them from debate and from challenge. Young people—students—are most open to debate and to understanding new ideas when they are young adults of 18, 19 and 20. It is extraordinary, but I am the third Member who was at the Oswald Mosley debate. This is becoming a declaration made round the Chamber. As a good civil servant, however, I was observing my future masters—and I was not heckling.
It is absolutely fundamental to the success of the Government’s policies that they have the universities on side. They should be working with them rather than doing what this legislation will do, which is to generate huge amounts of paper—just like the FCA and the FSA—and laboured analysis to no good purpose. It will generate heat. It may generate conscientious objection. It will lose the universities. The Minister should read the protest that Cambridge colleges have sent him. He needs them on side and working for him—preventing. He is discouraging them from preventing. He is moving the focus from his task to the Government and their obstruction of academic freedom and freedom of speech. That is not the way to have a successful policy. So what I would say to you as a Minister is, “Minister, think again”.
The Minister has got so far with the Bill that Amendment 15D might be the best he can do. But when it comes to the guidance and the guidelines, please think again. Unless the Minister gets that right and works with the universities, he will have a failed policy that will not look after the national interest. It will protect radicalism and non-violent extremism. That is not what this House or the nation wants.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, this is the second long debate that we have held on a similar amendment, and there have been some reflections of the debate that we had last week. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who said that it was a shame that the Minister was not able to speak beforehand. Some of our debate—with notable exceptions, of course—has been on what was in the coalition Government’s original Bill and not the amendment that the Minister has brought forward to us this evening.
The comments made tonight about freedom of speech and academic freedom were well made at Second Reading. The importance of both those aspects has been well expressed this evening. The Minister deserves enormous credit for the way he listened to the debate on Second Reading and again last week. Taking into account the comments made today, he responded not just with Amendment 15D but by saying last week that parts of the Prevent guidance would be removed. Perhaps noble Lords were not aware of this, but the Minister said last week that paragraph 66—the part which refers to having to give an outline of topics and discussions—would not be in the guidance. We have had some discussion around that, which makes it, in a sense, superfluous. I must admit, at the time, to feeling relieved that your Lordships’ House was not a specified body. I do not think that any of us would have had 14 days’ notice of the comments we were going to make today. Perhaps it is just as well that we are exempt and that he is going to withdraw paragraph 66 in the Prevent guidance.
Lord Bates
My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. I often say that it has been a good debate when I stand up at the end of a group of amendments, but this has been a truly outstanding discussion. We have been talking in an academic context; I think this debate should almost be required reading in many institutions, although I would not wish to encroach on academic freedom by suggesting it so blatantly.
It has evoked such strong passions because there are so many Members of your Lordships’ House who have held and hold positions in our great British universities and who have benefited from the freedoms of speech and academic research which exist there. These are strengths and the envy of the world. We have all had the opportunity and privilege of benefitting from them. When I look at the warden of Wadham College I always have particular regard to what he has to say—whether it is telling me about legislation or taking the short cut across the quad. It evokes a deep passion in us all and we are right to feel very proud of our institutions and the freedom of speech which takes place within them.
I want to put how we arrived at this situation into some sort of context. The Prevent strategy was introduced in 2007. As the noble Baroness will recall, in 2005 we had the outrage of the terrorist attack on the London Underground; 54 people were killed and several hundred people were injured. There were two Terrorism Acts—one in 2000, when the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, was Cabinet Secretary, and a subsequent one in 2006. I want to echo the points made by my noble friend Lady Warsi. There was a view which said, “Listen, there is something more afoot here. We need not just to tighten the law, to tighten the surveillance and prosecution element of it. We need somehow to prevent and to get ahead of the poisonous ideology which is pervading these people’s minds to actually think that they would consider blowing themselves up on a crowded subway train. We need somehow to engage with that”. So the previous Government, to their credit, came up with the concept of Prevent. Right from the outset the Prevent programme went across all bodies and organisations. All public bodies were encouraged to think about how they could prevent people from being drawn into terrorist activities.
One of the dangers of listening to my noble friend Lord Deben is that I get so carried away by his arguments and powers of persuasion that sometimes I forget that I am not sitting on the Back Benches and I nod vigorously towards him. Then I remember that I have a responsibility on the Front Bench and am jolted to focus on Clause 25, which says that the general duty to which we ask people to have due regard is that:
“A specified authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism”.
That is what it says. We can get drawn into its implications, but that is the principle that is on the face on the Bill.
So we had the Prevent strategy, which applied across all organisations and which was reviewed and refreshed in 2011. After the horrific murder of Drummer Lee Rigby on the streets of Woolwich, there was an assessment of the Prevent strategy and the conclusion went something like this. “Listen, there are some wonderful things going on. We have regional co-ordinators. They are working very well with the universities in looking at who is on campus, making sure that they have preparations in place and that views which are potentially dangerous and leading people into extremism and terrorism are noted. However, it is very patchy. There are some universities that are extremely good and there are some which, to be honest, just do not want to play ball. Invariably, as is often the case, the ones that are very good are in the low-risk areas and the ones that are very poor are in the high-risk areas”. The extremism task force which was considering this came forward and said, “We need to put this on a statutory footing, so that we get some consistency of delivery across the piece—across all organisations—and we bring the ones which are not taking their responsibility seriously up to the standard of what the others are doing already”. So we arrived more or less at where we are.
Then, because the guidance to be put out was going to be specific—and noble Lords have had some great fun at its expense—this was something that we put out to consultation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to differences with the Scottish consultation. I think I said in Committee that in relation to the particular, narrow elements, the requirements such as giving advance notice on speeches are very limited compared with the much more extensive Universities UK guidance for external speakers, which requests,
“a script or précis from the speaker outlining what they intend to say and requiring them to sign an undertaking acknowledging that their speech will be terminated if they deviate from it”.
This is from Universities UK’s current guidelines on having speakers on campus, which also talks about:
“Briefing the chair in advance of the event, making clear that they have a responsibility to ensure that no speaker or other person present at the event infringes the law; this briefing could highlight the circumstances under which they must stop the event, issue warnings to participants on their conduct or request the withdrawal or removal by stewards (or the police if necessary) of the person(s) concerned”.
I do not recall a hue and cry from the collective colleges of our great universities to say that this was outrageous and should not be happening; people just kind of said, “Listen”—
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws
The reason why there was no hue and cry from the colleges and universities is that they just ignore it. It is a shame on Universities UK that it produced guidelines that are so ridiculous that people cast them to one side. I am afraid that this has led to a diminution of respect for the organisation, and that has been a problem across the board.
Baroness Brinton
Does my noble friend not agree that the difference between the UUK guidance and the Bill is that the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to act against the university whereas at the moment the UUK guidance merely advises universities to think about something? I hope that the Minister will recognise that.
Lord Bates
I am grateful for both those interventions. However, I think they make my point: the fact that the guidance is there to put in place in universities for speakers but it is just brushed aside and ignored seems to give some veracity to the arguments put forward by the extremism task force, which reviewed our counterterrorism strategy and arrived at the conclusion that there is something to be said for having a more statutory footing.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Could it not be that the universities simply thought that the guidance was—I will not use too strong a word—hopeless and misguided?
Lord Bates
It could be. I do not know what was in their minds.
The pressure and stipulation that are contained even in the consultation document issued in December, which we went out to consultation on—sadly, I have then gone and pre-empted the consultation by assuring your Lordships that certain sections of it would not apply—are a much lighter touch. There is no question, none at all, of the Government telling people who to have on their campus, in their university or in their college to speak. All we ask is that they have systems and procedures in place by which they ensure that the people who come on to their campus—
Baroness O'Loan
I thank the Minister for giving way. Surely it is not the case that all the Government are asking is that they have some procedures; surely it is the case that under the Bill the Secretary of State will have the power to direct universities as to what they do, and therefore it is that power that makes a difference.
Lord Bates
On that element, the noble Baroness is correct; there is a power there. If you make it a statutory duty, there needs to be some element of saying, “Well, so what if they brush aside their statutory duty?”. What if they brushed aside their statutory duty on a whole range of things? We have talked about that: the Public Order Act 1986; the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; the Terrorism Act 2006, which talks about inviting support for a proscribed organisation or punishing statements encouraging terrorism or disseminating terrorist material; and the Public Order Act 1988, or “breach of the peace” law—these are all Acts that contain a duty. What if organisations fail to observe the health and safety Act, and an inspector comes and says—I realise that I have tested the House.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I think that he really is fighting the last war. It is perfectly clear that the Bill is going to enter into force and that it is going to make certain new statutory obligations. Many of us have argued the case against that and for a voluntary approach, and I still believe that that would have been better, but it is not what is going to happen. So although he can have a lot of fun at the expense of UUK, there are other lessons that could be drawn from it—one of which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, said, is that no one actually paid any attention to it. So if really unwise guidance is given, as was given then, that is what will happen.
We are talking now about a statutory obligation, though, and that is something completely different. Let us simply work on the basis that something like Amendment 14D is going to come into force. I ask the Minister to address in his winding-up speech one or two modest ways, which have been suggested around the Chamber, in which it could be improved before Third Reading, drawing on some of the excellent language in Amendments 14 and 14A. That is what would enable the Home Secretary of the day. In the next lot but one of amendments we will get on to the guidance, but that is the heart of the whole matter. I do not think that we should dilly-dally much longer on whether or not there is going to be a statutory obligation.
Lord Bates
I certainly take the noble Lord’s point but perhaps I may address some of the key points in the amendments that have been put forward.
I just want to put this in some kind of context. I admit to having had a bit of fun at Universities UK’s expense, but I think that quite a few noble Lords have had a bit of fun at the expense of the consultation document. Given that my noble friend Lord Deben has exhorted us to be in favour of all debate, one should not necessarily try to close off one part of it. However, I accept that perhaps I have pushed far enough, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has got me on track. I shall address some of the particular points that have arisen.
I shall turn to the amendments themselves, but I think it would be helpful to address first the general principle that many noble Lords have spoken about, today and in Committee: the inclusion of universities and further education institutions within the scope of the Prevent duty in Clause 25. In Committee I outlined specific case studies, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, of students and graduates who had gone on to commit terrorist atrocities. For the avoidance of doubt, in all the case studies I mentioned, including the 2010 Stockholm attack and the 2009 Detroit aircraft attack, the perpetrators had studied in UK institutions.
Young people accounted for around 31% of terrorist-related convictions between 2001 and June 2014. Within that date, the figure for at least two years is even higher, at 35%. The Prevent duty is designed to apply to sectors that can most effectively protect vulnerable people from radicalisation and from being drawn into terrorism.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who have previously asked for evidence—I went back and said, “What evidence do we have from the regional co-ordinators at BIS that there is a level of non-compliance?”, and I have already referred to part of it—in the year up to 25 January 2015, at least 62 events were held on campuses that featured an extremist speaker or speakers. We know of another eight events that were publicised but later cancelled. Speakers at these events have, for example, called for apostates of Islam to be beheaded and have stated that a man who beats his wife should not be questioned as it is solely a matter between them.
I do not mention all this to suggest that these speakers should necessarily be banned—that is not what our guidance says is required under the Clause 25 duty—but to demonstrate the point that extremist views are propagated on campuses, that students are at risk of being drawn into terrorism and that a disproportionately high number of young people go on to become involved in it.
Since we last debated these issues, the consultation on the draft guidance has finished. Officials are still working through the responses, but an early indication shows that 42 higher education institutions emailed a response to the Home Office and, out of those, only eight stated that universities should not be subject to the duty. Furthermore, Universities UK—I qualify, of course, praying that organisation in aid of my position—which represents 133 vice-chancellors and principals, has not called for universities to be excluded from the Prevent duty. It reiterated its support for the duty when it met my honourable friend the Minister for Immigration and Security and my right honourable friend the Minister for Universities and Science earlier this week.
All this is not to say that universities have not raised issues with the current draft guidance. Almost all of them have done so, in a constructive fashion, and we thank them for their responses. That is the point of this form of public consultation and we will be making a number of changes to the guidance before it is published in its final form. I have already mentioned in Committee two changes that we propose to make: amending the reference to all speakers having to give prior sight of presentations; and making clear that not all staff need to receive Prevent training. We will be working through other changes and of course, as has been said, all that guidance, which will be issued to chancellors, will now be the subject, in a later group of amendments, of an affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament.
I now turn to the issue of freedom of speech, which has been heavily focused upon. It was mentioned that placing the duty on universities could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and academic freedom, which would be contrary to the core function of our universities—a function which, as I have already said, makes universities one of our most important arenas for challenging extremist views and ideologies. As my noble friends Lord Deben and Lady Warsi said, I drew your Lordships’ attention in Committee to existing guidance referring to how speakers are treated. That is why I have tabled Amendment 15D.
This amendment would require further and higher education institutions, when carrying out the Prevent duty, to have particular regard to the duty to secure freedom of speech contained in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. This will require higher and further education institutions, when considering all the factors that they need to consider when complying with the Prevent duty, to place particular emphasis on the duty to secure freedom of speech. I am sorry that I caused my noble friend Lady Hamwee so much confusion earlier with the difference between having due regard and having particular regard. The reason we put that in is that we want to have a higher test to differentiate between having due regard to the guidance and having particular regard to freedom of speech under the 1986 Act. That was not accidental; it was absolutely intentional and, had I been a little sharper, I might have mentioned that to noble Lords earlier.
The noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Macdonald, have tabled an amendment along similar lines, Amendment 14A, although we would argue that the Government’s amendment goes further. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has tabled Amendments 14 and 15 with a view to ensuring that, to the extent that Scottish higher and further education institutions are subject to the Prevent duty, their compliance with that duty is also subject to their need to ensure freedom of speech. This is quite clearly a logical approach, given that those bodies are not covered by the duty in the 1986 Act, and we are not in disagreement with the general principle of the noble and learned Lord’s amendments.
Given, however, that no Scottish bodies are currently listed in Schedule 6, these amendments are unnecessary. If and when Scottish institutions are added to Schedule 6 by order, the Government can use the power in Clause 26(3) to make consequential amendments to this chapter. We would at that point seek to ensure that Scottish institutions had the same requirement as those in England and Wales to pay particular regard to the need to secure freedom of speech, as contemplated by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I hope that that goes some way to reassure the noble and learned Lord on this point.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee spoke to her Amendment 14C, which would require that guidance to the education sector must recognise the duties of that sector to secure freedom of speech, to promote tolerance and respect for democracy and to offer a broad and balanced curriculum. The guidance already makes these points in the relevant sections. I refer my noble friend to paragraph 105 of the draft guidance in particular. There were a number of points, but I am conscious of the time I have taken to respond.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
The Minister, in talking about Amendment 14, seemed to imply that it related only to Scotland. He said that he agreed with this amendment, but Amendment 14 incorporates an amendment from the Joint Committee on Human Rights which makes very clear that the Prevent duty should be subject to the duty in Section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. Is he now saying that he agrees with that?
Lord Bates
I take that point and will come to it as I go through my notes. I will go through them in no particular order but will start with my noble friend Lady Brinton, who asked about paragraph 50 in the guidance. We will reflect on my noble friend’s points about the language in the paragraph and look to clarify this in future. We will also reflect on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, about prior restraint. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness that there is nothing here which would take us back to the times of prior restraint.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked why academic freedom is not specifically covered. He is quite right in his interpretation that freedom of expression, as secured by the duty in Section 43(1) of the 1986 Act, includes academic freedom, which is articulated in Section 202 of the 1988 Act, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. The freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions is therefore legislated for.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
There is no specific reference, of course, in the new clause, Clause 29, to Section 202 of the 1988 Act. The Minister is, no doubt, well aware that the Joint Committee’s report speaks of the necessity for a specific reference to Section 43 and Section 202 in the very same breath. In other words, my submission is that one is the obverse of the other. Section 43 of the 1986 Act guarantees freedom of speech and academic freedom, as it refers to students, employees and so on. Section 202 of the 1988 Act is the obverse of that in that it refers to the freedom of a person to do those things and yet retain employment. The two are inseparable, in my respectful submission.
Lord Bates
I will reflect again on the point about Section 202 of the 1988 Act and will see whether it is there, or whether it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, suggested, implicit in our wording.
My noble friend Lord Deben talked about the importance of debate. I hope that I have gone some way to reassure him that that is entirely consistent with our view. The guidance stipulates that and it is now stipulated in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, asked about the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary can issue directions to universities and this makes a real difference. The power to issue directions will be subject to multiple layers of protection, including judicial oversight and that of the Prevent oversight board, on which my noble friend Lord Carlile provides independent representation. We agreed, following a discussion in Committee, to look again at this, and a direction will be issued only as a last resort.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he has not really addressed the issue of whether between now and Third Reading he will have another look at his draft of Amendment 15D. It has been broadly welcomed across the House, but imperfections in it have been noted, mostly notably by my noble and learned friend Lord Scott, which the Minister has not addressed. It would be helpful if he would now reflect a little on whether the new clause inserted by Amendment 15D could be improved by some very modest clarification. At the moment, it reads like a piece of parliamentary draftsmanship: that is, totally incomprehensible to most members of the human race.
Some of the amendments, such as Amendments 14 and 14A, are much clearer to a normal reader in their meaning. This clarity is rather important because the concerns that have been expressed about freedom of speech and academic freedom are not going to be settled simply by cross-references to some article in some other piece of legislation. I hope that the Minister will look at that between now and Third Reading. I believe that it will not change one iota the thrust of what he is trying to achieve, which I am sure he will succeed in doing by this article.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I have a fairly simple question. I have various connections with universities, but I shall not bother with that just now in order to save time. Subsection (2) in the new clause inserted by Amendment 15D refers to,
“carrying out the duty imposed by section 25(1)”,
and goes on to state that “it” must have particular regard to the freedom of speech. “It” definitely refers to the freedom of speech part. I have no difficulty with that. I do not share the difficulty of my noble and learned friend Lord Scott, which is obviously a Chancery difficulty, but my difficulty is fundamental. When carrying out the duty imposed by Section 25(1) may lead you in one direction, the freedom of speech duty may lead you in the opposite direction. In that case, which wins? That is why it is so important that the amendment states that we should,
“have particular regard to it”.
The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, suggested that it should be the top priority where there is a conflict. I do not know what quite what the intention is in that respect, but it is quite obvious that there can be a conflict, and if there is a conflict, what is to happen? With great respect, the Government’s new clause does not so far conclusively answer that question.
Lord Bates
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that intervention. He hit upon a real issue, and we are going to have to write on that point. When exploring how to indicate that the commitment to free speech is to be taken seriously and nothing should take away from that, we did not want effectively to phrase the amendment in such a way as to say, a bit like Universities UK, “You can now just disregard it because you can claim everything is free speech and therefore do not need all the rest of it”. This is a serious thing that the Government are saying. We believe that there is a particular risk and that universities ought to have due regard to it. We would like that to be done consistently. That was the reason that we landed upon to,
“have particular regard to it”.
This answers the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and with this I will sit down. You cannot have a debate of this quality, with such incredibly perceptive points being raised, and not be open to it. As I hope I have demonstrated throughout this process since we began our journey at Second Reading, I have tried to listen and have due regard to the views expressed in your Lordships’ House—and nothing will change on that. We will reflect very carefully on the particular points raised. Of course, if there are ways in which we can tighten the language that we use and points to take on board, we still have time to do that, but we feel that in putting forward Amendment 15D, we have something that can give real reassurance to universities in this regard.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, in view of the hour which we have reached, I am sure that all noble Lords would like me to bring this debate to an end as soon as possible. First, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. This has been a debate of very high quality, and many interesting points have been raised. I am most grateful for the answer the Minister gave on Scotland, which satisfies me. We can no doubt return to that by order, if necessary.
As for the rest, I think that it is a search for clarity. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, when she was complimenting the Minister on Amendment 15D. I think she said, “We are not there yet”. In a way, that sums up the essence of the debate. Many points have been made in various ways and many questions have been asked which the Minister clearly has not been able to answer. I think we are reassured by the open mind which he expressed in his concluding words. In view of that, the proper thing for me to do is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Universal Credit
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord German
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are the results of the review into the setting of universal credit conditionality when children are in distress.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who are going to speak in this debate, as this is an issue of great importance to the well-being of many children in our country, and I am grateful for the interest shown. This matter came to its head in your Lordships’ House during the passage of the Pensions Act 2014. The issue being debated then was the universal credit regime covering those who are bereaved. Changes to the benefits system for widowed parents means that those with ongoing income support needs, with the conditionality requirements it brings, would claim universal credit.
On Report, my noble friend the Minister announced that he was to conduct a wider review of the impact of universal credit in circumstances where children could be in considerable distress. I am most grateful for the time my noble friend has spent in undertaking the review, and for the way in which he has engaged with myself and other noble Lords in progressing the terms of reference and in discussing the outcome.
Since the debate in your Lordships’ House on 24 February 2014, the review has concluded and the relevant regulations were laid before the House in November 2014. This review came about because of the concerns of Members of your Lordships’ House. It was a review made in the House of Lords and delivered in the House of Lords. It was personally entrusted to my noble friend the Minister, and I am sure that noble Lords on all Benches recognise his efforts in bringing this to a conclusion.
I put down this Question for Short Debate because it provides a first opportunity for this House to deliberate on the findings of the review and its implementation. While I have some concerns, which I will come to later, there is much in the structure of the outcome of the review which is to be welcomed. Claiming universal credit brings work-related conditionality requirements. Following the review the Government have created a carve-out from these requirements for a group of circumstances all related to children in distress. The Government intend to switch off these conditionality requirements for up to six months in circumstances where a child is in distress because of bereavement or domestic violence and abuse. This switch-off is mandatory, not discretionary. After that period, those caring for a child affected by distress can ask for the conditions attached to universal credit to be suspended for a further three occasions, one month at a time, but only once in every six-month period. For other circumstances of distress—witnessing violence and abuse—the setting aside of conditionality is for one month in every six for up to two years.
I turn to the matters which I welcome in these Government actions. First, there is the recognition of a need for exemptions and a different approach for those who care for children in distress. The scope of the exemptions currently applies to children in distress as a result of bereavement, fleeing from violence, or experiencing or witnessing violence and abuse. I hope that my noble friend would also consider adding to that list children who are made homeless. There may be others to be added at a later date, but it is particularly important and welcome that there is no required definition of distress, simply the circumstances in which distress can occur.
Secondly, the solution provides a light-touch requirement on the evidence to establish distress. I understand that a wide range of acceptable evidence of the impact on the child is acceptable. It could be as straightforward as a description by a carer or a parent, a note from the child’s school or a local charity.
Thirdly the focus on the needs of the child is at the heart of this solution. The issue of the needs of the parent or carer is an obvious concern but this new structure is rightly focused on the absolute concerns of the child. But the distress or unavailability of the parent or carer can be transmitted to the child and become a source of distress for them. The new structure is wide in the evidence it requires of distress, but clearly understanding the complexity of the relationship between the carer or parent and their distress, and distress transmitted and experienced by the child, requires a sensitive understanding by work coaches who conduct the interviews. I would be grateful if my noble friend could explain that relationship between these easements in conditionality and easements for the parent or carer under the already existing domestic emergency or temporary circumstances provisions.
I also welcome having a structure which can grow to accommodate additional circumstances. Encompassing two additional areas which can lead to distress is welcome, but there may be more, and as I said earlier the obvious one which comes to mind is that of a child being made homeless.
The key question, therefore, which I wish to ask my noble friend is this: is the six-month easement sufficient for children in bereavement circumstances? Perhaps more importantly, are the one month every six months easements of the correct length or timing? We need to understand the evidence behind the policy to be able to establish whether it covers the widest possible range of circumstances, to ensure that there is adequate protection for children whose needs possibly still require close parental or carer engagement, and this may go beyond the seven-month maximum consecutive time period allowed. Research evidence in this area appears to be somewhat incomplete, and some of the main sources were published some considerable time ago. But common experience will tell you that the way in which children respond to bereavement will vary from child to child.
In the current regime—pre-universal credit—York University research showed that most bereaved partners retain work or enter work within 18 months of bereavement. Is it appropriate to try and compress what is already happening as a normal state of affairs? So the question remains: are the six-month and then the three one-month easements adequate and proportional? A secondary question is that of the revolving-door nature of the requests. Despite the light touch on evidence the continual requirement for producing evidence each time a request is made for an easement can be a tough challenge for a parent caring for a distressed child.
It will come as no surprise to my noble friend if I ask him about the interaction between widowed parents allowance and universal credit for those who would claim both. For the purposes of universal credit, widowed parents allowance will be treated as “income other than earnings”. This means that it will be deducted at a pound-for-pound rate from the claimant’s universal credit entitlement. That means, in turn, that the actual value for a widowed parent with no other income will be £0 per week. However, widowed parents allowance will also continue to be treated as taxable income. For this reason, working claimants may not only have their WPA deducted in full from their universal credit entitlement, but also pay tax on it. The outcome is that working widowed parents in receipt of both universal credit and the widowed parents allowance could end up overall paying £7.90 per week on account of their receipt of the widowed parents allowance.
I understand that those who are moved on to universal credit will get transitional protection, but this will only be until the first change in their circumstances. Will an application for a further one-month easement under the new regime be classified as a change in circumstances? If that is the case, as soon as the new system is applied, the parent could end up paying an extra £7.90 a week.
I appreciate that this is a complex issue but I wonder if my noble friend could give consideration to four possible solutions: first, removing widowed parents allowance from the list of benefits treated as income other than earnings; secondly, partially disregarding WPA for the purposes of UC entitlement; thirdly, treating WPA as earnings rather than income for the purposes of universal credit; or fourthly, continuing to treat WPA as income other than earnings, but introduce a “widowed parents element” as an additional component within universal credit. A similar approach is seen in the interaction of carers’ allowance and the carer element in universal credit.
In conclusion, there is much to be welcomed in the outcome of this review, but there are also some large questions, and beyond that, the experience of the system in action. I would be grateful if my noble friend could give us an assurance to give us confidence that the Government are monitoring this carve-out as it happens, and are willing to make changes as appropriate in the light of experience.
I am grateful for the Minister’s close interest and commitment to these matters, and I very much look forward to his response.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for prompting this debate about the review of universal credit when children are in distress. I speak this evening particularly about the distressing and challenging circumstances of the death of a parent, carer or sibling. I speak not only because I have experience as a priest alongside parents in such situations, as do so many of my clergy colleagues, and because I now support clergy in my diocese of Portsmouth ministering to those facing such deaths, but because of personal experience in my family.
The Minister’s departmental review shows welcome easing of existing regulations, but I suggest that that easing does not truly take account of the depth and extent of the challenge facing a parent or carer bereaved of a partner or child. Bluntly, she or he must support their grieving child while coping with their own grief. The grief of each family member is hugely affected by how others in the family are doing. That challenge is exacerbated if the demand of work-related requirements is added.
In my case, the death of my wife Julia left me the sole parent of two teenaged children. I had the advantage of being in a secure post, an officeholder with understanding colleagues—not even an employee—and under no pressure to fulfil specific requirements to maintain my income. Nevertheless, your Lordships will understand the range of everyday reactions—sadness, guilt, sleep difficulties and anger, for instance—which may sound modest or even trivial but have significant consequences in combination between you and dependent children.
To those, we might add the clinical range of emotional and behavioural difficulties that arise in children, particularly in the two or three years following the death. Those are potentially debilitating in themselves and inhibit development. I also raise the likelihood, as various studies show, of depression, clinical anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, learning underachievement and even suicide—all with significant costs to society.
I know how quickly a surviving parent must try to adjust to a new role. Even for those of us in fortunate and supportive circumstances, this is a big ask. I say that not with the flippancy of a sports commentator but from personal experience. The surviving parent must be able to respond flexibly and quickly, which often includes being physically present.
I recognise, of course, that every situation is different, but I doubt if the proposal to be relieved of obligations for only six months and then for intermittent periods of one month in, at best, every six months for two years is realistic. I welcome the implicit understanding that the impact of bereavement on a parent, carer or sibling may unpredictably arise over a two-year period or longer. That is a helpful acknowledgement for which I thank the Minister. I suggest, however, that the six-month respite may be an impediment to a bereaved family’s recovery and healing. It could hang like a threat for the parent, particularly if he or she is home-based, non-earning for some time, or had withdrawn from work to care for a sick or dying partner or child. I recognise that in many—perhaps most—instances, parents will seek to return to work and to “normality”, as it is sometimes unhelpfully put.
I hope that the Minister will at the very least consider more generosity in the initial suspension of conditionality and flexibility in the ad hoc easements proposed. To monitor that and offer support—and I hope that it is not too much in those circumstances to expect a pastoral touch rather than a rigorous adherence to rules—I suggest that periodic interviews giving advice, supportive rather than coercing, would be entirely right. To expect that every widower or widow will be ready after six months to return to work or to an active monitored search for work with up to four further months, one by one, might suggest a punitive approach to those who have suffered through no action of their own.
I know the sadness and disorientation of bereavement, and I hope that the Government will acknowledge that more generously. In this of all circumstances, surely encouragement is more appropriate than compulsion. I enjoyed that, and benefited from it with my children, and I believe that others should as well.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord German this evening not because I am at all qualified in the intricacies of the working of the current benefit system or any of the proposals. I speak because I know a little bit about children’s grief and the distress following the death of a family member. In my case, one daughter was killed and her younger sister and I lived through the ensuing years and the aftershocks of extreme grief. I was lucky to be married to an extremely supportive second husband, who had himself suffered the death of his beloved elder brother at a similar age to my surviving daughter, so he was able to empathise more than most people.
During earlier debates on this issue, I note that noble Lords who are speaking today, including the Minister, referred to the many effects of extreme grief, and I do not need to reiterate them now. However, one thing that I would add to this evening’s debate is that a child in distress may learn very adequately to disguise that distress because they want to make the burden less on the surviving parent. That is a danger: if one of the measures is whether the child is in distress, the answer may be apparently no. My noble friend said:
“The point I am trying to make is that it is far better to recognise that individual responses to grief vary. As a number of noble Lords have said, grief often does not manifest in behavioural and emotional challenges until months or even years down the line”.—[Official Report, 27/2/14; col. 744.]
I appreciate his deep understanding of the issue.
This evening, I want to share a few points about the causes of bereavement and what effect they can have on the grieving process. Those come not as a direct result of my personal experience but because I was, as a result, asked to become patron of the Compassionate Friends, which is an international bereavement support network. Through that organisation, I have learnt of the many and varied circumstances in which parents can find themselves. The death could be suicide, accident, murder or illness. It can be sudden, shocking and numbing or it can be lengthy and drawn out, so that by the actual death the survivors are already exhausted.
This is particularly pertinent to this evening’s discussion because in the case of suicide or murder there would of course have to be an inquest, which might well not begin for over six months. I am glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is in her place, because she and I debated the issue of timeliness at length during the passage of the Coroners Act. This has improved, but the inquest could still not take place for several months, and might then continue for several weeks. This is likely to be at a time which is at least as stressful as the actual death and often more so, given the forensic examination of details. In the case of a death resulting from a crime there would be a court case. Again, this may continue for some time and be very stressful. In those cases it would be impossible to apply the formula which my noble friend raised this evening, because periods of one month every so often would not cover those sorts of scenarios.
I will briefly make a point that has been raised by the organisation I mentioned, the Compassionate Friends. Of course family and friends generally rally round at first to help. However, as time passes they might not be able to continue that support, or they may feel that it is time someone got over it, and so the situation may become more stressful after six months.
Returning to work is often welcome, because a return to any sort of normality is helpful. I must say that in my own case, while I would not say that returning to the House of Lords was life-saving, it brought me back to a state of normality. Even when someone is back at work, there will of course be the dreaded Christmas or other festive occasions such as birthdays, and there will be anniversaries of the death. In addition, for the child or children there will be things that trigger an enormous need for extra support from their surviving parent—for example, very predictable things such as exams or parents’ evenings. Holidays can be very stressful. There might be things that are not even foreseen. A teenage child might suffer from the break-up of their first or second relationship, which would also trigger all sorts of unforeseen issues.
As the Compassionate Friends say, individuals grieve differently and there is no timetable for grief. I hope that, within the constraints of needing some guidance, the discretion given to the easement months can be considerably more flexible. I am very grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for having secured this very important debate. About a year ago we debated at length the difficulties of children who are in distress. I give credit to the Minister for having listened and taken seriously the issues that were raised, and for having consulted widely and tried hard to come up with a solution. Of course, everybody knows that no solution will ever be perfect, but in the last year we have become better than we were a year ago. That is a tribute to all noble Lords in this House who have argued long and hard.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, have laid out very clearly how incredibly difficult it is to be bereaved. There is no formula and no straightforward way ahead. Indeed, life will never be the same again. Nothing will ever feel normal again. It is a different life, and you carry that with you always, as do the children. Of course, the children’s grief will manifest itself in all sorts of different ways. As has already been said, children who are very distressed often appear at first to behave very well, and their grief explodes at different times and in different ways, because they really do not want to cause more distress to others. I have even come across family members who have said, “How can you go out and play? Your mum’s just died”. That child is trying desperately to find something normal left in their life—and that is going out to play with other kids in the playground at school and so on, and not feeling as excluded as they usually do.
I also pay tribute briefly to the organisation The Compassionate Friends, with which many years ago I carried out a study of bereaved parents with a bereaved mum. It was published in the British Medical Journal, and we called it “Your Child is Dead”. That was how people had been told that their child was dead. It is the only paper I have ever published that was translated into French and published in a French journal. We managed to raise awareness in medicine at that time, when people were really not taking much notice of children’s needs facing bereavement.
There are of course voluntary sector bodies which now provide guidance to organisations. Employers receive guidance; ACAS has produced some very good guidance on dealing with a bereaved employee. The National Council for Palliative Care has produced a range of booklets and support materials for people supporting others in bereavement. Hopefully, the world is slightly better than it was those years ago when we actually had to flag up the fact that there were bereaved children and bereaved parents out there, and people should not run away from that.
The issue of timing is of course difficult. From having meetings with the Minister I know that the timing and the right cut-off point have been difficult to determine. I appreciate the time the Minister has given to those of us who have really wanted to bend his ear on this issue. I do not have the anxieties that some others have about the fixed time of one month. This is because I am glad that it is non-negotiable, so that whoever is bereaved does not have to justify that they need a few more days or another week. They get their block of a month, with no questions asked.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that the work coaches will be appropriately trained to have a light touch. They should be instructed that the first time round their request for evidence should be very, very light. Possibly the second time they can prompt someone and say, “Look, I will need something to justify this—a little bit more than you provided last time.” But it should not be punitive. The bereaved person should not have difficulty making appointments. Work coaches should know that bereaved parents should be able to jump the queue to get an appointment if they need it. They should not have to wait and go through some slow process, as others might have to.
I also hope that the voluntary sector organisations will wake up to the need to be rapidly responsive. I fear that some of them have waiting lists for bereavement support or children’s bereavement support, and they need to speed up as well. When you are distressed you cannot wait, and you need somebody to acknowledge that distress there and then and provide you with the support that you need. So it behoves those of us who work with voluntary sector organisations to be aware of this.
I declare that I work with these organisations—and there are a lot of them—which help people who are facing death and bereavement. I have also carried out work with the Childhood Bereavement Network, which provided information to the Minister. All of these organisations need to step up to the plate and become rapidly responsive, because if they do not and there is no joined-up system, people’s distress will be greater. We have to provide support within society and not have people locked away in aliquots of grief. That is a danger whenever you put down something with timeframes around it.
There have also been concerns that for a bereaved parent, getting the evidence that they need for the work coach might feel difficult and stigmatising. Again, I hope that the work coaches will be specifically instructed that they must not ask questions that the person is embarrassed to answer. They might appear to be embarrassed, but it may be that it is just too painful for them to utter what is going on—or perhaps they have not yet come to terms themselves with the behavioural difficulties and internal turmoil of the child that they are left supporting.
I also hope that the work coaches will be taught—because they may need to have it spelt out to them—that the bereaved parent may have never worked previously. They may have been a stay-at-home parent or somebody who has left work to provide care for their relative during the dying phase or because their employer was unhelpful in supporting them and they took a decision to do that. Then they suddenly feel that they have nothing left, and they have lost their job and career opportunities.
There are also those who feel forced to not carry on with their job because of problems with childcare, and because what has happened to the child has meant that they feel mistrustful of others and of strangers, so they make the choice that they have to stop working to provide support to the distressed child. The work coaches may well not have the life experiences that others have had. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide us with that reassurance.
In closing, I thank the Minister, who has shown humanity, compassion and the ability to listen. He has really tried to make the review better and to understand the difficulties for children in distress and for the bereaved parent—or the guardian who is left trying to support them, if both parents have died.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord German, for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue again and to all noble Lords who have contributed tonight. I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth for sharing his experience. It was a brave thing to do, and we benefited greatly from it—and to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for the same thing. To come to the House and share things from one’s knowledge is one thing, but to share it from one’s experience is quite another. I really appreciate that.
I, too, have some experience, but from rather longer ago. My mother died when I was eight, and my father had to cope. He did go out to work, but that had consequences as well. It may have been unrelated—and I did not realise it until some time later—but I went on to run a charity that worked with single parents, so I met a number of single parents who had become so involuntarily, because their partner or spouse had died. I am very conscious of the consequences of that, so I am grateful to have the opportunity to talk about this today.
We heard evidence during previous stages of the Bill, when many of us were assembled—and particularly from the noble Lord, Lord German, who talked about the longitudinal study, to which he referred again tonight, and about the importance of the capacity and availability of the other parent. So we know quite a lot about what it is that makes a difference. I absolutely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the impact on the children is often hard to detect from their initial behaviour. They can be told to be brave because mummy or daddy is struggling—so they can often end up behaving in ways that may seem not to be distressed when, actually, they are.
I am very grateful to the Minister for having agreed during the passage of the Pensions Bill to take this issue away. When he comes to reply, I would be very grateful if he could take the House through what happened in the review, as the noble Lord, Lord German, suggested. What advice was he given and what brought him to make the decisions that he or the Government did in its wake?
As I understand it, the Government’s intention is that bereaved parents should not have conditionality applied for the first six months of universal credit after bereavement. I confess that, when I was trying to go through all the repeatedly amended regulations, I struggled to find the section where that is set out. I would be grateful for my own ease in my future work if the Minister would share that with us. The Government then brought forward the Universal Credit and Miscellaneous Amendments (No. 2) Regulations 2014, which amended the universal credit regulations. Regulation 8 seems to have the effect that work search or availability requirements may not be imposed on a parent or responsible carer claiming universal credit in the event of the death of the child’s other parent or carer or a sibling or another adult living in the family, or if the child has suffered or witnessed violence or abuse.
The bit that I am not clear about is that, from my reading of the regulations, the suspension of conditionality seems to be available not if the parent can demonstrate the distress of the child but if they can show that their childcare arrangements have been significantly disrupted as a result of the events that have happened. Could the Minister clarify that? When the Minister for Employment, Esther McVey, made a ministerial Statement in another place on 23 October 2014, she said:
“We do not intend to seek evidence of the child’s distress, but rather on how the situation has impacted the day-to-day functioning of the parent/family”.—[Official Report, Commons, 23/11/14; col. 82WS.]
She gave the example of having to go to statutory appointments. Is that the intention, and could the Minister elaborate on that?
I would like also to understand a few other questions. First, is anyone currently affected by these provisions? The answer may not be known because of timing, but perhaps the Minister could advise us on that. Could he give us a sense of how many parents he thinks might be eligible when it is rolled out fully, and what sort of take-up he expects? Furthermore, what steps have the Government taken or will they take to make sure that any parent who is eligible is aware of these provisions, particularly the extra one-month provisions?
When we debated the Pensions Bill in Committee, my noble friend Lady Hollis expressed a lot of concern about the level of discretion being awarded to young staff. The question of the training of work coaches has been raised by various noble Lords. In addition, what work has been done with decision-makers? He may be able to explain this to us, but my understanding is that, if a bereaved parent does not fulfil the work requirements because, for example, they have not been able to demonstrate what is needed to get the extra month, or maybe they need more than a month, presumably the work coach would refer them to a decision-maker in the department, who would sanction their benefit—in other words, stop or reduce their universal credit. Is that the case? Could the Minister confirm that? If so, what steps have been taken to train the decision-makers to understand the consequences of these provisions? If that is the case, if the person then wished to challenge a decision, would they have to go through the process as with other benefits of first seeking mandatory reconsideration from the department before being allowed to appeal a decision? If so, how long could that take? We are getting reports of delays of many months with regard to other benefits—but I hope that that will not apply here.
The Childhood Bereavement Network was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I am sure that we have all had briefings from that organisation, and the Minister will be aware that it remains very concerned about the provisions. What plans do the Government have for evaluating those provisions, and at what stage? Would the Minister be willing to commit to sitting down again with key stakeholders at a certain period, perhaps after a year or two, to discuss with them the evidence and see whether it has worked as they hoped it would?
On the childcare point, if it is the case that the parent would have to demonstrate that their childcare arrangements had been significantly disrupted, what would happen in the case raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, of a teenager who manifests some behaviour—for example, by developing an eating disorder or getting into trouble at school? A teenager would not necessarily have childcare and a parent of a teenager would be expected to go to work full-time. So there may be no disruption to childcare in that case, but the parent might then feel that the right thing would be to be at home every day when that teenager came home from school to make sure that the new problems that had manifested themselves were dealt with. How would that work?
Finally, how will in-work conditionality be applied for this group? If a bereaved parent of a teenager takes a job below the target for a single earner—in other words, less than the equivalent of a full-time job at the minimum wage—as I understand it, the in-work conditionality rules for universal credit would mean that they would be called and then required to go out and increase their hours. What steps will be taken to make sure that they may need to work only school hours or fewer hours in that circumstance? Could the Minister explain that?
I want to say how much I appreciate the fact that he has taken the issue away and taken the time and trouble, as with so many aspects of universal credit, to supervise it personally. I know that he cares very much about how it works in practice. Therefore, I look forward to what he has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord German for bringing this Question to the House. As noble Lords have said, I promised to come back with the findings of the review that I committed to undertake as we went through the Pensions Act 2014. Noble Lords have referred to my Written Statement on 23 October. The regulations for the measures were brought into force last November.
Let me remind noble Lords of the context. Concerns were raised by Peers, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lord German about the universal credit requirements placed on the parents of bereaved children. I have to say that the noble Baroness’s speech during the Committee stage of the Pensions Bill really resonated with me personally. She highlighted the fact that difficult circumstances can cause a substantial and varying amount of distress for children, and that parents and carers need time to provide them with additional care, support and stability. We have built a clearer, more demanding welfare system which places robust requirements on claimants. But placing robust expectations also means recognising that we should suspend these requirements at certain times, providing temporary relief from conditionality to deal with the situation without moving claimants too far away from the world of work.
I should like to mention that I have been ably supported in my considerations of the review findings by two external expert advisers—which is one up from the number recommended by my noble friend Lord German. They are Dr Jane Callaghan from the British Psychological Society and Karina Dancza from the College of Occupational Therapists. I am very grateful to them for their invaluable support. I should add that I also gained enormously from the insights from our own people on the front line, in particular Colin Cottingham and Graham Sandilands, who know what it is to help parents in this situation.
The review concluded that there are particular situations—bereavement or a child witnessing or being a victim of violence or abuse—where there is compelling evidence that children were very likely to experience a period of acute distress following such an event and where additional support would be required from the parent. These situations cover a wide range of circumstances where child distress can occur. There will be other circumstances that are not covered where we would expect our work coaches to use the current tailoring and discretion available in exactly the same way.
I decided to make these policy changes through regulations, as recommended by the review, as opposed to doing so purely in guidance. These regulations establish a clear and consistent framework for work coaches, which is so important when exploring such sensitive topics. More circumstances, such as homelessness, as my noble friend mentioned, could be included in regulations at a future time if evidence suggests that that is appropriate.
The review found that a six-month suspension of requirements for parents of children in cases of bereavement and domestic violence would normally be appropriate. We have therefore extended, from the previous three months to the current six months, the suspension of conditionality requirements for victims fleeing domestic violence where they are responsible for caring for their child. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, noted, child distress is not a linear process and families may experience late effects of dealing with grief. To help support their children in these circumstances the parent will be able to access a new one-month suspension of requirements once in every six-month period for a period of up to two years following the death or incident of violence or abuse.
I want to be clear: we will not seek to assess the child’s distress. Instead, we will look to identify the situation that has occurred and the impact it is having on the family unit. In terms of evidence, I do not want to introduce an overly bureaucratic system. When a claimant first accesses the one-month easement for the reasons set out in the regulations, if the work coach is satisfied that the situation is having an impact on the claimant’s ability to fulfil their conditionality requirements they will allow the easement. The work coach will at the same time ask the claimant to provide appropriate evidence. But unless work coaches think that it is necessary, we will not delay this first one-month easement because of waiting for evidence.
The form of that evidence is not set in stone. We do not expect evidence to detail the child’s distress but it should provide work coaches with information on the additional caring responsibilities that the claimant is undertaking. The types of acceptable evidence are varied and could include appointments at the child’s school, social services, healthcare professionals in connection with the child, additional childcare responsibilities or support arrangements. To help provide subsequent and ongoing support to families where longer than a month is needed to get them back on track, work coaches will make use of the discretionary tailoring available to personalise requirements in the light of individual circumstances. This helps to ensure that claimants can move on in a way that is appropriate to those circumstances.
When a parent has had a previous easement, this makes it easier for work coaches to identify the need for ongoing support and, as a result, to apply discretionary conditionality easements. I hope that that will provide the flexibility that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and my noble friend Lady Miller were looking for. I echo the words of admiration of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for those deeply personal contributions and experience in this area.
We have strong evidence that shows that work has a positive impact on individuals and their families. Focusing on bereavement, the review found that the existing six-month conditionality easement is appropriate. It did not find evidence that extending the six-month period would benefit the majority of those who have been bereaved. My experts advised me that this, combined with very clear and supportive tailored conditionality, should help parents to cope. I am not saying, by any means, that the grieving process is over by six months. But the evidence shows that usually by this time, a person’s grief is no longer a barrier to their continued life, although it may not be normality as they used to experience it. Many parents facing difficult circumstances want to return to work, for themselves and for their children.
I recognise the concerns that noble Lords have expressed about the level of work coach capability in this whole area, which is why, as part of this review, my officials worked with experts in the field to develop guidance for jobcentre staff. The stakeholders we worked with include the Childhood Bereavement Network, WAY, Gingerbread, Child Poverty Action Group, Grandparents Plus and Refuge, to name but a few.
The universal credit learning programme ensures that work coaches have up-to-date skills to deal with any claimant interaction and support them in making relevant and appropriate decisions on an individual basis. The training focuses on providing a personalised, flexible service to claimants and treating them as individuals, building strong relationships with them. To ensure that work coaches adhere to standards, we have put in place a quality assurance framework which managers use to monitor the service and to ensure a high-quality level of support. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in this area.
Let me now pick up on a few of the questions that have been asked in the short time we have had for this debate. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, the six-month bereavement provisions can be found in regulation 99(3)(d). As to my noble friend’s concern about transitional protection in UC, this would be not affected by invoking this particular relief. In numbers terms, we expect that no more than 10,000 claimants a year will take up the easement when universal credit is fully rolled out. We do not have information on the numbers currently affected but they are likely to be extremely small. People subject to in-work conditionality will be able to access the same conditionality easements. However, I emphasise that in-work conditionality is at the beginning of its exploratory phase for getting it right. It is therefore currently not a policy with hard edges.
I think that I have dealt with all of the issues. I shall look through the debate and if there are one or two questions that I have not had time to deal with, I shall write to noble Lords.
We are building a new welfare system at the moment, which is a major endeavour. We cannot do so without talking and listening to people. I am extraordinarily grateful for all the help that I have had in this House over the past few years to get to a positive result in this and other areas. In this particular case, I thank again the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—she made her point so effectively that it convinced me that action was needed—and I thank my noble friend for showing such tenacity in pushing for the process to be taken forward at speed. It has meant that the changes were introduced at the same time as we are now rolling out universal credit to families in the north-west. We are now up to 26 jobcentres where families are part of the process.
I am grateful to the House for trusting me to do this exercise without all the normal paraphernalia. It has meant that we have been able to do it quickly and I hope that noble Lords are satisfied with the outcome.
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
“( ) The Secretary of State shall not issue guidance to specified authorities which are qualifying institutions within the meaning given in section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004 (qualifying institutions) until at least one calendar month after laying a report before both House of Parliament which includes estimates of the potential direct and indirect impact of implementation of such guidance with regard to—
(a) the culture of such authorities, particularly as regards academic freedom and mutual trust within the same, and(b) the cost and bureaucracy arising within the same pursuant to this Part.”
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 14B, and my learned—not my learned—
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My—admirable and brilliant—noble friend Lady Williams is a co-signatory to that amendment and is going to speak to Amendment 14D. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who unfortunately cannot be here, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who is indeed here, also have their names to these amendments.
First, I thank the Minister again for the way in which he has tried to deal with the very many comments and complaints about the Bill. Major advances have been made. The most important, on which this amendment touches but does not major, is the agreement that there must be an affirmative resolution by both Houses before the guidance can take effect. That is a very important concession.
Amendment 14B deals with the preparatory work for the debate which will ensue when the resolution is put to this House and to the other House to bring the guidance into effect. What we say and what Amendment 14B provides is that there cannot be the debate on the affirmative resolution to bring the guidance into effect until at least 28 days after the Government have laid a report before both Houses containing what we would say is essential information in order for both Houses to be fully prepared to debate to best effect the guidance and whether to bring it into effect. We call this a common-sense measure.
The first thing to say is that it is abundantly clear that Part 5 has had very little coverage beyond this place. We heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, that the Cambridge colleges have only just woken up to Part 5 and the potential impact on them, and how they are all now riding very high horses, but very late in the day. Indeed, I have discovered exactly the same position in other parts of the university fraternity. There has been extraordinarily little media coverage of this extraordinarily important set of provisions. As a result, there is not, as one would have expected, the head of steam behind the reforms proposed from all round the House and intended to impact on the effect of Part 5 of the Bill.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I had an opportunity earlier this afternoon to read the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Bates, to those who intended to participate in today’s Report stage. I express my appreciation of his consideration in writing, but I must observe that the fast-track schedule of the Bill is severely impeding its proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Government have not given themselves enough time to think.
The letter points to the Government’s amendments of Monday that represented their response to the widely expressed anxieties about the way in which the statutory Prevent strategy was liable to conflict with the duty of freedom of speech enjoined by the Act of 1986. The Government also tabled an amendment two days ago that is ostensibly intended to ensure that the guidance issued in connection with the Prevent strategy will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. In the judgment of the proposers of the current amendments, the Government’s concessions are inadequate. They are therefore calling for something more extensive and secure.
The letter of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, observes that, between 1999 and 2009, a full 30% of persons convicted of terrorist offences associated with al-Qaeda had attended a higher education institution. It is difficult to place this figure in an appropriate context, but given the extent of participation in higher education of the relevant age group, this seems a strikingly low figure. It might be interpreted as an indication of the efficacy of higher education institutions in diminishing the threat of terrorism.
The effect of higher education is typically to stimulate individualistic freedom of thought—the very antithesis of the dogmatic nostrums of the radical Islamists, which differ so markedly from the religious injunctions of Islam. A liberal higher education is undoubtedly a most effective means of combating ideological extremism. The success of British institutions of higher education as effective agents of counterterrorism ought to be widely recognised. Instead, the Government’s statutory Prevent strategy, which promises to be clumsy and intrusive, threatens to subvert the role of higher education in countering Islamic radicalisation.
Another aspect of the statutory Prevent strategy disturbs me. It concerns the cost and bureaucracy that will be imposed on the designated institutions. As I observed in a previous debate, there has been a hypertrophy of bureaucracy in British universities for which the interventions of central government have been largely responsible. Nowadays, in almost every institution, the numbers of administrative staff exceed those of teaching staff—and by a significant margin in many cases. The Prevent strategy, with its specially appointed officers, mandated staff training courses, obligation to report compliance with its nostrums and duty to inform the police and others of any suspicions and anxieties, is a bureaucratic nightmare. Finally, I have to wonder whose opinions have been elicited by the consultation on the draft guidance. If, as I strongly suspect, those few opinions have come predominantly from the administrative faculties of universities, then I suggest they should be treated with due caution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving this amendment and giving the opportunity to put one or two additional points on record. This amendment would not permit guidance to be issued to universities until a report had been laid before Parliament setting out the impact of—
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I apologise to the Minister but I was not aware that he was going to respond to the amendment now, which would rule out Amendment 14D to which I wished to speak. I turn to that amendment briefly to explain the point of it. It looks a very small amendment but it is a rather serious one.
Amendment 14D relates to those with whom the Secretary of State would consult in advance of putting out the various kinds of guidance, which has already been dealt with to some extent by the Minister in his very helpful amendment requiring an affirmative procedure by Parliament. That meets one of my major concerns, which is the involvement of Parliament in every way and at every stage of the Bill. That is absolutely crucial, especially given the scale of the challenge that the Minister on more than one occasion told us we must meet. The solidarity of Parliament in dealing with these issues is crucial.
Let me explain why I put down this amendment. It was for the very simple reason that absolutely nowhere in the Bill that I can find is there any requirement of any kind to consult the age group that we are most concerned about. There is absolutely none. There are no references to student organisations, youth organisations or for that matter young people at all. Yet I think many of us recognise—I will in just a moment give an example of this—that the most effective force to persuade young people to abandon any thoughts of terrorism is other young people. Statements by senior officials, however senior they may be, cut nothing like the ice and have nothing like the persuasive power as other young people who see the devastating effects of terrorism and bring those to the attention of their friends and colleagues.
One of the things I regret is that the statutory requirement that students should be represented on university bodies which we brought in with the Education (No. 2) Act 1968 was abandoned by the then Government in 1987, so there is no requirement of that kind any more in law. One of the great advantages of requiring that students be represented on, for example, university courts and academic panels was precisely that they were then brought into the operation of the university itself, and into its responsibilities and its authority. That became an important and significant factor in dealing with what one might call young extremism.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may briefly follow my noble friend Lady Williams. I declare an interest as a Cambridge academic and a fellow of Robinson College, where I am a graduate tutor and director of studies. I am also, across the university, senior treasurer of the European Society. We do not really expect a great deal of extremism in that society; it is probably a relatively straightforward society to be involved with. However, the person who was key to setting it up was a visiting French student. She was 22, dynamic and really wanted to get something going. She had far more bright ideas than I had at twice her age. I still think that I am young; as an academic, I am probably seen as middle-aged by my students and as relatively young by some of my colleagues. But this young woman came with a set of bright ideas and established an organisation. To impose duties on that organisation without any consultation is not necessarily helpful.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, said earlier, we need to engage in discussion and debate. If it is about Europe, it may be in some ways uncontroversial and not lead to extremism—but in a whole range of other societies, the debates might be controversial or difficult. However, the people who will best be able to say how they can deal with that are not academics, far less administrators, telling students what to do. It will be the students themselves coming up with ideas as to how to engage. I ask that we think through how to engage young people.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, asked who responded to the guidance consultation. Of the 160 people who responded, probably none was young. If we can bring those people in and engage them, partly through university structures but partly directly, we will get better decisions and ideas—and, ideally, a better way of implementing the Prevent duty in a way that engages young people and takes them with us, rather than a top-down approach which preaches to them in an unhelpful way.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate. There have been some excellent contributions. First, I want to clarify something I said earlier which might have sent people down the wrong track. I talked about 42 responses which my noble friend Lord Phillips rightly pulled me up on as being a paltry number. That was the number of academic institutions which responded. In fact, the consultation produced 1,792 responses. Five consultation events were held—in Manchester, Cardiff, Birmingham, London and Edinburgh—that reached a further 300 delegates from specified authorities, including representatives of higher education. So there have been some additional responses. Of course, it would be excellent to see more contributions.
The point that was made eloquently by the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Smith of Newnham, on the importance of engaging young people is absolutely right. It would seem perfectly within the spirit and letter of both the guidance and of what we are putting forward here for academic institutions to engage with student bodies and societies; in fact, they should. They should ask, “What is the best way of implementing this within our institution?”. This would be entirely in keeping with the type of approach that we want. We are not talking about the European Society at Cambridge—unless there are instances there in which people could possibly be drawn into acts of terrorism. That would be unexpected and a surprise. We are talking about how to prevent people being drawn into terrorism—so a wider debate, crucially one involving young people, is very important.
Another element, which relates to what my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury had to say in moving his amendment, is the impact of this. We have produced an impact statement on the Bill. My noble friend said that he does not accept what it says on page 7, but it does make some estimates as to the cost of implementing this across 2,000 higher and further education institutions in the UK. This is standard practice. For illustrative purposes, we assume that each institution requires one week of a junior officer’s time—a BIS liaison officer, working with the university—at a cost of £573. Also, it is not—
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister has given those figures, but it also says clearly in the impact assessment that there are some areas where the risk has not been assessed for Prevent requirement purposes. It is not possible to estimate accurately how much will be required for additional Prevent activities. So the figures in the impact assessment are completely irrelevant because, in many areas, the assessment as to what Prevent activity will be needed has not been done.
Lord Bates
That is a fair observation. We are in unknown territory, but in order to have an impact assessment, some basic assumptions have to be made. Those are the assumptions we are using to understand how this guidance would be implemented on the ground. Academic institutions might be able to undertake particular research about its effect.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
The concern we have is that an assessment of their costs has not been made. As I said in moving the amendment, the more that the universities and colleges have thought about this—and many of them have still not got the draft guidance—the more they realise that this is imposing a very considerable bureaucratic burden which they will have to pay for.
Lord Bates
I am conscious that we are rehearsing arguments from the previous debate. Our argument, in fairness, is that they have not seen the guidance because people have not actually seen the guidance, which has not been published following the consultation. It will be informed by the debate that we have had.
Our hope and desire, though, is that this is very light-touch. It deals with what most, or many, academic institutions are already doing; it links in with their existing programmes for how computers are used on campus or in the library. It builds on that rather than trying to build some new bureaucratic edifice, which in our view is not necessary.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I am a little worried because the argument is moving towards the costs of bureaucratic reviews and so forth, and away from the central point that I believe to be critical for any chance of success in what the Government are trying to do: the formal involvement of young people. At the moment, and I hope my noble friend will forgive me for putting it this way, there is nothing in the Bill requiring universities to formally discuss with their own students how they handle the requests and guidance from the Government.
Lord Bates
Of course there is nothing in the Bill to say, stipulate or prescribe that, but there is nothing to stop it. I would have expected, although I am happy to reflect further on this—perhaps we should reflect further on these comments in the guidance when it comes forward—most higher and further education institutions to engage with the student body, particularly student associations, about how this should be implemented on their campuses in order for it to be effective, and not to be onerous but to be very targeted. That would be a very good thing to do.
I am conscious also that I was drifting in the direction of Amendment 14B from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, rather than the noble Baroness’s Amendment 14D. Still, this has been a helpful debate to have; it has elucidated some important principles about the engagement of young people, and about ensuring that the costs and the impact of the duty and the guidance—when it is produced—should be evaluated and should be in the spirit of what is intended, which is to be light-touch, not onerous, and to be focused on what Clause 25(1) says about avoiding people being drawn into terrorism specifically. With that, I ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing his amendment at this stage.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I thank the Minister. I have to be honest with him and say that he has not addressed at all the nub of Amendment 14B, which requires the report first of all to concentrate on the cultural impact on universities, particularly the academic freedom and mutual trust within them between staff, students and so on. He did not say a single word about that, which leaves me concerned, because either he thinks it is insignificant or he has no answer to our request for a report. Since everyone tonight—
Lord Bates
My noble friend rightly chides us to say that we do not want to be overly bureaucratic or impose too many costs. To undertake qualitative and quantitative research on the scale that he proposes in the amendment would add a huge cost, if not to the Government then to the institutions themselves. We are simply saying here that we will set out some guidance and then leave it to the institutions for it to be evaluated. There will be a process—through HEFCE, should that be something that the consultation decides—for progress and how it is implemented to be evaluated. I would have thought that that would be more in keeping with the light-touch, focused approach that we are talking about, rather than avoiding getting drawn into a very bureaucratic approach, which he would rightly reprimand us for.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I have to disagree with the Minister. It seems to me extraordinary to argue that we cannot afford to do our homework, so let us just make this law and see what happens. Because that is what he is saying. Also, it is no good talking about guidance without realising that, once it is brought into force, it has the effect of law; it becomes enforceable, even unto the point—the Joint Committee made this point—of somebody going to prison. A vice-chancellor could end up in prison if he or she flagrantly refused to comply with what he or she thought was a serious incursion on academic freedom.
I remain confused as to how the Government can say, “Well, it will all come out in the wash”; we do not know what the academic consequences are, whether cultural or in any other way, but you can make a complaint later if it does not work. That is not good enough. This House should not be imposing a regime of this nature without the facts and without due research having been undertaken. We may be the only country in the developed world that will have a statutory regime of this nature. That alone should give serious pause for thought.
Lord Bates
I want to clarify a remark that I made earlier. The impact assessment, referring to the higher education sector itself, higher and further education co-ordinators, actually refers to our assessment of the burden on university staff, rather than on the BIS co-ordinators, as I may have led my noble friend to believe.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
I am grateful for that, but I want to say a word on the second amendment. Most of the debate has been around the need to inquire of the students themselves how they view the consequences of the guidance becoming law. The Minister did not make reference to that. Does he agree in principle that universities, including the students, should be consultees prior to the guidance being finalised and brought into effect? This extends the duty of the consultation to universities under the provisions of Clause 28. I am bound to say that I cannot see, in view of all that the Minister has said, why the universities should not be consulted, along with the other two bodies named in the Bill. They are the people most affected and surely, therefore, the Government could at least say that they will be consulted before the guidance is finalised.
I hope that the Minister will respond to that and then I will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Bates
I am not sure that I can add a great deal more to what I have already said on this point, but I am happy to reflect further on my noble friend’s last point and I shall write to him ahead of Third Reading to clarify the position.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
That is a very fair way of wrapping this up, but just to make this clear, the Minister did not refer, in responding to the amendment, to the universities as such. All that he said was concentrated on the young people at the university. However, on the basis that he will have an open mind when looking at this—because it will cost the Government nothing to make the universities consultees, and I believe that it will go some considerable way towards assuaging the concerns that are behind both these amendments—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(ba) qualifying institutions within the meaning given in section 11 of the Higher Education Act 2004 (qualifying institutions) and their student bodies;”
Baroness Williams of Crosby
I have a very simple and totally inexpensive proposal, which is that in issuing the guidance the Secretary of State will make plain that he or she expects a university to consult its students before deciding to agree to accept the guidance that is then issued.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am happy to put this point on the record without further reflection. I believe that best practice should be that academic institutions should engage properly with students on how this Prevent guidance to have due regard to the guidance is going to be implemented. As we will discover in the next group, the guidance will come through an affirmative procedure in both Houses. I will reflect further on the noble Baroness’s comments ahead of that and make sure that her remarks are considered by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
In the light of that helpful response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bates
“(4A) Guidance issued under subsection (1) takes effect on whatever day the Secretary of State appoints by regulations made by statutory instrument.
A statutory instrument containing regulations under this subsection may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before each House of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.”
Lord Bates
My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendments 14E, 14G and 15E. This group also includes Amendment 14F in the name of my noble friends Lady Hamwee, Lady Brinton, Lady Sharp and Lady Williams.
During our debates here and in those in another place there have been calls for the guidance that can be issued by the Secretary of State to specified authorities, which are required to have regard to it when exercising the Prevent duty, to be subject to further parliamentary scrutiny. The Government have argued that such scrutiny is not common in these circumstances. It has also been our position that, in any case, the full public consultation which has been ongoing would suffice to ensure that the resulting document was fit for purpose. As I remarked in Committee, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the experts in such matters, appears to have drawn the same conclusion.
However, I have been clear throughout your Lordships’ consideration of the Bill that we are keen to listen to the House. We recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed on this issue, as well as the various comments which have been made about the draft guidance document that was put out for consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has been particularly passionate in her calls for further scrutiny, and I pay credit to her determination on this matter.
The Government have therefore tabled two amendments which provide for parliamentary scrutiny of the draft guidance. Amendment 14E provides that guidance issued by the Secretary of State under Clause 28 will take effect on the day mentioned in regulations and that those regulations must be approved under the affirmative procedure. Amendment 14G provides that any subsequent revision of the guidance will also need to be approved in the same way by both Houses.
My noble friends have tabled Amendment 14F, which would have an effect similar to that of the Government’s amendments. I trust that the government amendments have provided them with the necessary comfort and reassurance and that they will feel inclined not to move their amendment.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 15E. This is a minor drafting change to remove the word “Assembly” from the term “Welsh Assembly Government”, to produce the correct term for that body, which is “Welsh Government”. This anticipates a change to be made by the Wales Act 2014, which will come into force on 17 February.
I would also like to take this opportunity to inform the House that it is likely that we will table some minor and technical amendments of this type for Third Reading, and possibly one in relation to commencement with the effect that Clause 28 would come into force on Royal Assent. This would enable Parliament to scrutinise the guidance as soon as possible. If required, we will table these further amendments as soon as possible, and I will keep noble Lords informed. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights I would like to say how much I welcome the government amendment. It is nice to be able to welcome Government amendments unequivocally on this occasion. The Government have accepted just the one recommendation in our report, and we are very pleased that they have.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, my name is on Amendment 14F and I also want to thank the Minister for his Amendment 14E. As I said in Committee, after going to war, curtailment of freedom is one of the most important things that a Government must consider doing. Given the seriousness of that, it seemed extraordinary that there was no scrutiny by Parliament, so I am grateful for that. On a slightly lighter note, and not strictly to do with this amendment, the fact that 33% of terrorists have been to university was repeated this evening. I wonder whether we need much more draconian measures for schools, given that 100% of terrorists will have attended school.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, this is a very welcome amendment that the Minister has moved, and I would like to thank him and his colleagues in the Government for having inserted these necessary provisions. The more you look at the Bill, as far as universities and colleges are concerned—I am not talking about passports and TPIMs and so on—the heart of it is the guidance and the threat hanging over universities of directives from the Secretary of State. That is what is really going to determine whether this is workable, and whether it is or is not counterproductive.
The fact is that the amendment of the noble Lord basically shoots our fox by saying that they are not going to tell us what they are going to do now, but they are going to come before both Houses with the guidance. This is welcome, even if it is perhaps not too ungracious to point out that I am aware that affirmative resolutions in both Houses will no doubt be whipped, and that we will have no possibility of amending them. Having said that, the debates we have had at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report, will have shown Ministers that the guidance on which they consulted universities and others, ending last week, was really upsetting to everyone, and would have had appalling results both in practicality and in the chilling effect, and so on. I hope we shall never again be told that because UUK produced some guidance like that, it must be okay. It is not okay to make a statutory guidance that tells people that if they are going to go to a university—as I am to Oxford tomorrow—to address a seminar, they have to produce a script two weeks in advance. It just is not going to work. I hasten to say I have not got a script yet.
The point I am trying make, which I hope the Minister will take on board, is that I had rather hoped that he would give us a list of the things in the guidance on which they consulted which they already know they are going to drop. He did some of that in an earlier debate, and if he could bring himself to repeat some of those things it would be good to do so now. But the lesson to be learnt is that huge care must be taken with the guidance, because that will determine whether the Act provides the kind of strengthened Prevent which we would all like to see, or whether it will have what is known as blowback. That must be avoided. So I hope that the Minister will take away from this experience, painful though it may have been, the feeling that the guidance is the heart of it, and that an awful lot of care needs to be taken, because things were not very well done in the guidance which was consulted on.
As for our discussion a few minutes ago, I can see that the noble Lord is pretty desperate not to concede that there should be another formal consultation, and he has avoided doing that, but I honestly think that when Ministers have cleared their minds about what they want to put in the guidance, they will be extremely well advised to contact universities—not necessarily every one of them—to see whether they have got it about right in terms of both practicality and freedom of expression and academic freedom. If they do not do that, the risks of blowback are considerable.
I hope that the noble Lord will draw from this experience first, the feeling that we are grateful to him for tabling the amendment but, secondly, that it is still all to play for as to whether this works.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, several groupings of amendments today and previously have called for quite a tour de force from my noble friend to respond. The House is very well aware of that and grateful to him for that, and for his openness to discussing the measures in the Bill. If I may say so, in the Modern Slavery Bill, too, he has set an extraordinarily high standard at the very end of the Parliament.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, in my first point. My noble friend can take this as a comment or a question, as he feels most comfortable. My point is about further consultation. Such a strength of feeling has been shown in the debate on guidance that clearly the best outcome would be another round of consultation with the organisations concerned. The second best would be informal discussions between my noble friend and those who have expressed particular concern.
That takes me to my second point. I am well aware of the Government’s wish to move this along very quickly. My noble friend mentioned the commencement of Clause 28. I take that to mean that the guidance will follow shortly. People will be reading this debate in Hansard. They may have given up by this point, but some will have stuck it and will want to know when the guidance will be issued so that there will be a debate about it. If the Minister can say any more about the timing, that will be very useful to people outside the House.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, I have one more technical question to ask the Minister; I have given him notice of it. His Amendment 14E starts by saying:
“Guidance issued under subsection (1) takes effect on whatever day the Secretary of State appoints”—
so it appears to start by saying that this is solely about the timing of when the guidance should be brought into effect. But the second part of the amendment is technical, stating:
“A statutory instrument containing regulations … may not be made unless”,
it is approved by both Houses.
That seems a very odd way to put the fact that the guidance is to be approved as to content as well as the timing of its coming into effect. It would have been much happier if the provision had said at the start explicitly that not only is the guidance taking effect on the day set out in the regulations, but that the content will be laid before Parliament.
One can erect a technical, logical argument that the content must be included within the timing, so to speak, but as this is so important, I would be most grateful if the Minister can confirm that Amendment 14E as drafted is intended to mean that both Houses of Parliament must affirmatively approve the content as well as the timing of the guidance.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. We thank the Minister for the meetings we have had with him on the Prevent guidance, and also for his words about the important contribution of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon. We also thank the Government for responding positively to the arguments we and other noble Lords have made for the Prevent guidance and any future revisions to be subject to the affirmative procedure. Clearly the guidance will be crucial, and hopefully in drawing up that guidance following the conclusion of the consultation the Government will take full note of the views that have been expressed.
In Committee my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon asked what action was proposed to counter radicalism, recruitment and grooming online, and said that this did not seem to be catered for in the guidance which at that time was out for consultation. I ask the Minister if this issue of online radicalisation will be covered in the guidance.
Finally, the Government wish to extend the duty to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism so that it covers three and four year-olds in nurseries nationwide. Will the Government respond to another question put in Committee by my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, by at some stage providing information on how many nurseries, preschool providers and childminders had access to the Prevent guidance consultation document and were aware that they could respond? How many in this group did respond, and in what vein?
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful for the wide welcome which the amendments have received from your Lordships. I can well understand that noble Lords want to hear more about the consultation that we had. The consultation finished on Friday, and we are now three working days in. I am blessed not only with a first-class colleague on the Front Bench in my noble friend Lord Ashton, but also with an outstanding Bill team behind me. However, even they might struggle to evaluate the 1,700 responses that have been received thus far in such a short period of time. I also know that there is a slight uneasiness—and quite rightly so—about my pre-empting the consultation outcome, as I did in Committee in relation to the provisions on advance notice of speakers. I probably should not go too much further down that route. However, this again is part of the process and part of the consultation. We will take this debate into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about online safety. In paragraphs 68 and 69 on page 20 of the consultation document there is a provision which asks people to look at safety online. I also agree that the guidance will be absolutely critical in making sure that we get the right message across. We need to avoid a situation in which people see this as something which they have to fear as clamping down on freedom. They need to see it as good practice in ensuring not only the safety of their campus, but also the safety and security of our wider society. With that, I am happy to move my amendment, and I invite my noble friends not to move Amendment 14F.
Lord Bates
“( ) When issuing guidance under this section in relation to universities and other higher education institutions, the Secretary of State shall have due regard to the principle of academic freedom and to the matters specified in section 202(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988 (the university commissioners).”
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, in moving Amendment 15A, I shall speak also to Amendment 15C in my name and that of other members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, two of whom apologised that they had to leave. Amendments 15A and 15C together would require the Secretary of State to have due regard to the principle of academic freedom, as already recognised by Parliament in Section 202(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988, when issuing guidance or directions under this section. It was quoted earlier, but I remind noble Lords that it includes a duty,
“to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions”.
I believe that it was inserted by your Lordships' House and it would be appropriate if we were to do the same now.
I would argue that Amendments 15A and 15C are perfectly compatible with the Government’s own Amendment 15D. They would simply add to it by making explicit reference to the important duty to uphold academic freedom in the 1988 Act, which is currently missing. This is a duty that is very important to academics, as it puts flesh and bones in the context of higher education on to the more abstract duty of freedom of speech contained in the 1986 Act and referred to in the Government’s own amendment.
I think that we have all been guilty at times of conflating the two principles of freedom of speech and academic freedom. If I may say so, the Minister does so in his letter of 3 February to me and other noble Lords—and here I thank him for finding a few minutes yesterday to discuss the amendments with me. The letter refers to the impact that the Prevent duty might have on academic freedom of speech. Although the two principles overlap, there is also a clear distinction, which it is important to understand because it is at the heart of why the amendments matter. Here, I have to part company with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is not in his place, when he suggested that one necessarily implies the other.
While I have always counselled my students against relying on Wikipedia, on the principle of “do as I say” rather than “do as I do”, I turn to it now because it provides a helpful working definition of academic freedom. It says that it is,
“the belief that the freedom of inquiry by faculty members is essential to the mission of the academy as well as the principles of academia, and that scholars should have freedom to teach or communicate ideas or facts (including those that are inconvenient to external political groups or to authorities)”.
It spells out:
“Academic freedom and free speech rights are not coextensive … Academic freedom involves more than speech rights; for example, it includes the right to determine what is taught in the classroom”.
In Committee, I illustrated my worries by citing a discussion of the Charlie Hebdo attack that colleagues instigated, open to all staff and students in my school at Loughborough University. What was at issue here was not so much the freedom of speech of staff and students as the academic freedom to feel safe to instigate such a discussion that might be interpreted as potentially drawing some students towards ideas that conceivably might lead them towards violent terrorism. If the duty to uphold academic freedom as well as freedom of speech was written into the Bill itself, it would, I hope, give some assurance to both lecturers and students that it is still safe to have such controversial discussions. If it is not written in, I fear a chilling effect on both—lecturers playing safe and not instigating debate on such controversial topics related to terrorism, or something like it, because of feeling pressure from university management not to take risks of this kind, and/or students feeling afraid to engage honestly and openly. This would then have the counterproductive effect, which was discussed quite a lot in Committee, of pushing extremist views underground rather than allowing staff and students to discuss them critically. Indeed, a Hansard Society student on placement with me put it very well. He said, “You prevent the peers of the extremists from engaging with them and you cripple their ability to persuade them to abandon extremist views”. Earlier, that point was made very eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, who are not in their places.
I will also illustrate the point with reference to the draft guidance. Paragraph 57, for example, makes it clear that the Home Office expects universities to carry out a risk assessment of where and how their students might be at risk of being drawn into not just violent extremism but non-violent extremism, which, as Universities UK has consistently pointed out, is not generally unlawful. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, earlier referred to this bit of the guidance as hopeless. It is easy to see how in a university with risk-averse management—which is probably true of much of university management these days—this could translate into pressure on individual academics not to offer certain courses or lectures or to pursue certain research grant applications, or to discourage certain topics of inquiry by doctoral students.
The Government’s free speech amendment is helpful in relation to the draft guidance in so far as it refers to visiting speakers and events but it does not address the academic freedom issues that are the stuff of everyday academic life as lived and breathed by academics and students. Robert Moretto’s legal advice, to which I referred in our earlier debate, suggests that, as currently drafted, the guidance “seeks to avoid” the kinds of issues raised by the tension between the Prevent duty and existing freedom of speech and academic freedom duties of such concern to noble Lords. It therefore gives the individual academic little clarity. The Government’s amendment goes some way towards providing that clarity but I suggest that if the Minister could go away and come back at Third Reading with something that incorporated these amendments too, it would do the job even better.
Because of the tight timescale with fast-tracking, it has not been possible to have the kind of more in-depth informal discussion that would have been normal between the stages of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon has already referred to the problems that this has created. I think that the problems have been as much for the Minister and his team as for anyone else. It would be such a shame if, for this practical reason, we lost the opportunity to strengthen the Bill in a way that I believe is totally compatible with the Government’s aims.
If the Minister felt able to go a bit further—again, I appreciate how far he has already moved on this part of the Bill—it would give some reassurance to the academic community who are so anxious about this Bill and who I fear will have been very disappointed at the outcome of the debate on the second group of amendments. I beseech the Minister to be as flexible as possible, but if it really is impossible will he at least commit to ensuring that the guidance states that due regard must be had to the principle of academic freedom as recognised in the Education Reform Act 1988, although this does not address the question of directives, as these amendments do. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on Amendments 15A and 15C, to which I have added my name. I thank the Minister for listening and for giving effect through his new amendments to at least part of the arguments which we raised on freedom of speech in the context of the Prevent duty in Part 5. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, there remains the issue of academic freedom, which was discussed in the debate on the earlier group.
Academic freedom was given statutory protection under Section 202 of the Education Reform Act. It imposes a duty on university commissioners to,
“have regard to the need … to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions”.
This protection is vitally important to academics. There can be no doubt that policies, opinions and even moral values change, and with those changes come the need to challenge existing wisdom and to seek new ways and new processes within the law.
We see that particularly in university teaching and research, where the good academic enthuses his or her students through proper exposure to their research, often in ground-breaking areas where the conventional wisdoms no longer provide the necessary answers. Academics need the freedom to bring into their lecture theatres voices and ideas which may even offend received wisdom and the necessary challenge can then take place. Above all, they need to be sure that in pushing the boundaries for the common good they do not place in peril their livelihoods and their careers.
These amendments are of the utmost importance. Some 540 of the UK’s most senior academics signed a letter in Tuesday’s Guardian warning that the Bill would place an unlawful and unenforceable duty on universities. They call for the Government to take steps to ensure that academic freedom remains uncompromised by efforts to tackle extremism in the UK. I hope that the Minister will accept that Amendments 15A and 15C would enhance the proposed arrangements in respect of the Secretary of State’s guidance and directions to universities in the context of the Prevent duty and would protect academic freedom while not hindering the very proper fight against terrorism.
The amendments would give assurance to academics, young and old, in the work they must do, which can be both brave and challenging, and I would like noble Lords to look at some of that work. It is not easy to challenge what may be received wisdom in communities which have been radicalised, but equally it is not easy to challenge received wisdom in communities where there is an illusion but not the reality of democracy. I am sure noble Lords know where I am going: I am going to Northern Ireland.
In the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, the Northern Ireland civil rights movement, and ultimately the universities, played a profoundly important role in challenging the status quo in Northern Ireland using non-violent methods. I wish to refer noble Lords to a description of non-violent methods for this purpose. It states that,
“non-violent extremism … can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views which terrorists exploit”.
For decades there were those in the universities and colleges who said that Bloody Sunday was a tragedy and an outrage and that the Government of the United Kingdom, in the publication of the report on the atrocities of Bloody Sunday, had done a terribly wrong thing. That was, if you like, a challenge to democracy as it stood at the time, and those academics were sometimes in a difficult place. There is no doubt that the articulation of the fact that the Bloody Sunday shootings were unlawful may well have been used as a justification for violence by those who subsequently went to violence and extremism of the most violent kind, but that does not mean that the efforts by academics to bring these matters to the attention of society and to have the truth told should have been condemned and prevented because they might have drawn people into terrorism. There is something more fundamental at stake here.
Noble Lords also know of the allegations of wrongdoing on Iraq and our entry into the war in Iraq. You could argue that the identification of what happened that led us into the Iraq conflict and brought us out of it, leaving a serious state of disarray and a huge tragedy behind it, was wrong—we await the report of the Chilcot inquiry—but you could also argue that the challenge of going into the war in Iraq, which many noble Lords opposed, and what happened in Iraq was a justified challenge, and yet it may well have given rise to a justification for extremism even in this country.
The essence of freedom of speech and freedom of expression and academic freedom is that the truth will be protected and cherished, and that people will have the right to say things which even Governments find very difficult to take and which ultimately may be proved to be true.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 15B in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Brinton, Lady Williams and Lady Hamwee. Before speaking to that amendment I would like to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments that have been put forward by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady O’Loan. If the Minister is going to think again about his amendment, I hope that he can find some way of incorporating these thoughts into that amendment. I realise that, as it stands, it covers guidance. The issue that we are coming on to, which is the issuing of directions, carries that forward and has a much more direct challenge to the autonomy of universities than the issuing of guidance.
The other amendment is directed entirely to Clause 29, which gives the Home Secretary the power to direct any authority, including universities and other educational institutions, to issue a direction if she is not satisfied that the authority has been discharging its duty under Clause 25(1).
We discussed this at considerable length in Committee and I do not want to repeat the arguments that we rehearsed at that stage. The Minister in reply to that discussion stressed that this was in every way a last resort power which it was hoped would hardly, if ever, be used. He suggested that perhaps it was just there in the background to try to make sure that people took the guidance seriously. Nevertheless, considerable disquiet remains about its possible usage. This probing amendment seeks to clarify the procedures which might be used. It seeks to ensure that the Government inform the authority of any direction that they are minded to make, and that the authority concerned should have the opportunity to make representations before any final decisions are made to issue such a direction. It also seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State will consider those representations before making the final decision. It seems natural justice that, where such a last resort power is used, the institutions concerned should have a chance to know why the power is being used and to make their own case against it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, if the Minister is not prepared to accept Amendment 15B, can he assure the House that a direction that has been issued would be subject to judicial review and, in the consideration of the judicial review, that the court would bear very much in mind whether a proper opportunity had been given to the university concerned to consider the complaint and to make representations about it? If that were an assurance from the Dispatch Box, I think that the amendment would no longer be necessary.
Baroness Williams of Crosby
My Lords, I have one short point, which has not been raised before, to add to this part of the debate. We now have in this country approaching 100,000 overseas students, a high proportion of whom—about one-third—come from China. A directive from a Minister to a university, as perceived by an overseas student from China, would be very close to being a government censure on that university. The amendment moved by my noble friend at least gives an opportunity for a university to set out why it has refused to take the action that the Secretary of State has enjoined it to, and to explain whether this is a relatively minor aberration or a serious defiance of the directions that the university has been given. That really could be quite important in terms of the attraction to students coming from overseas countries, especially those that have—shall we put it like this?—rather coercive Governments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I particularly want to look at Amendments 15A and 15C in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady O’Loan, Lady Buscombe and Lady Kennedy. This seems to be very similar to the debate we had earlier, and to the ones we had last week and at Second Reading, about how we define academic freedom and freedom of speech. My impression from listening to what the Minister has had to say in responding and from what I think he intended by his amendment—my noble friend Lady Lister made this point—is that this is about looking at those things together, as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I think, made the point that he took the Minister’s amendment—Amendment 15D—to incorporate academic freedom as well as freedom of speech. So our discussion here, in some ways, is not about the principle—I think the Minister has made clear his view on the principle of this—but about making sure that the detailed legislation is correct.
I must say that I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, about what the consequences of that could be. I do not think it would prevent a discussion of the origins of the Troubles in Northern Ireland or that it would have those dire consequences. However, the perception among some academics that it may do is quite worrying.
Baroness O'Loan
If a university has a group of people who want to hold a meeting, or if an academic wants to bring a speaker in, and the purpose is to challenge vociferously something which the Government have done, could that not conceivably constitute non-violent extremism? Could the university not, under the directions to be issued by the Secretary of State, find itself in a position where it has to determine whether or not it allowed that meeting to take place? That is all I was saying.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
It is quite a leap to say that a challenge to the Government automatically becomes something extreme. We are challenging the Government here today in terms of the debate we are having but, from what the Minister has been saying during this debate, that challenge to the Government is not being seen as extremism at any point. However, my noble friend Lady Lister made the point about the perception among academics of their freedom being curtailed. My noble friend was very clear in her comments about what she was seeking: to be absolutely clear in the Bill, or if need be in guidance, about that academic freedom and about the need, as quoted in the Education Reform Act 1988,
“to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law”—
as was said earlier, all freedom of speech is qualified within the law—
“to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions”.
I do not think, from what the Minister is saying, that he wants in any way to curtail that. This seems to be largely a technical point and one that, I hope, can be easily resolved. I hope he will address it in comments that he makes today. Perhaps he will be able to take it away and reflect on it or, indeed, ensure that it will be in guidance. However, some reflection on this point, which seems to me to be entirely compatible with his Amendment 15D, would be very helpful.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I will just deal with a few points from this debate. This group of amendments deals with Clauses 28 and 29. I will refer first to Clause 28, particularly the now amended subsection (4A). The point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who asked whether it would be possible for the affirmative resolution, which is coming forward on the guidance, to cover more than just the date when it will be brought in, which was one reading of the amendment. I confirm, of course, that it will cover both the date and the content of the guidance. We recognise that that is a very important part. It is not clever wording trying to curtail debate. We recognise that that is the intent and I wanted to take the opportunity before we leave Clause 28 to put that on the record.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in moving her amendment, asked that the Secretary of State,
“have due regard to the principle of academic freedom”,
when issuing guidance or giving direction. We have already amended the Bill to ensure that particular regard is paid by the Secretary of State to the duty to secure freedom of speech in higher and further education, as set out in Section 43 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. The interplay between the duty in that Act and the principle of academic freedom set out in Section 202(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988 is an interesting one.
The Education Reform Act defines academic freedom as, in particular, the ability for academic staff to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have at their institutions. I well acknowledge the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, who told us very powerfully in earlier stages of the Bill about the rigours of actually teaching constitutional government—I think it was—in Northern Ireland during the time of the Troubles. We accept that what is described here is effectively a subset of freedom of speech which higher and further education institutions have a duty to secure through Section 43 of the 1986 Act.
Furthermore, I note that the 1986 Act extends the duty to secure freedom of speech not only to academic staff but also to employees, students—to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred—and visitors. It covers both higher and further education institutions, whereas the matters referred to in Section 202 of the 1988 Act are only pertinent to the academic staff of universities.
Without going any further at this stage, I would like to reflect on what the noble Baroness said, without saying anything binding. I certainly understand where she is coming from, if it is a matter of interpretation. We just need to check that with lawyers. If she is willing not to press that amendment, I will certainly give an undertaking to look at it again and perhaps come back with some comments at Third Reading.
I turn now to Amendment 15B in the name of my noble friend Lady Sharp, which would require the Secretary of State, prior to making a direction, to inform the authority of that intention and to give the authority the opportunity to make representations before the direction is made. Any decision made by the Secretary of State must be reasonable and proportionate. In most circumstances, this would require only the steps outlined; so in that sense, we believe that this amendment is not necessary. I can also assure the House once again that it is the Secretary of State’s intention, as a matter of policy, to use this power only as a last resort, when other means of securing compliance through discussions with the authorities—who will be at liberty to make representations at that stage—have been exhausted. I should also reiterate that both the Prevent oversight board, on which our noble friend Lord Carlile sits, and the courts—to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—will play a role in the process of giving and enforcing such a direction.
To clarify, we do not want, as it were, to run to the bottom line on this point of the direction. It is a necessary consequence of making statutory the requirement to have due regard that there must be some legal doorstop. If people refuse to abide by the law then, just as with any other law, ultimately it trickles down to the court and might end up in contempt of court. We recognise that we are treading on very sensitive ground here. I am sure that all Secretaries of State will weigh that very carefully. Also, they must have particular regard when issuing that direction to the freedoms outlined in the 1986 Act.
With that reassurance to my noble friend and the promise to reflect on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I ask noble Lords to consider not pressing their amendments at this stage.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of Amendments 15A and 15C, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. Her experience in Northern Ireland is very relevant to our discussions and throws real light on what is at issue here. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Smith, although I do not think that anyone is saying that this would necessarily cause that effect. This is the whole concept of the chilling effect: it is about perception and what people fear. I will not go into the phenomenology and so forth, but perceptions become reality because that is how people think. The chilling effect is very real.
I am most grateful to the Minister. I could not, because of the breakneck speed at which we must go through this, really ask for more than that he is prepared to go away and reflect. I accept that it is not binding. However, I trust that he will look very seriously to see what might be possible to come back with at Third Reading. I am very grateful to him. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bates
“Freedom of expression in universities etc
(1) This section applies to a specified authority if it is the proprietor or governing body of—
(a) an institution that provides further education (within the meaning given by section 2(3) of the Education Act 1996), or(b) an institution that provides courses of higher education (within the meaning given by section 579(1) of that Act).(2) When carrying out the duty imposed by section 25(1), a specified authority to which this section applies must, if subject to the duty imposed by section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (freedom of speech in universities etc), have particular regard to it.
(3) In relation to specified authorities that are subject to that duty, the Secretary of State must have particular regard to it—
(a) when issuing guidance under section 28;(b) when considering whether to give directions under section 29.”
Lord Bates
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 15G, 15H and 15J. I referred at the start of this afternoon to the infrastructure which goes along with the statutory duty created by this Bill—the bureaucracy, cost and so on. I do not underestimate or undervalue the negative impact to which I also referred earlier. I read then a part of the response to the consultation on the draft guidance from the London Borough of Sutton. It also referred to descriptions of working across borough boundaries. That made me realise that the legislation may not reflect the current realities of the way local government works.
Sutton talks about sharing,
“a great deal of information and planning with neighbouring boroughs around risk and consequent Channel planning ... This cross border risk identification and consequent planning is not considered in the guidance”.
It goes on to talk about training, and about,
“‘borrowing’ a Police Prevent Engagement Officer (PEO) from the Police in a neighbouring Borough. There is no PEO allocated to Sutton”.
It continues:
“It would clearly be impossible to provide the frontline training for staff in local authorities and education institutions and organisations suggested in the guidance without significant additional funding”.
I shall come to that on the next group of amendments, when I will talk about collaboration in training.
That is a response to the guidance, but should there be something in the Bill? Local authorities are increasingly sharing back office functions, and indeed some front office functions as well. Children’s services and adoption services may be shared, as may any number of services. So should a local authority have “a panel … in place”, as Clause 34(1) requires? I suggest that a panel should be “available” instead. An authority should have access to a panel. It would still have the duty; it would not be avoiding responsibility. But as the clause is worded, would each authority be required to have its own panel? I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that local authorities can share functions as I have described.
Clause 34 is about Channel, whereas the previous chapter dealt with Prevent. The point comes up here, so can the Minister confirm that guidance will allow for cross-border as well as multi-agency working? I suppose the bottom line is that the Bill should not actually make cross-border arrangements of this sort ultra vires. If that can be dealt with in guidance, fine. But as the Minister is going to be reflecting so much over the next two or three days, perhaps he could get somebody else to reflect on that point—because if we lose the opportunity to make it clear in the Bill, we shall be in trouble.
In relation to Amendment 15G, my noble friend Lord Carlile drew attention to the need to recognise that when we talk about housing providers, we do not usually mean local authorities. He mentioned the Peabody trust, I think, as probably having the most social housing in London. He mentioned a point that had not previously occurred to me, about recognising the knowledge that housing providers have of their tenants, and the important role that they can therefore play. Understandably, having heard those comments, the Minister answered in terms of the panel. But I am not so concerned about that, because Clause 35(4) provides for co-option. It does not use that term, but that is what it amounts to: there can be appointed,
“such … persons as the … local authority considers appropriate”.
It could therefore appoint a representative of the housing providers.
The amendment, which is the same as the one to which I spoke in Committee, is about the support to be provided to, or required by, an individual. Clause 34 deals with the support that the panel can provide or facilitate, and subsection (5) deals in general terms with the support plan. There is no mention of specific services in it, so housing could be read as being included in those arrangements. However, subsection (6) applies when,
“a panel determines that support should not be given”,
and is considering,
“whether the individual ought to be referred to a provider of any health or social care services”.
Why is that reference so narrow? There must be other relevant services, and I would have thought that housing was pretty obviously one of those. Stable accommodation plays an important role in stabilising someone who has a chaotic or difficult life. I have referred to “other” services because there seems to be no reason to limit the clause, as drafted. The clause does not require the provision of any services; what it requires is the consideration of whether an individual should be referred, and the arrangements to refer him. If there is no positive reason to limit the clause, I am bothered that the Government may be quite unnecessarily depriving the local authority of a tool that it could use.
I hope that, at the very least, the Minister can take this on board. Earlier today, somebody said, “I hope the Minister will go away”, and then there was a pause; let me put it as hoping that he will take away the possibility of guidance covering this issue. Similarly with my earlier point, the point here is that the Bill should contain an assurance that other referrals are within the powers of the panel. I do not read it that way, but I am happy to defer to those who are more skilled in interpreting what legislation actually means. This is another vires point, and I beg to move.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends for tabling these amendments and allowing us to return to the measures in Chapter 2 of Part 5, relating to programmes to support individuals at risk of being drawn into terrorism. Of course in England and Wales, these provisions relate to the existing Channel programme, which we are putting on a statutory basis. My noble friends’ contributions have benefited from great experience of local government and I will seek to address the issues raised by their amendments.
Amendment 15F relates to the duty requiring each local authority to ensure that a panel is “in place” for its area to provide support to people identified as being vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. The amendment would substitute “available” for the current term “in place”, aiming to ensure that there is flexibility to allow for panels to be in place for combined local authority areas. I hope that I can reassure my noble friend that this amendment is, in reality, unnecessary because Clause 39(3) already provides for one panel in a local authority area to serve multiple local authorities. Local authorities have the flexibility to determine whether to run their own panel or conduct panels with one or more other local authorities.
Amendments 15H and 15J would add to the list of members of a panel any other local authority which was “served by the panel”. I assure my noble friend that the intention here is that some authorities may wish to co-operate by having one panel serving a number of areas and, in those circumstances, would want to ensure attendance by all the local authorities concerned. In certain areas this may be the most suitable approach, and the Government would support this. As I have said, Clause 39(3) already ensures that the panel must include a member from each local authority and each police force where a panel serves more than one area. In addition, the proposed legislation already anticipates other local authorities sitting on a panel by listing them in Schedule 7 as partners to the panel. This means that they are subject to the duty to co-operate with the panels under Clause 36. These additional local authorities would most certainly be invited to attend if a person from their area was under discussion.
Amendment 15G would add “housing” to the list of additional services to which a panel should consider making an onward referral if it was considered that support from the panel was inappropriate. This follows up on a point made by my noble friend Lord Carlile when we debated these clauses in Committee. There are of course many types of support which a panel could consider in these circumstances. I reassure noble Lords that the guidance which will be produced specifically mentions housing as one of these.
My noble friend asked, “Do housing providers attend Channel panels?”. The answer is yes. In Westminster local authority housing advisers have attended Channel panels where appropriate. This is particularly important where vulnerable individuals have already been allocated social housing. For matters concerning new allocations it is the responsibility of the local authority to take this forward. In relation to the Bill, it seems more appropriate to confine the list to those types of support most essential to safeguard health and immediate welfare.
I hope that my noble friend is satisfied with the explanation that has been put on the record and that I will not have to take the amendment away to think again. Perhaps she can reflect on this and withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
Before my noble friend sits down, I should say that he referred to Clause 39, where the reference is to the “combined area”. I intended my questions to be rather broader than the combined area—where authorities collaborate to provide particular services and activities. As I understand the term—and I may be wrong in this—that does not amount to a combined area. More current experience in local government indicates that I may be right. I took my examples from the response of the London Borough of Sutton. I did not name it, but it was talking about working in collaboration with Croydon. I think both Croydon and Sutton would be pretty surprised if they were thought to be a combined area. I am prepared to reflect, but I am trying to give my noble friend an opportunity to respond, since he has not sat down yet—in the House of Lords parlance.
Lord Bates
Of course we will look again at any suggestions, particular one coming from the borough of Sutton. We are saying that, where the duty applies, and the Channel panel covers a number of local authority areas, they would be deemed combined for the purposes of the Channel programme. I am happy to look at that and perhaps it is something about which I can write to my noble friend, though I may not need to do so. Co-operation between local authority officers would be permissible, not just in combined areas. Local authorities could co-operate; “combined” is a specific term and it would cover those areas too.
Baroness Hamwee
“Costs of prevention and of local panels
As soon as practicable after the end of each financial year the Secretary of State shall report to Parliament the costs incurred by local authorities and other specified authorities attributable to compliance with the duties under sections 25 and 34, and what specific grant has been made by the Secretary of State to meet those costs.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have referred previously to the cost of the statutory duties—in relation not just to the substance, but to the infrastructure built by the Bill. This amendment refers both to,
“local authorities and other specified authorities”,
but I particularly had in mind local authorities. I am not sure that I have yet done so, but I declare an interest in that I am joint president of London Councils.
I have previously mentioned the “new burdens” principle, which might be expected to apply to these activities, and I have previously referred to some of the costs which have been estimated by the Government. London Councils is unconvinced by these.
My noble friend Lord Scriven will speak to this amendment, so I shall simply explain that, as a way of drawing attention to the costs, the amendment proposes an annual report to Parliament by the Secretary of State. The matter could be included in a report dealing with other matters. Maybe there should be some prospective reporting of the costs anticipated to be incurred.
On the first day of Report, I think it was, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, referred to the refusals to disclose money allocated to the Metropolitan Police for counterterrorism for security reasons, though, as he observed, some detail of that budget eventually comes into the public domain as it is scrutinised by the London Assembly. I used to chair the Assembly’s budget committee, so I remember all that.
There should be as much transparency in this area as possible. There is a lot of concern about the costs and, in any event, what money is spent on what is a matter of public interest. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee, and I thank the Minister for guiding the Bill so ably and patiently through the House. I am aware of the time, so I will try not to keep the House too long.
Until now, the debate has been about putting on to a statutory footing the powers that some specified organisations will have and some that they will not. The Minister, along with others who support this going on to a statutory footing, has indicated that this is to bring the rest up to the standard of the best. I know, as I am sure do many people who have had responsibility for public service and budgets, that bringing things up to the best does not necessarily mean being able to do it on the cheap; there is a cost associated with it.
Evidence has come from a number of organisations. In my former life as leader of a council, I was not one who participated in the Oliver Twist-type approach to budgeting by always asking for “more, please”; that is not the approach. However, when new burdens or new statutory responsibilities are being put on an organisation, it is only fair that it is adequately funded for those. As I say, evidence has come from a number of sources in the past couple of months about putting this on to a statutory footing—for example, from the Quilliam Foundation, the Local Government Association and a number of local authorities. More revealingly, the Audit Commission, when it did a report on Prevent in 2008-09, made it clear that resources were needed if this was going to be done effectively and efficiently. I assume that the Minister and the Government want to see this being done in that way.
It would be worth looking at the fact that historically something in the region of £140 million per year, or even more, was previously allocated to Prevent, and large cities were getting somewhere in the region of £600,000 per annum to deal with Prevent issues. I always go to impact assessments because they are very revealing, and I notice that in this one the Department for Communities and Local Government indicates that authorities will need somewhere between £4,000 and £40,000. Past evidence suggests that to do this to the best, large authorities need somewhere in the region of £600,000. It is telling that the impact assessment says that we do not have complete data on all the specified authorities that will be affected, and that is why there may be a discrepancy.
Manchester City Council, in a report that went to its cabinet only a few months ago, highlights specifically the financial burden that this is now having on a city such as Manchester, and says clearly that it cannot be sustained at its present level. So there is evidence historically; there are people who are not providers, or not public statutory bodies, such as the Quilliam Foundation, and existing providers of Prevent, who are saying that resources will be needed.
The London Borough of Sutton has done some work on the consultation and says that for such a borough, somewhere between £50,000 and £60,000 would be required for a Prevent co-ordinator—looking at local government, that is about the rate that such people are paid. Somewhere in the region of £250,000 would be required for new interventions, based on best practice from Wandsworth. Sutton also anticipates somewhere in the region of a £150,000 per annum increase in capacity for core safeguarding work, child protection and early work interventions.
This is not cheap. This is not work, if we are going to do it effectively, that can be done with existing resources; that is becoming very clear. The cost from Sutton does not include some of the extra work needed for administration and, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee suggested, some of the extra work needed for looking cross-border at a larger area.
Staff training is a full duty within the guidance. I quote from paragraph 37, which states:
“Local authorities will be expected to ensure that frontline staff have a good understanding of Prevent, are trained to recognise vulnerability to being drawn into terrorism and are aware of available programmes to deal with this issue”.
Staff training in itself will run into many hundreds of thousands of pounds for large authorities. Some of them have between 8,000 and 10,000 staff. The impact assessment states that it will cost £62 for 20 members of staff trained. For a local authority with between 8,000 and 10,000 front-line staff, as some of our large metropolitan authorities have, it will mean £31,000 to carry out just one section of the guidance. That is a significant cost.
I suggest that the duties placed on the public sector will be far more than the anticipated £10 million to £14 million per annum that the impact assessment suggests. I will give one example of why the figures are completely inadequate. Staff training is anticipated in the impact assessment to require an allocation by government of £300,000 per annum. There are 254,000 staff employed by the public sector in the north-east region. Assuming that only 50% of those are front-line staff, that is more than £300,000 per annum. Yet £300,000 per annum is being given for the whole country for staff training.
The amendment tries to get a commitment that, if we are going to go down the route of putting this onto a statutory footing and we want to make sure that local public bodies carry out best practice, adequate funding is provided. If not, the Government’s target of meeting best practice will not be achieved. Resources will not be available, particularly in the present climate in terms of public sector resources. So I ask the Minister the questions asked by my noble friend Lady Hamwee: will new burdens apply to the new duties that are to be put on the public sector, and will money be put forward annually, as the amendment says, before Parliament, so that local authorities and other public bodies locally will be compensated for the duties they will have under a statutory footing?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I have a very brief comment. I listened with great interest to the noble Lord’s comments. I think he was right to ask those questions, and I am sure he shares my concern that the coalition Government cut substantial funding from Prevent, so fewer local authorities have benefited in the past couple of years. There are questions to be asked of the Minister because Prevent is very important. We recognise that by making it statutory, but I regret the cuts the coalition Government have made to the Prevent programme.
Lord Bates
My Lords, in considering these amendments, I defer to the extensive and detailed local government expertise of my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Scriven. Before I respond to the specifics of the amendment, I repeat that in relation to the Channel guidance, we are consulting local authorities and specifically Channel panel chairs. We would be very happy to consult London Councils—Sutton was mentioned in particular—to take account of their views and concerns and to address them in any guidance that is issued. If other local authorities feel the same, that would be welcomed.
Amendment 15K concerns the costs of implementing the duties in Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 5. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the costs incurred by specified authorities and on the grant made to meet those costs. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has already announced £130 million of extra resource over this year and next to meet the increased terrorist threat from Syria and Iraq. Some of this funding has been earmarked for the implementation of the duty in the chapter. I am not trying to suggest that it is all going there. The vast majority, I think, is heading towards the security services for technology capability.
Channel panels already exist in all areas of England and Wales. Under existing arrangements, which should not change in practice as a result of this legislation, the Home Office provides funding for Channel police practitioners who co-ordinate activity in organising cases and supporting panels. Each of the nine police regions receives funding to support the Channel programme. For national security reasons, we do not publicly provide a breakdown of police counterterrorism spend by individual projects, capabilities, work streams or police force areas. Disclosure could identify areas where the threat to the national security of the UK is greatest and where there are vulnerabilities in different regions and capabilities. I hope that that helps in some way to explain the reasons behind this.
The Home Office also funds theological and ideological interventions—so that which is not provided by the local authorities is provided by the Home Office. We therefore do not consider that local authorities should incur extra costs as a result of the implementation of this chapter. Any statutory services provided would be met through existing funding.
Lord Scriven
The impact assessment states that extra work will happen because of the statutory duty, so the Government have made very clear that extra costs, not just to local authorities but to other statutory bodies within local areas, will be brought about by the new statutory duties. I am not clear what to follow as the specific guidance: the answer that the Minister is helpfully trying to give or the Government’s impact assessment, which is very clear about extra costs being associated with these new statutory duties—not just for local authorities but for other statutory bodies as well.
Lord Bates
I am happy to look at that. We are consulting on this. A little bit like the discussion we had on universities and higher education earlier on, it might be the case that there is some misunderstanding about the level of the duty which will be required as a result of this new law. That is the reason why the consultation will be very helpful. It is something that I will take away and reflect back on, and also feed back to colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government in relation to this, with whom we work closely. I will also perhaps write to the noble Lord with a little more information if I can. In the mean time, if the noble Baroness would be willing to withdraw her amendment, I would be grateful.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I, too, am bemused about whether this is a new burden or whether the cost will be nil. I do not have the impact assessment with me, but looking back at the costs that I quoted in Committee on 28 January, I see that I referred to the impact assessment estimating that the total cost of the measures for England and Wales would be around £40 million, although within that, the cost of placing Channel panels on a statutory footing has been estimated at nil. Perhaps everybody is right. I am also bemused at the figure of £62 to train 10 staff. That seems remarkably little. I presume that it covers the trainer and the time of the staff being trained. My noble friend and I have both been quoting Sutton because we have had the material to help us. It is certainly right to say that in terms of London boroughs, Sutton is a small borough.
I am grateful to my noble friend for agreeing to make sure that at least the information that has been put out is correct and that there are no queries hanging over that, and particularly for his offer to consult with the umbrella organisation London Councils. I have no doubt that this topic is one which will be raised repeatedly in conversations between local authorities and DCLG, as well as with the Home Office, but I am glad to have had the opportunity to air this, and it is important that the points made by my noble friend have got out into the open. I am sorry, I am not suggesting that there has been any attempt not to reveal anything. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“Reviews of operation of Part 1 etc
(1) The person appointed under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 (“the independent reviewer”) is also responsible for reviewing the operation of the provisions listed in subsection (2).
(2) The provisions are—
(a) Part 1 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001;(b) Part 2 of that Act as it applies in cases where a use or threat of the action referred to in section 4(2) of that Act would constitute terrorism;(c) the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008;(d) Part 1 of this Act.(3) In each calendar year the independent reviewer must, by 31 January, inform the Secretary of State and the Treasury what (if any) reviews under this section the reviewer intends to carry out in that year.
Those reviews must be completed during that year or as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of it.(4) The independent reviewer must send to the Secretary of State a report on the outcome of each review as soon as reasonably practicable after the review is completed.
(5) On receiving a report under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must lay a copy of it before Parliament.
(6) The expenses and allowances that may be paid under section 36(6) of the Terrorism Act 2006 include expenses and allowances in respect of functions under this section.
(7) In this section “terrorism” has the same meaning as in the Terrorism Act 2000 (see section 1(1) to (4) of that Act).”
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to return to Part 7 of the Bill today, and particularly matters relating to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, which I know is a topic which has generated much interest and thoughtful debate among your Lordships at earlier stages of this Bill.
Your Lordships’ House is in no doubt of the importance of the office of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. David Anderson QC, the current incumbent, who has occupied this role since February 2011, and who my right honourable friend the Home Secretary holds in the highest regard, already does an excellent job reviewing key pieces of UK counterterrorism statutes. His recommendations help us to ensure that our counterterrorism legislation is fair, effective and proportionate, and that it strikes an appropriate balance in the face of the very real and serious threat we face from terrorism, which has been acknowledged across all sides of the House.
This office, which has existed in various forms over 35 years, has traditionally been occupied by individuals of judgment, independence and legal expertise. A number of previous incumbents are esteemed Members of this House and have contributed to vital public debate about our counterterrorism powers. It is with this in mind that the Government have given very careful consideration to the weight of views expressed by this House, the other place and David Anderson himself during the debate on this Bill, and it is why, in part, I am bringing forward Amendments 16 to 21 for your Lordships to consider today. These amendments make important changes to the role of the independent reviewer and, separately, are intended more clearly to define his relationship with the proposed Privacy and Civil Liberties Board already provided for in the Bill.
Of the six amendments proposed by the Government, the first—Amendment 16—recognises that unsatisfactory gaps have developed over time in respect of the independent oversight of key pieces of counterterrorism legislation which in turn make it more challenging for the independent reviewer, and indeed the Government, to provide full assurance to the public that all of our counterterrorism powers operate as intended.
Amendment 16 therefore inserts a new clause which will extend the remit of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to include other counterterrorism legislation to ensure that those Acts are the subject of independent scrutiny and, in turn, that the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, to which I will turn later, can support him in reviewing the operation of these laws.
In practice, that will mean that in addition to those Acts currently subject to review—the Terrorism Act 2000, Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006, the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 and the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011—the independent reviewer will also be able to review Part 1 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, and Part 2 of that Act in so far as the power is used in cases relating to terrorism; the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008; and Part 1 of this Bill, containing the new temporary passport seizure and temporary exclusion order powers, when enacted.
It is right and proper, however, that we do not risk the important role of the independent reviewer becoming diluted by expanding its remit to a much wider and less well defined list of statutes. This change to the independent reviewer’s remit will be limited to true counterterrorism provisions and will ensure that its scope does not stray into other areas which might properly fall—or at the very least stray—within the remit of other independent oversight bodies.
I will deal with the other government amendments in a moment but, before doing so, I would like to touch on Amendment 16A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. This amendment would extend the independent reviewer’s remit further still by adding to it the statutory responsibility to review Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act, covering closed material procedures, and the power of the Secretary of State to deprive citizenship, in certain circumstances, under Section 66 of the Immigration Act 2014.
I recognise that my noble friend has a long-standing interest in those specific issues, and I appreciate that she has tabled the amendment intending to ensure that important areas of the law have sufficient oversight. However, I hope that I can reassure her that, in the Government’s view, that change is unnecessary.
The closed material provisions contained within Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013 are already by their very nature subject to robust oversight. Each application for a closed material procedure is scrutinised in detail by a judge. The judge then keeps that application under review as necessary throughout the proceedings, to ensure that there is no detriment or unfairness to any party. The Ministry of Justice also publishes annual statistics on the overall use of closed material procedures.
In addition to that judicial oversight inherent in any individual use of CMP provisions, Parliament has already provided for review of the power as a whole. Section 13 of the 2013 Act requires that the Secretary of State must—I repeat “must”—appoint a person to review the operation of Sections 6 to 11 of the Act, the closed material procedure provisions, at the five-year mark from commencement.
I hope that your Lordships will appreciate that bringing the provisions within scope of the review by the independent reviewer could result in unnecessary duplication and may unnecessarily encroach into the territory of the appropriate reviewer, to be appointed by the Secretary of State in future.
Similarly, Parliament has already provided that the use of immigration powers is overseen by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. The Immigration Act 2014 contains the power to deprive an individual of British citizenship where their conduct is seriously prejudicial to the United Kingdom. Section 66 of the Act provides that within one year of that provision’s commencement, which is July this year, the Secretary of State must—and again the word is “must”—appoint a person to review its operation. That person’s report will be laid before Parliament. That person could be David Anderson, as we have previously said, but we also need to be mindful of the many competing demands on his time. The important point here is that the provision already exists in statute, and we think that it would be inappropriate to seek to duplicate it in this legislation.
Baroness Hamwee
“(e) Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013;(f) any provision of immigration and nationality law to the extent it is used for counter-terrorism purposes”
Baroness Hamwee
I welcome the government amendments. In my clumsy way, I tried to deal with the issues raised by the independent reviewer about his remit and the new board at the last stage. The Minister referred to two of the five issues that the independent reviewer sought to cover, which I tried to cover at that last stage. I am flattered that he suggested that my Amendment 16A comes from my own interest and concerns about the Justice and Security Act and the disclosure of sensitive material, closed material proceedings, special advocates and all the rest of it, as well as my concerns about immigration and nationality law. I indeed have those concerns but I cannot say that this is a self-started amendment. I was asked to pursue the subject. The independent reviewer has made clear that he wants this. He does not seek to go beyond the counterterrorism area. I hope that the amendment is clear on that. His blog has already been quoted and I shall quote from it too. He wrote:
“It is however a shame that the Reviewer was not also given the opportunity to review the operation of other powers, including immigration powers, to the extent that they are used for counter-terrorism purposes. I have no evidence whatsoever that any of those powers is used in an improper manner. But in such a sensitive and secret area, it is as well to have the assurance that only independent review can provide”.
He continues by quoting from his report of last July, which said:
“More than one person of a suspicious cast of mind has suggested to me that the unreviewed powers (for example, the use of the Royal Prerogative to withdraw passport facilities) are likely to be used for the purposes of doing the Government’s ‘dirty work’”.
I suggest my amendment because the independent reviewer has a holistic approach to this whole area. Individual case oversight and different reviewers, to which my noble friend has referred, while reassuring, do not meet the points that the reviewer has in his mind. He clearly looks at how the whole of counterterrorism legislation is operating and has ranged beyond the relatively narrow legislative remit that he has had in the past. Previously, I have heard him say that he is not seeking a turf war with other reviewers but, equally, he does not see these things in silos, which is why this amendment has come forward. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Loan
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. This amendment derives from the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights in scrutinising the Bill. We took evidence from a number of people, including the independent reviewer. It was his recommendation about the major gaps in his function which should be filled which led to the creation of this amendment. I did not put my name to it to lead it because, in my innocence, I thought that there was a possibility that we might get to it earlier in the evening when I would be engaged in a committee. I have much to learn about your Lordships’ House.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, rightly says, the independent reviewer had identified these major gaps. The Government have also accepted and recognised those gaps. I think that the independent reviewer has been looking at the whole architecture of counterterrorist legislation and has tried to ensure that there is—I do not like to use the word holistic—a complete, effective and standard-based approach to the review, which I do not think is provided by individual case-by-case judicial proceedings.
The opportunity here is simple and it would not add a great deal to the work of the independent reviewer were the Government to consider again this amendment. As the Minister has said, the office of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation is very highly respected in the country. I have worked very closely with some of the predecessors of David Anderson QC and I know how very significant that work is.
We are just asking for two issues to be moved into the remit of the independent reviewer under this amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said, the first concerns Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, which deals with closed material procedures. Those procedures apply in litigation, which very often is litigation that is seeking compensation in claims against the Government and other authorities, and where there is a problem that there is material the disclosure of which will be damaging to the interests of national security.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I will not follow my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, on Amendment 16A but will turn to Amendments 18 and 19 in this group.
The Minister may recall that in Committee I asked what the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board was for and I think that Amendment 19, particularly in paragraph (b), is a rather elegant solution to the question I posed in that, obviously, the board will be chaired by the independent reviewer and he can decide in which direction he wishes to take the board and to what degree it should cover the ground that he feels to be necessary. I welcome Amendments 18 and 19 and thank the Government for thinking again on these issues.
There is only one outstanding issue—the degree to which the board would have access to sensitive material. That will have to await another day when, no doubt, the independent reviewer will be able to transfer to the Minister concerned at the appropriate time the degree to which he feels the board requires access and is inhibited by the fact that it does not see the same papers as he will see. The board would clearly be much more efficient if it was cleared for security purposes to the same degree as the independent reviewer.
The issue in Committee was whether the board was for oversight or support. That question has been soundly answered. Clearly the board is there to support the independent reviewer and I am grateful to the Minister for making that clear.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I too am grateful for the consideration that the Government have given to this matter and, in particular, to the powers of the independent reviewer. I am also grateful to the Minister for the frankness of his speech and for the way he has reported the reactions of the independent reviewer, which are obviously not an absolutely wholehearted welcome. I think it is excellent that the powers have been extended in the way that they have been.
I have an open mind on the amendment of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee, Lady O’Loan and Lady Ludford. I think that it would be good if the independent reviewer had the power—not the sole responsibility—to look at any provision of immigration and nationality law to the extent that it is used for counterterrorism purposes. That is clearly within his remit. The Minister himself said that it might very well be that Mr Anderson will be asked to be the person to report on the operation of the closed procedures in Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act. Therefore, I am rather sympathetic to those amendments and I do not think it would be very difficult for the Government to accept them.
However, I am sympathetic to the Government’s wish not to have too much duplication in this area. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which also roams over this area, I would like to say that we, too, have no problem with Mr Anderson. His co-operation with us is very good. We have no difficulty with the fact that we are looking at things which he is also looking at.
On his reservation about access to secret material, I am afraid that this intensifies my concerns about the very existence of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. I think it is an improvement that Mr Anderson is to be consulted on and will have influence over the appointment of the members of the board and that it is there to support him. He has asked that he should have a written assurance that he should have access to all the secret material that he wants. I am sure that the Government would not have the slightest difficulty in giving Mr Anderson that assurance. But it complicates his relationship with the board, because, as the noble Lord has just said, the Government might well have reservations about that very secret material—the freedom to have the most secret material there is extended to the members of the board. I think that may be unnecessary. Clearly it would be difficult for Mr Anderson if he has access to material and the board has not.
All this leaves me with doubts about the utility of the board. I am glad that it is there to support Mr Anderson. I know that he needs more support. In responding to this, can the Minister say whether it is intended that the secretariat of the board should be the extra support that Mr Anderson needs? I do think that he needs extra support, but I would like to see the support there without the existence of the board, the utility of which I greatly doubt.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, given the hour, I think we can all agree that the independent reviewer is not only a formidable lawyer but a master of modern communication with his blogs and tweets.
I welcome the broad support for Amendment 16A given by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I want to press the Minister a little on some of his replies: first, on the potential clash with the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. I have just tried to flick through his last annual report but I do not think that he touches on anything to do with national security or powers linked to counterterrorism. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has just said, there is a way of dovetailing to make sure that there is no clash. What Amendment 16A proposes is very much to the extent that immigration and nationality law is used for counterterrorism purposes, which is not broadly the focus of the borders and immigration inspector.
Then there was a reference to a one-off review of Section 66, on deprivation of citizenship. However, a one-off review is not the same thing as continuous review and monitoring, so that is really apples and pears.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in wondering about the Secretary of State at some point, possibly several years hence, appointing an overseer of Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act. The Minister said that that person could be the independent reviewer. Why wait? Why risk setting up two separate posts, which would be inefficient and potentially add some costs? Why not short-circuit the exercise by deciding now to give that function to the independent reviewer? As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, the case-by-case judicial oversight of the court is not what is meant here by the independent reviewer’s role in having that overview of the way that Part 2 of the Justice and Security Act, on closed material proceedings, has been employed in a whole string of cases. It is rather different. I would press the Minister to give a little more justification as to why Amendment 16A is not feasible.
Lastly, I may not have heard the Minister correctly—it may, again, be the lateness of the hour—but I am not sure that he gave an in-principle explanation of why it is not possible to have a statutory basis for the access to secret material. Of course, I accept what he and the independent reviewer have said—that in practice there has not been a problem and that if the Government tried to be obstructive, we would all know about it pretty soon. However, I do not think that he explained what the policy, or legal or other difficulty, is.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, as we glide through the final hour of the day, it is appropriate that we also glide through the final amendment. I congratulate the Government on the fact that the consultation on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board ended on 30 January and we have new amendments to debate on 4 February. That is quite an achievement.
I am grateful to the Minister, as we are significantly better placed than we were when the Government first announced this back in July, when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, and I were debating the DRIPA legislation. This was announced with no detail, although the detail then emerged that this was going to replace the independent reviewer. The Government wisely listened to those who said that this was a dreadful idea and could not see the logic behind it—but we then moved into an area where there was a lack of clarity and confusion. The Minister will be aware that we put down significant amendments in Committee on this, and I greatly welcome the amendments today.
I am also grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss this issue. He knows it was of enormous concern to us. Although I share some of the reservations of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, we are in a much better place. From what we are seeing here and from what the independent reviewer, David Anderson, is saying, he will find a way to make the board work effectively and be useful to him. The noble Lord made the point about him asking for a junior counsel or barrister to work with him. It seems to me that he has the opportunity here, if the board is acting under his direction and control, for somebody who is on the board to fulfil that role for him. I would not envisage a secretariat of the board—I am not sure how much of a secretariat the board will need—but certainly a board acting under his direction and control will provide an opportunity for him.
The other issue that we raised in our amendments was that the remit of the board should deal specifically with the impact of counterterrorist legislation on communities. I know that the independent reviewer already sees that as part of his role, but it is not explicitly in the amendments before us today. I do not think it necessarily matters, as long as it is made clear that he continues to see that as he does at the moment.
Lord Butler of Brockwell
The way the noble Baroness talked about the relationship between the independent reviewer and the board underlines the importance of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about clarifying whether the board is to be supportive or consultative. She talked as if the board was going to be part of the support staff for the reviewer, which would be excellent—but in that case, it is rather funny to call it a board. Why not just call it his staff?
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I think that there is probably an element of face-saving in calling it a board. The amendment makes clear that it would act under the,
“direction and control of the Independent Reviewer”.
So he can make of the board—or whatever you want to call it—what he will. That is an opportunity for him, and I am sure that he will not be slow to take it.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. They were broadly in support—although I fear that we may not be able to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that this is a good idea. However, I will come to what the independent reviewer thinks of it later.
One thing that is important to say right at the beginning will answer, to a certain extent, the points made by my noble friend Lord Thomas, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and some other noble Lords as well, about the information that the board itself will be able to see. We think that it is important that any individuals appointed to the board are provided with an appropriate level of security clearance; so the independent reviewer is cleared to see classified information—and, if necessary, the same will apply to members of the board. Of course, the independent reviewer has a great deal of influence on who is appointed to the board. The Home Secretary will work on his recommendation, although of course it is ultimately the Home Secretary’s decision. I think that covers most of the points made by my noble friend Lord Thomas. I am grateful for his support on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned what she said at Third Reading about communities—sorry, I meant what she said in Committee. Third Reading is on Monday; we go from week to week in no time at all. The present reviewer sees that issue. On the point about the board working under his direction and control, I do not see any reason why that should change. He will be able to use the benefits of the members of the board to continue with those areas that he wants to focus on. One reason we have removed the annual necessity for reviews, with the exception of the Terrorism Act, is that the independent reviewer will now be able to conduct thematic reviews instead of just purely linking them to individual bits of legislation. Again, I take the point about the relationships that he has built up over the years—including with foreign countries. As to him being chairman of the board and using board members as support, I do not see any reason why that should change, either.
There was talk about whether the secretariat would supply support and whether the members of the board will be there to provide advice or work for him. I think that both are the case. They will work under his direction and control, and he will also be able to appoint people who have particular skills in different areas that he can draw on. For example, he might be able to appoint someone who is—this was nearer to his original idea—a junior barrister who is appropriately security cleared. However, I take the point that one might not describe that in common parlance as a board, but the name is what we have. Several noble Lords talked about the label on the tin representing what is inside. On that subject, privacy and civil liberties are obviously important in connection with terrorism legislation. If you open the tin which is so labelled and see inside, “Chaired by and under the direction and control of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation”, you would get a pretty good idea of what the board is about.
Moving on to my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, I fear we will not be able to go as far as they want. We extended the remit of the independent reviewer and think that it is right to draw limits on that. I agree that a one-off review is not the same as a review by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. Equally, judicial oversight is not the same, but it is oversight and reassurance for each individual case on those closed material proceedings. It has value. At the moment, we have drawn the line where we have, for the reasons I said: mainly because of overlap and duplication. We think that the way we have done it at the moment concentrates on those—
Baroness O'Loan
How can there be duplication if the Government were to include Part 2 of the Act and appoint the independent reviewer to review it? There is nobody currently reviewing that legislation and there will not be for five years, so how can that be duplication? It will not avoid duplication but simply prevent review.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The review that the noble Baroness referred to was what Parliament laid down in the Act. That was what Parliament required as the oversight for that Act. We will have to stay with the extended remit as we have put it. At the moment, I am afraid that I cannot make any guarantees that we will extend it to the Acts that my noble friend Lady Hamwee asked for.
Finally, on the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board, whether or not it is what the independent reviewer wanted, he may be making the best of a bad job, but he has stated that,
“if skilled and practical people are appointed to the Board, content to work under the Reviewer’s direction, the capacity for independent review will be improved … the Government has listened to what I have been saying, and put forward changes which should significantly improve the ability of the Independent Reviewer to do an effective job”.
I am therefore confident that the changes we are proposing will further enhance his ability to provide robust oversight of the full range of counterterrorism legislation on the statute book, including this Bill, once enacted. I again ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, it is late, but it has been a worthwhile discussion and I am glad to have had support, although maybe slightly qualified support in some cases, for the principle of my amendment to Amendment 16. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that if her name had been the lead name on the amendment, we would probably have reached it at about 5.15 pm, because that is the way it always goes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, used the terms “extent” and “impact”. I do not think that there is really anything between us on the substance, but she reminded me of the amendment that I tabled at a previous stage, referring to any other law relating to counterterrorism and national security legislation, and then adding something about considering whether such legislation contains appropriate safeguards, is proportionate and necessary.
I think that the Minister made my point for me, because in describing the changes to the timetable that the independent reviewer must observe, he said that now he would have more opportunity to make thematic reviews. That is precisely why I would like to see the provisions in the amendment included in the Bill. I can see that that is not going to happen, but this will not be the last time that the point is made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“Reviews of operation of other terrorism legislation
(1) In section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (review of terrorism legislation)—
(a) in subsection (2), for “carry out a review of those provisions and,” substitute “carry out—(a) a review of the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2000, and(b) a review of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act,and,”;(b) in subsection (4), for “subsection (2)” substitute “subsection (2)(a)”;(c) after subsection (4B) insert—“(4C) In each calendar year the person appointed under subsection (1) must, by 31 January, inform the Secretary of State what (if any) reviews under subsection (2)(b) the person intends to carry out in that year.
Those reviews must be completed during that year or as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of it.”(2) In section 31 of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (independent review of operation of Part 1 of that Act), for subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) In each calendar year the person appointed under subsection (1) must, by 31 January, inform the Treasury what (if any) reviews under this section the person intends to carry out in that year.
Those reviews must be completed during that year or as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of it.”(3) In section 20 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (reviews of the operation of that Act)—
(a) for subsections (2) and (3) substitute—“(2) In each calendar year the independent reviewer must, by 31 January, inform the Secretary of State what (if any) reviews under this section the reviewer intends to carry out in that year.
Those reviews must be completed during that year or as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of it.”;(b) omit subsections (7) to (9).”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) Regulations under this section must—
(a) provide for the Secretary of State to appoint members of the board after considering any recommendations made by the person appointed under section 36(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006;(b) provide for the board to be chaired by that person and to be subject to his or her direction and control.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) A reference to a calendar year in the following subsections does not include a year before 2016—
(a) subsection (3) of section (Reviews of operation of Part 1 etc);(b) subsection (4C) of section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006 (inserted by section (Reviews of operation of other terrorism legislation)(1) above); (c) subsection (2) of section 31 of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (substituted by section (Reviews of operation of other terrorism legislation)(2) above);(d) subsection (2) of section 20 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (substituted by section (Reviews of operation of other terrorism legislation)(3) above).”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Insurance Bill [HL]
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
National Insurance Contributions Bill
(9 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text