Grand Committee
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Andrews) (Lab)
My Lords, I should advise the Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Verma
That the Grand Committee do consider the Infrastructure Planning (Radioactive Waste Geological Disposal Facilities) Order 2015.
Relevant documents: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 24th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, I will introduce the order before providing background on geological disposal and why the Government recommend that this order should be approved.
On 12 January, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change laid before the House a draft order to bring certain development relating to geological disposal facilities for radioactive waste within the definition of “nationally significant infrastructure projects” in the Planning Act 2008. Making this legislative change will help us to implement geological disposal, an action vital for both for our energy past and energy future. As a pioneer of nuclear technology, the UK has accumulated a legacy of higher-activity radioactive waste and materials. More will arise as existing nuclear facilities reach the end of their lifetime and are decommissioned and cleaned up, and through the operation and decommissioning of any new nuclear power stations.
Most noble Lords will be aware, but it is worth reiterating, that geological disposal is recognised across the world, and by our own independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, as being the best available approach for the long-term management of higher-activity radioactive waste. A geological disposal facility, or GDF, is a highly engineered facility capable of isolating radioactive waste within multiple protective barriers, deep underground, so that no harmful quantities of radioactivity ever reach the surface.
Last year, my department published a White Paper to move the process of implementing geological disposal forward. It set out three initial actions for government and the developer, Radioactive Waste Management Ltd, which were informed by a review of the GDF siting process that had operated since 2008. The purpose of these actions is to better inform communities on issues of geology, development impacts, community representation and investment before they are asked to get involved in discussions about potentially hosting a GDF. A national geological screening exercise will consider the available geological information across the country and provide guidance on features relevant to building a safe GDF. The detail of how the Government and the developer will work together with communities will also be developed. These are important and challenging issues, on which there must be clarity before communities are asked to get involved in formal discussions with the developer, from which they will have an ongoing right of withdrawal.
A GDF for the UK’s higher-activity radioactive waste is clearly an infrastructure project of national significance. The Government believe that it is appropriate that the approach to land use planning decisions reflects this. The Planning Act 2008 created a new regime for development consent for certain types of nationally significant infrastructure, such as major energy, transport and waste projects. The process is designed to streamline the decision-making process for these projects and, while ensuring there is still a thorough examination of the benefits and impacts of the projects, make it fairer and faster for communities and developers alike.
The purpose of this order is to bring both a GDF, and the deep borehole investigations necessary to assess and characterise the suitability of potential sites, within the scope of this process. This will provide a clear process for the developer seeking consent, as well as placing specific requirements on the developer to consult local communities, local authorities, and other interested parties.
I wish to make it very clear that the process of seeking development consent to assess or develop a site for a GDF is distinct from any process to identify a potential site. The Government continue to favour an approach to siting a GDF that is based on local communities’ willingness to participate in the process. The 2014 Implementing Geological Disposal White Paper is clear that the final decision to apply for development consent and regulatory approvals for a GDF will not be taken until, and unless, there is a positive test of public support for hosting a GDF at the site in question.
In support of this approach to land use planning, the Government will produce a national policy statement to set out their policy on the need for these types of infrastructure in more detail. This will be subject to an appraisal of sustainability. The Government intend to bring forward the preparation of a generic national policy statement as soon as is practicable to help inform the process of working with communities on GDF siting. This approach to land use planning would of course apply only to the development of a GDF in England. The development of a GDF elsewhere in the UK would need to be progressed through the appropriate devolved planning system.
The purpose of this order is to put in place an appropriate process for land use planning decisions in relation to geological disposal facilities and facilitate the provision of greater upfront information to interested communities through the production of a national policy statement. In this way, it will help to ensure that we are able to implement geological disposal, which will contribute to securing our energy past and our energy future. With this in mind, I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a Cumbrian resident and a member of Cumbria County Council. I want to set my position on record right at the outset: I think that the Minister should withdraw this order. I do not believe it is right that the Government should be able to impose what we all colloquially refer to as a nuclear dump on Cumbria, regardless of the views of the whole Cumbria community and its county council, which is essentially what the Government are trying to do.
I emphasise that I am a strong supporter of nuclear power and always have been. It would be a tragedy for the country if we were to retreat from the proposed programme of new nuclear power stations, one of which is at Moorside, adjacent to Sellafield in Cumbria. To sacrifice the nuclear programme because of some temporary fall in the oil price—and because a lot of people are talking about the prospects for fracking in Britain and Europe, which are extremely uncertain—would be to risk our long-term energy security, as well as our ability to meet our carbon reduction targets.
I also believe that a long-term solution to the problem of nuclear waste must be found. Indeed, I would like to see a massive research programme undertaken into this issue because it cannot be beyond the wit of scientific ingenuity to find new solutions to this problem in the next 20 or 30 years. However, had I been a member of Cumbria County Council in 2013—which I was not because I was elected only in the May of that year—I would have personally advocated that our cabinet take forward the exploratory work of locating a geological repository in Cumbria on the basis that it was not an irrevocable commitment and that there was a clear legislative commitment on the part of the Government to establish the right to withdrawal, which we still await. I would have wanted to put the Government on the spot as to what they were actually prepared to deliver for Cumbria if, scientifically, it could be shown on the basis of independent geological advice that a safe site could be found. As a democrat and a Cumbria citizen, I just cannot support the current proposal that the final decision is taken out of the hands of anyone in Cumbria and left to the Secretary of State.
I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, has been extremely conscientious in her efforts on this issue, and I have no personal criticism of her role whatever. The Government argue that they have given the clear assurance that nothing will go ahead without a clear demonstration of local support. However, it is clear from the consultation document that the Government issued last year that they do not regard the support of the county council as an essential element of that clear demonstration of local support. I think that there are very strong objections to the position that the Government are now taking—objections both in logic and in terms of democracy.
If community benefits, which the Government talk about if this major development—something on the scale of the Channel Tunnel—goes ahead, are to be meaningful, they will involve huge infrastructure investments that stretch well beyond Sellafield and Copeland Borough Council, which covers the Sellafield area. For example, at present there is no dual carriageway road to the Sellafield site. If there were to be a proper connection to the M6 by one route or another, surely the county council should be involved in that decision. Similarly, it takes longer to go by train from Carlisle round the Cumbria coast through Whitehaven, Sellafield and Barrow to Lancaster than it does to go from Carlisle to London, so primitive is the infrastructure in this area. Indeed, the latest proposals from the Department for Transport will worsen services on this line as a result of the refranchising of the TransPennine and Northern rail services. Therefore, if we were talking seriously about community benefits, we would be talking about how to improve rail services, making them modern and efficient, between Sellafield and the west coast main line. Again, how could you conceivably do this without involving and getting the support of the county council? It would be both impractical and a democratic outrage.
However, there is another reason why I do not like the Government’s policy. We are currently generating a very important debate in Cumbria about local government reorganisation. The creation of a unitary authority for the county is, in my view, an extremely desirable goal and would spare local government in the county the necessity of making £28 million of cuts to local services—that is according to a recent independent report that Ernst & Young has done for the county council. My suspicion is that the Government will be determined to block any efforts to create a unitary council in Cumbria and to spare Cumbria this scale of local government cuts because they want to retain Copeland Borough Council as their badge of demonstrating local support. If so, that would be quite wrong. If they are serious about this, I would like to see the Government do something now to prevent our having to make £28 million of cuts to local services, which would be devastating for libraries, children’s centres and the rest.
At the moment, many people in Cumbria believe that, on this issue, the Government are playing games to demonstrate a measure of seriousness about their long-term ambitions for a repository simply to justify the grant of planning permission for new nuclear power stations, when there is not the slightest prospect of anything going ahead or the Treasury agreeing to the vast expenditure involved. The consequences for Cumbria would be very serious indeed.
For all these reasons, I believe that it is wrong for us to endorse an order that basically gives the Secretary of State the power to do what he wants and ride roughshod over the elected, democratic representatives of the county. That is why I would like to see this order withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister said, this order is simply to bring GDFs within the nationally significant infrastructure project regime of the Planning Act 2008. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has had to find out the hard way that that Act, brought in by Labour in 2008, has such an anti-democratic flavour, which at the time we feared it would. As he said, the order will remove from local planning authorities and their respective communities the final say in the planning process. I find that extraordinary when we are looking at something that we have never had before. It is not like a road, which can be a nationally significant infrastructure project if the Government choose to designate it as such; we have lots of roads. A railway, such as HS2, might be one. We have not had GDFs before; this is new. That is another reason why it should be subject to the proper rigours of a democratic planning process.
Perhaps one of the best things that the Labour Party did in the previous Government, during the time when it brought in the Planning Act, was in February 2005 when the UK ratified the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, which became known as the Aarhus convention. That is the main thing I want to ask the Minister about today.
I am very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his place. Back in 2006, I asked him whether any of the provisions in the Aarhus convention had yet to be implemented in the United Kingdom. He confirmed that we had ratified it and that the full lists of what that meant were now available. Those set out the UK’s range of obligations on access to information and public participation. I think that this GDF proposal would fall within Annex I to the Aarhus convention. It would be most helpful if the Minister could make some reference to that in her reply.
Having looked at the Government’s response, which was handed out with these papers today, it is very hard to balance the Government’s statement that they will not proceed without a positive test of public support without thinking that the ultimate test of public support for a planning issue is exactly that the local authorities involved make planning decisions. That is why the system was invented in the way that it was: so that there could be democratic representation and people could have a say. Something as important as this is not only about burying waste in the ground. Bear in mind that it is also about the transport of waste to that facility, which will have an enormous impact.
For all those reasons, I should like the Minister to assure us, for a start, that it complies with the Aarhus convention and, secondly, to consider whether the exceptional nature of GDFs should make them inapplicable to the process envisaged by the 2008 Act.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, as a humble citizen of Cumbria, I was very reassured to hear my noble friend Lord Liddle speaking as powerfully as he did. He certainly reflects widespread feeling within the county. It is sometimes easy to exaggerate but I think that there is almost a breakdown in trust. There is a feeling that the Government have for a long time been absolutely determined to drive through this project in west Cumbria, and that everything will therefore be done to ensure that it happens. Scepticism, to use a milder word, is inevitable if you have a situation in which, under the established rules, the permissions of the local authorities—and very much the county council—were essential if the project were to go ahead. When it turned out that the county council, with its greater strategic responsibilities, was not in favour of the recent attempt to develop further research into the possibilities, the rules of the game were revised so that in further consultations it would not be necessary to involve the county council but other local authorities could be involved. This inevitably leads to doubt.
It is also important to realise that while my noble friend Lord Liddle was absolutely right to emphasise the strategic issues of transport and all the rest—just think of the A66, the Penrith junction with the M6 and the consequences right across to Scotch Corner—this has immense implications for the wider region. That is why the local authority most responsible for the wider region, since this goes well beyond the county, should be closely involved.
I want to raise one other issue that we do not like talking about. The difficulty is that if you raise it, you will be accused of scaremongering. However, there are risks in a development of any kind to do with nuclear energy and nuclear power. We are living in an absolute world of absurdity if we believe that the consequences of anything going seriously wrong would be limited to Cumbria. It would be the whole north-west, to say the very least, and would probably be wider than that. These are issues on which we need a great deal of reassurance. I have not yet heard anything that reassures at the level necessary.
We must also recognise that there is a fundamental contradiction in the approach to governance because, as I understand it, the Government have been insistent that they favour localism—and very much on any project of this kind, because the involvement and approval of the local community has repeatedly been stated as essential. Yet the whole idea of strategic projects of this kind is to cut back and streamline what has been there traditionally and was very hard won: the possibility for local communities to pursue the things that disturb them and their consequences.
I must emphasise an interest here. Apart from being a citizen of Cumbria, I am also a patron of the Friends of the Lake District and a vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks. It seems to me that these issues about which we started talking in relation to Cumbria apply to the country as a whole. I like the idea of localism but I am not the slightest bit persuaded—and I do not believe that I could be persuaded—that issues of strategic significance such as this can be shuffled on to local authorities, with their limited resources, for them ultimately to decide whether or not to go ahead with them.
Although I am by no means an enthusiast for nuclear energy, I accept that a new generation of nuclear energy will be necessary. It seems to me that, by definition, nuclear energy and its development is a national responsibility, and that the consequences of that must be seen as a national responsibility. Therefore, I would like specific assurance from the Minister that at the outset of any such project it will be considered essential to undertake a transparent and convincing national survey to establish the best, most favourable and least dangerous place in which to develop it. When that has been established, then, of course, local involvement becomes crucial.
I make my position clear: I have said all along that I have very strong views on this project. However, I have also said all along that if, at the end of such a national convincing exercise, it became clear to me that the least dangerous place for such a project was west Cumbria, I would put myself 200% behind it and consider how we could make it the safest and least environmentally and scenically damaging project possible. That would be the responsible thing to do. However, we are nowhere near that point. We are being asked to approve the means before we have had the wider strategic assurances—of course, that will add to doubt. My noble friend was right to say that we are not in a position to approve this measure at all.
I hope that the Minister, with whom I have had many consultations on this issue in the past, can now reassure us. I believe that there is widespread anxiety, not only in the county, but certainly in the county as a whole and beyond it. This is my last point, although I could make many more. If I may use the terms in this place, there is, in an authoritative sense, an intellectual dimension to this issue. Many geologists of great distinction are already saying, and have done for some time, that Cumbria is not the place to have a project of this kind because of the situation with subterranean water. There is a feeling that these scientists of distinction have never been given the hearing on the project that they should have had. Some have made their work available at their own expense as they feel so concerned about it and have put it on public record.
We have to face the fact that nuclear waste exists and there is a whole realm of anxieties about its security and the integrity of the facilities that contain it. We are going ahead to the next generation of nuclear power, which will generate more waste, so we have to find a solution—that is the bottom line—for both existing and future waste. When we have found the right place and mobilised public confidence that everything possible has been done to make the project as safe and secure as possible—I do not believe that it will ever be made completely safe for future generations—we can get into that debate. However, we must be reassured that a national survey has been done and that there is a list—preferably prioritised—of the sites that are right and those that are not, and of those that are better and those that are less well suited. That has not happened. The Minister must put us in the picture about this and give us specific reassurances.
Lord Inglewood (Con)
My Lords, like previous speakers in this debate, I am a Cumbrian, and I declare that with pride. I also have a number of interests associated with Cumbria. They are in the register, but I am not sure that there is any particular need to enumerate them now.
I am not an enemy of nuclear power. I am not a fanatical supporter of it either; I stand in the middle. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, we have a lot of nuclear waste and we will have to deal with it. We are likely, almost certainly for the right reasons, to generate more of it in the immediate future. I come from that perspective.
In the context of discussion of any possible disposal facility in west Cumbria, it is important that we stop trying to blur the issues about the locality. In my view, Cumbria County Council is right in thinking that this is a matter that affects the entire county. I do not think that you can curtail the definition by saying that it is simply Allerdale and Copeland. It may be that they have a greater interest than the rest of Cumbria, but Cumbria as a whole has an interest that is different from the rest of the country. That is important and needs to be properly taken into account in considering this matter.
Secondly, it is important to appreciate that, in the context of the immediate history, the order is interpreted locally as sour grapes. It is perceived by a large number of Cumbrians that the Government in Westminster wished, one way or another, to get their way and have a long-term geological disposal facility in the county. Having set up a system to do that, when that form of democracy produced the wrong answer, rather like a number of countries in the Middle East and further afield, they just changed the rules. That is deeply unfortunate and has not helped the progress of the debate about this important topic.
Having said that, I want to touch on three things. First, in his opening remarks, my noble friend said that this relates only to a geological disposal facility in England. The nuclear industry in this island—in the United Kingdom—covers England and Scotland. What steps are being taken to ensure that there is a consistent and homogenous process across the two jurisdictions—if I can put it that way—to ensure that a sensible outcome is reached not only for the English, and not only for the Scottish, but for the country as a whole? That is very important. One thing that is deeply felt by those concerned about these matters is that, to put it in the vernacular, Scottish nuclear waste will be dumped at Sellafield and nobody will get in the way of that.
Secondly, going back to a point made by my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, if you write local authorities out of the process in the manner that has been described, how do you at the same time ensure that that will not take place in Cumbria without local support? Will the Minister spell out to us exactly how that local support will be measured and dealt with—and at what point in the process, because that is terribly important? I understand the argument that this is a national infrastructure project and that the way in which it is handled should take that into account. I am not criticising that, but, against that background, how, if it must have local support as a condition of proceeding, will that local support be measured?
Finally, it is also important in the context of the county of Cumbria that the proposal is not a stand-alone measure; it will bring a great deal of benefit with it. Against that background, it is very important that the benefits are spelt out and fully explained in the same detail and at the same time as the project itself. You cannot simply salami-slice the bits off each other. I very much hope that my noble friend will be able to give me some responses to the points I have raised that will reassure me.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am not Cumbrian and I have absolutely no connection with Cumbria—I live in Southwark—but I support the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, in his request that this order be withdrawn. It is clear that he was speaking from a democratic point of view, which is an incredibly valid thing to be concerned about. The fact that it is Labour legislation does not mean that it has to be used; there is a lot of quite bad legislation still on the books that really ought to be repealed.
There are a few environmental concerns expressed in a report called Rock Solid?, which was produced for Greenpeace specifically for this sort of action. There are concerns that have to be answered and the relative risks and dangers, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, have perhaps not been assessed as stringently as they might have been. For example, copper and steel canisters and overpack containing spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste could corrode more quickly than expected; we do not know. The effects of intense heat generated by radioactive decay and the chemical and physical disturbance due to corrosion, gas generation and biomineralisation could impair the ability of backfill material to trap some radionuclides.
The build-up of gas pressure in the repository, as a result of the corrosion of metals and/or the degradation of organic material, could damage the barriers and force fast routes out through crystalline rock fractures or clay rock pores. There are also poorly understood chemical effects, such as the formation of colloids, which could speed up some of the more radiotoxic elements such as plutonium. Unidentified fractures and faults, or a poor understanding of how water and gas might flow through the ground, could lead to the release of toxic materials into groundwater. These are concerns that cannot be ignored, and the order needs a little more research about whether this is an activity that can be supported with a view to complete public safety. I would argue that it is not, but I look forward to the Minister reassuring us.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I am also not from Cumbria, although I shall have the pleasure of visiting Sellafield in two weeks’ time. I know that it consumes a vast proportion of the Minister’s budget in DECC, and I look forward to that visit.
My question is more one of logic. The Explanatory Memorandum states clearly, as does the legislation itself:
“This Order will bring certain development relating to geological disposal facilities for radioactive waste, and the deep borehole investigations necessary to determine the suitability of potential sites, within the nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP)”.
I suppose that my question is this: whether one likes it or not—whether one is pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear—there is a certain logic to the idea that a radioactive waste disposal site would come within the decision-making of a major project. This was set up by the previous Government, as my noble friend Lady Miller has pointed out, and taken on by this one. It sort of fits within that. The exploratory deep borehole investigations seem to be a measure on a completely different scale, so I do not understand the logic of having both of those in. The exploration side seems logically to fit far more within the standard local authority planning system. I would be interested to hear a comment from my noble friend about why both these scales of project have been put into this order, rather than just one or the other.
While I am on my feet and we are on nuclear waste, at the beginning of this Parliament we looked at the national policy statement for nuclear power generation, and it has always slightly amused me that a footnote states:
“Geological disposal of higher activity waste from new nuclear power stations is currently programmed to be available from around 2130”,
some 115 years from now. I wondered whether the Government intended to keep their foot on the accelerator on that policy.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, we seem to have overlooked that regular high-level nuclear waste is being generated at Sellafield already and plans have to be made for its safe storage and ultimate disposal. If plans go ahead to use the 140 tonnes of plutonium that have been stored up from previous nuclear programmes at Sellafield to generate electricity, as in the two proposals that have been put forward by CANDU and GE Hitachi respectively, there will be nuclear reactors on the Sellafield site using that plutonium and generating further waste. I suppose part of the Government’s thinking in having their eye on Cumbria is that this large quantity of nuclear waste has to be moved from the Sellafield site to the ultimate place of disposal. That concentrates their attention on Cumbria. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said that he would like to see a survey of all the sites that might be suitable for this purpose, I was under the impression that a lot of work had already been done on the subject and that nobody had any thoughts of alternative sites that would be superior to Cumbria. I may be wrong and would be very interested to hear from the Minister whether that work has already been in train and, if so, what the results were.
Lord Avebury
This is what I am hoping we will hear more about from the Minister when she sums up: whether that work has been done or whether she agrees with the case that has been made for a national survey, which would obviously cause considerable delay.
That brings me to question of why this matter is urgent. Is it really necessary for a decision to be made now, for reasons that may be connected with the development of Sellafield, when we already have these additional reactors on the site, coupled with the existence of large quantities of high-level waste? Is it a matter of immediate necessity that we should have this GDF in the timescale that would be possible with the order and not without it? Suppose we were forced to wait for five years or so: would that have a catastrophic effect on how we dispose of the nuclear waste at Sellafield? Would lacking the GDF impose impossible or very difficult restrictions on the work that can be done at Sellafield because of the quantity of high-level waste that has to be stored there?
Other things being equal, obviously it is better for the GDF to be in the neighbourhood of Sellafield because the high-level waste has only to move a short distance and it avoids the necessity for rail facilities to move all this waste from Sellafield, where it is at the moment, to whatever alternative site is chosen. That would add enormously to the cost, I suppose, and is something we would like to avoid if possible.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the order and to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. We should focus on the topic at hand, which is whether the GDF, as described, should be classed as a nationally significant development project. Many speakers have reinforced the sense that this is clearly of national importance. There has been widespread support for continued use of nuclear power and acceptance that much of the waste derives from legacy projects that have accrued since the 1940s and 1950s. It is high time that we came up with a solution for the long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste.
Personally, I support the logic behind the order and believe that the wider debate about the siting—where in the country this should go, public engagement and the tests that we apply to the siting decision—is relevant, but it is not the matter before us. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, is correct that this all stems from a significant shift in how we view planning, through the 2008 Act, which was designed to enable us to move forward on nationally important projects in a way that respected democracy, but equally made it clear that there will always be tension between projects of national significance and particular local concerns. We have to get that balance right.
I will echo some of the questions that were asked about the tests that the Government propose to apply. The noble Baroness mentioned that there would have to be a positive test of public support. It is true that a county council’s decision could be used as a proxy for that. However, in such a project, which has such a long timescale and such huge significance for the country—we must look at it as a continuum from 1940, when we started developing nuclear power, to probably 100 years from now, when we will still use nuclear power—we do not allow shorter-timeframe decision-making or slightly more local concerns to override the national importance. That is not to say it should not be taken into account; it certainly should. I am sure that the noble Baroness is already preparing to respond to the noble Lord’s comment on this; could she say a bit more about that public test? It will be important.
In that context, it probably is time for a national debate. We have had this discussion before on people’s responses to and views about nuclear risk. As we now embark on a new era of nuclear build, it is probably high time for a discussion about the risks from radiation relative to other sources of hazardous waste, which we deal with, manage and store in different ways. Radiation seems to have a particular resonance in the public mind, some of which is justified and some of which is not. It is high time that we had a basic and scientifically grounded discussion about the nature of radiation. It is a fact that radiation is natural. We have evolved living with radiation; if you want to avoid radiation altogether, the safest place to be is in a hot air balloon, hovering about a mile off the ground. We are exposed to radiation from the ground naturally and from the skies.
I fear that this has become a polarised debate and that at times it departs from the science. We need to have a better understanding of the three types of radiation and the containment measures, which are very capable of containing them. We need to better understand what half-lives are and how radioactive material decays and becomes less of a problem over time. These are things that we really get to only when we get into the detail. We need to try to have a better education process. I hope that that will then allow us to have a more considered conversation about the fears that some local residents have over the GDF and the potential for ionising radiation to seep out, which is very unlikely. That is not to dismiss local concerns. There will be a big discussion about the transport infrastructure questions that were raised. I ask the Minister to clarify my reading.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I appreciate the noble Baroness’s point about getting a debate going on radiation, but we should put this in context. I, like many others, am not from Cumbria, but historically those of us in my part of the United Kingdom saw, over several decades, the flushing of material into the Irish Sea that today would be a criminal offence. We were assured in those days that the levels were perfectly okay and that neither fish nor other wildlife would be affected. However, by today’s standards, such activity would be regarded as outrageous. This is all a continuum. I support what the noble Baroness says, but we have to see where we came from. What I am saying is that, within living memory, vast amounts of toxic material were flushed into the sea, so let us at least take comfort from the fact that that has stopped.
Baroness Worthington
It is actually a matter of millennia, if you want to put nuclear into its proper context. I do not dispute that the pendulum of regulatory approaches to nuclear swings. I have visited Oak Ridge, the home of nuclear fission research, where nuclear gases used to be vented into the woods because people did not perceive it to be a risk—indeed, there is something to be said for the view that that was not a very risky activity. We have swung back towards very tight regulation for good reason, but that is not to say that that has to be set in stone and that our approach today is right—there is a constantly shifting understanding. I said that background radiation is natural to make the basic point that we as human beings have evolved in a radioactive environment. People are not always aware of that.
This is about getting back to the basics and having another look at the physics of nuclear, so that we can perhaps defuse some of the fears. There is probably no riskier way of storing nuclear waste—if there is indeed a large risk—than the way we use today. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for pointing out that we seem to be speaking as if there is no waste and that we are suddenly creating waste to put into a depository. The waste exists and it sits around the country, although it is correct to say that a large proportion sits in Sellafield. We need to find a solution, but that is not to say that this is the greatest risk that man has ever faced. The risk is manageable and engineered and we should see it in that context.
I will not detain the Committee any longer. I am grateful for the debate. I reiterate my request from our last debate that we should begin to have a national public conversation about nuclear and the risks involved. As other noble Lords have said, the issue has to be seen in the context of the much broader environmental risks that we face. There is an inherent logic behind the regulations. This is a nationally significant project and, although we do not wish local involvement to be excluded, we need to get the balance right, so we support the regulations.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for all the contributions. As always, this issue needs greater debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, that this is an important national debate, which we cannot reduce down to one area or region.
I start by responding to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that this is a “dump”. Such terminology is unhelpful. If we are to have an informed debate, we need to ensure that the language that we use does not generate fears among communities. Taking things seriously, we need to be able to express an informed view to the broader public, who may not be as well informed as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.
Lord Liddle
I think that I talked about—I hope that I did, anyway—what is commonly referred to as the nuclear dump. That is certainly how the local paper refers to it. I also emphasise to the Minister that, whenever the issue of the dump comes up, I point out that Cumbria is home to an extremely dangerous dump on the existing Sellafield site, about which something has to be done as a matter of urgency.
Lord Inglewood
I hope that I may be allowed to intervene in support of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It is indeed the case that this is known in the general locality as the nuclear dump. I must put my hands up and say, “Mea culpa”, as I am chairman of the newspaper company to which the noble Lord referred. However, we on the board do not exercise editorial control.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I reiterate that it is important that the usage of language informs the debate. Wherever we sit, we must be careful that the language used is informed and does not excite people even further.
A number of questions were raised and I will try to go through them as quickly as possible but I would like to go back to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. These matters are nationally significant and nationally important. We live with this currently. As my noble friend Lord Avebury pointed out, this is not something that is going to happen. It is already here and we need to deal with the issue. We are already dealing with it in the short to medium-term and, even then, we are talking about many decades rather than a few years. It is right that after the last process came to a halt, the Government took the sensible approach by stepping back to reflect and see what more could be done to make it a better informed debate. When I looked at the process, it was particularly to see how we could better engage with the public and other stakeholders, beyond the elected members. I agree that the role of the elected members is really important but the debate has to reach much further. Those communities that will ultimately be involved must be assured that they have the final say.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said that the Government do not care about the county council being part of public support but the consultation has made it clear that the detailed process of how community representation operates from 2016 will set out that all stakeholders, including elected members, will be a part of the process. They will be able to feed in and be involved in looking at the processes before any formal discussions take place. We have two years within which that process is going to take place and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, is fully aware of that. I look forward to his participation in it, along with his colleagues’.
However, I would also reiterate that noble Lords from Cumbria have just assumed that Cumbria is the given choice. At this time, no community has been identified. No site has been identified and we must not pre-empt, or be premature in, the assumption that it will be Cumbria. I also made it clear that, from looking at the last process, the debate needed to go much wider and further. Communities needed better information to come forward. That is why I continue to push back when people say, “This is ultimately going to be in Cumbria”. We do not know at this stage. We have two years in which people will be involved and able to be better informed.
The noble Lord also asked whether the siting process would be voluntary and why we are taking decisions away. The process of obtaining consent to develop a site is separate from the process of identifying a site in the first place. The final decision to apply for the development consent will not be taken until—and, as I think I reiterated in my opening remarks, unless—there is a positive test of public support for the GDF site in question.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked whether I could guarantee that the GDF would be safe. She read off a number of scenarios where she believes that there is risk. Let us first be very proud of the fact that we in the UK have regulators who are among the toughest in the world. As with all standards around nuclear, the standards for the GDF are incredibly high. If we cannot satisfy ourselves and the independent regulators that a GDF is safe then it will not be built. We would need to be reassured that the standards of the stringent international and national regulations were met before we would even endeavour to construct and operate a GDF.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood asked about the England and Scotland question. The nuclear industry covers England, Scotland and Wales. However, the planning legislation—which is what we are discussing today—covers only England. Planning and radioactive waste policy are devolved issues, and colleagues in Scotland and Wales will have their own processes to deal with planning and waste policy issues in their jurisdictions.
Lord Inglewood
The UK nuclear industry is UK-wide. My noble friend fairly described the scope of this order and how the devolved powers work, but what is happening to make sure that we have a UK-wide policy for dealing with this? However you look at it, if we were to end up with three geological waste facilities, that would seem a bit foolish.
Baroness Verma
I re-emphasise that planning remains a devolved issue for those devolved areas.
My noble friend Lady Miller asked whether the local planning system was not the means for testing public support. The process of identifying a site and demonstrating public support is separate from, and additional to, the process of obtaining development consent. The planning consent process will not replace the siting process. A GDF is clearly a nationally significant piece of infrastructure, and it is appropriate that an application for development consent should be made under the system which was designed to examine such projects.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked whether the screening exercise ruled out Cumbria, which has already been shown several times to be unsuitable for a GDF. The national geological screening exercise will treat all parts of the country equally, as I have already said, and the first step will be the development of guidance based on safety requirements for a GDF. The guidance will be developed openly and—a point made by the noble Lord—transparently through engagement with interested parties and the public. It will then be applied to produce maps and accompanying information about the potential for the development of a robust GDF safety case in different settings across the country. I hope that the noble Lord is reassured that we do not focus, as he and others have done, just on Cumbria.
Lord Judd
If I may say so, the Minister knows very well that this is not the first time she has given me such reassurances. All I can say is, “We hear the words”, but it will be the transparency, to which she refers, and the convincing nature of this operation of national research for all to see that will be crucial.
While I am on this point, we have referred to Northern Ireland and Scotland in this context. However, in terms of the hazards, presumably at some point the Irish Government have to be taken on board.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, discussions on these issues are always ongoing. We are always talking to our colleagues in the devolved authorities. Coming back to the transparency argument—
Baroness Verma
My Lords, as I said, those discussions are always ongoing and I will broaden them out to all devolved Assemblies and Governments.
Coming back to the question on transparency, I hope that the noble Lord will think that the process we are taking forward this time is far more transparent than the previous process. It takes into account far more exploration and discussion with a greater number of stakeholders to get a positive view of where communities lie. I urge the noble Lord to be reassured by the work that has been undertaken on the process since 30 January 2013, when the process came to a stop.
Baroness Verma
If I may just finish my point, I will happily give way. We need to look carefully at why an issue as important as this did not generate the breadth of engagement that I believe it deserves, and why there was not much broader input from the wider community. Indeed, a number of organisations told me that they had been excluded.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
Will the Minister reassure us that, as part of these discussions, consideration will be given to the fact that these facilities will store waste for a period, so that if technology develops it can be reprocessed? Many other countries, particularly Sweden, have a policy of putting the waste in rock formations. I believe that many nuclear energy programmes around the world are looking at the possibility of reprocessing this material when the relevant technology has been developed. However, there are other solutions whereby it is put in the ground permanently. As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, commented, it has a decay life of perhaps 10,000 or more years. Therefore, an important aspect of the discussion concerns whether this is a temporary process, as I believe it should be.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, as with all these things, we are talking about thousands of years. I am sure that as technologies evolve, those who have to take decisions thousands of years from now—it will not be me—will look at the decisions that we are taking now and consider whether our planning measures are as robust as they can be. Of course, new technologies and techniques will be developed that will change the sector. The nuclear industry itself will evolve, as will other technologies that will provide energy. However, we need to ensure that the decisions that we are taking now are being taken on the basis that we need a long-term solution to high-radioactivity waste, which needs to be put away safely so that it is secure and poses little danger to us all.
My noble friend Lady Miller asked about the Aarhus convention. The Planning Act 2008 provides for extensive levels of community engagement and public consultation but it also requires environmental assessments to be carried out at various stages of the planning process. Therefore, the Government believe that the process is compatible with the requirements of the convention and with associated European Union legislation.
My noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked whether geological screening was being carried out. Radioactive Waste Management Ltd has begun the work, including engaging with interested stakeholders. It will produce draft screening guidance for public consultation. This, and the final screening results, will be reviewed by an independent group formed by the Geological Society of London. As stated in the 2014 White Paper, that will be carried out over the next two years.
I hope that I have managed to answer most of the questions. However, coming back to what we are discussing today, the Committee is simply being asked to consider the order, not to approve it. The Motion to approve will be tabled in the Chamber and noble Lords can oppose it then if they are strongly opposed to it. However, I suggest that if we are to make progress in finding a long-term solution to this significant national programme, we need to ensure that we provide the public with facts and not just bear in on myths that have been peddled over many years.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, pointed out, this debate needs to be properly informed. I would be happy—I am sure that the noble Baroness will welcome this—to widen that engagement and make the debate much more informed, so that people understand what we are trying to develop here.
Lord Avebury
I hope that there is nothing in the order that precludes the decision being made including whatever Scotland decides it needs in the way of long-term facilities for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste. As the noble Baroness was asked earlier, surely we are not going to have GDSs in all the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. I want an assurance that there is a facility within the ambit of the order for the Scots to come along to talk to us about what they are doing about long-term disposal, so that we do not have to have two separate facilities.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, having obviously not satisfied noble Lords, if I undertake to write to them, that might be a better way forward.
Lord Liddle
I thank the noble Baroness for her comprehensive reply to the debate. However, I seek clarification. In her speech, she emphasised the difference between the siting decision and the planning decision. Clearly, if the order goes through, Cumbria County Council becomes a consultee on the planning decision taken by the Secretary of State—I would hope, a prominent consultee.
However, the planning decision would come only after the siting decision. I would like an assurance—I realise that it may involve consulting DCLG as well as the Minister’s department, so she may not be able to answer this today—that, if Cumbria decides to go ahead with a local government reorganisation that gets rid of the district councils and has one or two unitary authorities, they would become the key bodies that would have to approve a siting decision.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, given that there is no inspiration floating from behind me, I undertake to put my response in detail to the noble Lord. I finish by saying that, even with all those processes, it will still have to go out to the public for public support. Ultimately, it is for the public to decide.
Warm Home Discount (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Verma
That the Grand Committee do consider the Warm Home Discount (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 19th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)
My Lords, in introducing this debate on the Warm Home Discount (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2015, I will first give some background on fuel poverty and the warm home discount scheme to provide context to these regulations.
Fuel poverty remains a huge challenge and the coalition Government are committed to tackling that challenge and to helping people, especially low-income vulnerable households, heat their homes. Improving the energy efficiency of homes is the most effective way of reducing energy bills and providing lasting support to the fuel poor. Our current policies are already making a difference. For example, more than 580,000 low-income and vulnerable households will be warmer after receiving measures under the energy company obligation. We also announced, as part of the Autumn Statement, a new £25 million fund that will see up to 8,000 low-income off-grid households benefit from first-time central heating in 2015-16.
However, upgrading our housing stock is a long-term programme and fuel-poor households need help each winter. That is why the Government have a number of schemes in place, including the warm home discount, which provides direct support to customers with their energy. Introduced in 2011, the warm home discount requires electricity suppliers with more than 250,000 domestic customer accounts to provide financial support to their vulnerable customers in respect of energy costs. This winter the eligible customers received a £140 rebate on their electricity bill.
The existing regulations for the warm home discount scheme end in March 2015 and these amendments extend the scheme for another year. This will ensure that 2 million low-income and vulnerable customers can benefit from a rebate again next winter. The warm home discount scheme currently assists two groups of customers: first, the poorest pensioners who are customers of participating electricity suppliers, described in the regulations as the core group customers; and secondly, low-income and vulnerable customers, including poor families and those with disabilities, described as broader group customers. Under the core group, all the poorest pensioners eligible for the scheme who are customers of a participating supplier receive a bill rebate of £140 from their supplier. Customers who fall into the broader group, such as low-income families and those with long-term disabilities, can apply for rebates through their supplier. Customers eligible for the core and broader groups can also benefit from the industry initiatives section of the scheme. Participating energy suppliers are permitted to spend a share of £30 million annually to provide debt assistance, energy efficiency measures and energy advice, among other forms of support, to help these groups of customers make a lasting change to their energy bills.
Since we launched the scheme, around 2 million households in, or at risk of living in, fuel poverty have benefited from lower energy bills each year. As a result of the success of the warm home discount, the Government have committed to extending the support to 2016, with a spending target of £320 million. This is in addition to the £1.1 billion that has been spent over the first four years of the scheme to continue support for the people who need it most. The Government consulted on extending the scheme last October and proposed some small changes to improve its effectiveness, making it simpler and more accessible. Respondents to the consultation were supportive of extending the scheme and on 29 January we published the government response to the consultation.
I turn to the key aspects of the warm home discount next winter that would be implemented by the regulations that we are debating today. First, the core group will remain unchanged. People who have an electricity account with a participating supplier and receive pension credit guarantee will be entitled to a rebate. However, we propose to change the broader group section of the scheme. We intend to introduce a standard set of eligibility criteria. All participating suppliers will have to adopt these while continuing to have the flexibility to offer other criteria alongside.
The standard criteria are based on a variation of the current eligibility criteria for the cold weather payments group—households on certain means-tested benefits. In addition, we have now included low-income working families with an income of £16,190 or less that have a disabled child or a child under five. This change is consistent with the low-income high-cost fuel poverty indicator adopted in England, under which low-income families are the largest group in fuel poverty. This change will simplify the scheme, making it more accessible to this group of customers and removing some of the barriers to switching.
We propose to maintain the value of the rebate at £140 for the extension to the scheme. This means that participating energy suppliers can deliver 71,000 more rebates than would have been the case if we had increased it to £145. These extra rebates will be delivered under the broader group, mostly focused on low-income working-age families.
We also plan to widen the list of approved activities under the industry initiatives section of the warm home discount. First, we have enabled the provision of a £140 rebate to eligible low-income mobile home residents, primarily park homes. Mobile home residents are currently ineligible because in the majority of cases they do not have an electricity account with a participating supplier. What we envisage is that from now on they will be able to apply for a rebate if they are on qualifying benefits. This will be a voluntary measure. However, my officials are working with key stakeholders, including energy suppliers and the Department for Communities and Local Government, to develop a suitable scheme.
Secondly, we are supporting the inclusion of activities that would provide extra support to low-income customers living in non-gas homes or in disadvantaged areas, or to those with health problems or a disability. Customers with a long-term health problem or disability can be detrimentally affected by living in a cold or badly insulated home. The amendments to the scheme would encourage suppliers to provide support to these groups, who may struggle to get assistance through other policies. The consultation response also set out that it could be cost-effective to target low-income customers in disadvantaged communities. If this were the case, participating suppliers could find that they were able to help a larger number of customers at a lower cost. We will also make it compulsory for energy suppliers to provide energy advice to customers when delivering all other industry initiatives, wherever possible. Vulnerable customers will be able to make lasting positive changes as a result of such advice.
We also propose to make some technical changes to improve the operation of the scheme. First, we will put in place a mechanism to apportion any overspend or underspend in this scheme year, based on the suppliers’ market shares this year. Under the current regulations, they would be apportioned based on market shares next year. This is more equitable, particularly given the rising number of energy suppliers participating in the scheme. Secondly, in the event that suppliers overspend by up to 5% this scheme year, they can reduce their obligations by a corresponding amount next scheme year. This applies to the broader group and industry initiative elements of the scheme, and is an increase on the 1% flexibility that existed previously.
The amendments to the warm home discount regulations are necessary to help another 2 million households next winter. The changes that we are making will mean that suppliers will provide assistance to a greater number of low-income families, make the scheme simpler and improve its operation. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Baroness Worthington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the regulations. Tackling fuel poverty is of the utmost importance. It is an ongoing embarrassment for a country of our wealth and standing to have so many people suffering from poor housing quality combined with low incomes, who are unable to afford to heat their homes and keep them in a habitable state. We really must crack that.
I understand the rationale for extending the order by another year, but I have a fundamental question. We are extending it for one year. Why is the programme so short term? It lasted for four years, now for five. Will it last for six or seven, or will we more fundamentally address the issue? I ask that because either the scheme is working, in which case we should put it on a more permanent basis and assess how well it is delivering against our objectives of tackling fuel poverty; or, if we are just using it as a stopgap while we try to find a better solution, should we not get on with that better solution? That is my fundamental question.
The longer-term solution is of course both raising people’s incomes and improving the housing stock. I question whether we are getting the right agents involved in delivering this. We are essentially relying on the suppliers to mediate between those poorer households and fuel poverty. Are suppliers the right people to do that? From my experience of working for a supplier, given a regulation such as this, from which they will see no possibility of making any profit, they will simply find the cheapest possible way to comply and constantly lobby the Government to enable them to do it more cheaply and with less onerous bureaucracy on them. They will not enter into it in the spirit of asking how we crack the problem, because they do not perceive the problem as theirs. They provide electricity and gas, and that is pretty much how they would like to keep it. They do not see themselves as responsible for people’s incomes or the fabric of people’s homes.
On top of that, there is a perverse incentive. We already see demand for electricity and gas falling in this country, and that is having an impact on the power companies’ bottom line. Therefore, I worry that they will try to find ways to meet their obligation without reducing the amount of product that they sell. It does not surprise me that we are now looking at extending the definition to allow them to take measures in non-gas and electricity grid-connected homes, because that suits the business model of them protecting their customers and continuing to sell their products while meeting the broader objective.
That is a very cynical presentation, and I am sure that the Minister can reassure me that some brilliant things are happening under the scheme, but I have not seen evidence that reassures me that that is the best way to approach the fuel poverty problem and that suppliers are the right agents to do this on our behalf. Perhaps the DWP could become more involved. I know that some suppliers will complain that it is hard to find those customers because they do not hold the data. The Government have the data. We are responsible for welfare and the DWP has a role here. Perhaps we should look again at a combination of different government departments being more involved, and getting local authorities more involved. I am not saying that that is the answer, but I raise the question of how, in our attempts to tackle this distressing element of our modern society, we keep scrutinising what we are doing, ensure that it is delivering value for money and ask ourselves: is this working and getting to the root of the problem? Perhaps the noble Baroness can reassure me that this has been, or will be, done. Can she also answer my first question, which was: for how long will we just keep extending this mechanism, and do we need a rethink as to how we approach this problem?
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, in very broad terms I welcome the extension, although the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, makes a fair point about its annual nature. However, there is one part of the regulations that concerns me, and that is the territorial extent and application. The regulations are confined to Great Britain. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will say, “There’s devolution and therefore the Northern Ireland Assembly has a role”. However, the Welsh Assembly Government have a role. Indeed, they have a fuel poverty strategy and a budget. The Scottish Government also have a role. They have a very substantial budget and are involved as well.
Fuel poverty exists throughout the United Kingdom but the area with the highest level of fuel poverty is Northern Ireland. There are two reasons for that: first, earnings are lower and, secondly, energy costs are dramatically higher. The lack of an extension of the natural gas network to very large parts of the Province has meant an overdependence on kerosene for heating. Until comparatively recently, kerosene has been extremely expensive, and electricity has been notoriously expensive for more than 30 years.
I do not have a fundamental objection to the proposal before us but I am concerned to know precisely what part of our devolution settlement distinguishes Northern Ireland from Scotland and Wales in regard to this issue. It is perfectly clear that Scotland and Wales have policies, strategies and budgets and that they are involved in this. Energy suppliers throughout the country are of course involved as well, and I understand that. However, some years ago the Government conceded that there was a gap in the system, because devolution is an evolving process. We have just had a discussion about planning, in which it was said that planning in Scotland is separate from planning in England. That is fine, but it is just not realistic to imagine that expertise in an area such as nuclear waste disposal can be devolved and spread around the country.
I just make the point that there appears to be a difference of opinion here. Age Sector Platform in Northern Ireland lobbies Parliament every year. It did so towards the end of last year and it spoke to Members of both the House of Commons and your Lordships’ House. It has consistently argued that this is a national as well as a local issue. I would be very grateful if the Minister could explain to me precisely what differentiates Northern Ireland from Scotland and Wales in this matter. If the response is not immediately available, I shall be very happy if she writes to me, as I accept that there are complications. However, I just wanted to flag up for the record that we have doubts as to whether this is something that is entirely devolved in our case. The noble Baroness may say, “Of course, if we spent more money”—and money has been allocated here—“there would be Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland, as there would be for Scotland and Wales”. That is true, but Barnett consequentials are not necessarily spent in devolved regions on the matters for which they receive the money. To take an extreme example, if there were a Barnett consequential as a result of this proposal, a devolved Administration could spend it on transport or anything else—there is no link. In other words, the money is not ring-fenced, yet Northern Ireland has the highest level of fuel poverty compared with anywhere in the United Kingdom. No one argues about that; it is a fact.
We have here a proposal that I broadly support, but I am concerned that I, and a number of people in Northern Ireland, are not clear on why there is this differentiation. As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will know, the devolved Administration has energy responsibilities; indeed, I was Energy Minister myself for three years in the early stages of devolution. I know that our Department for Social Development also has a role: it promotes boiler replacement schemes and other measures that I know are very important to people. We have had insulation proposals and draught-proofing—the routine sorts of things that we all have. However, it is the differentiation between Scotland and ourselves in particular that I am unclear about, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify it, either today or at a later date.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for their contributions. I agree with the noble Baroness—we are agreeing a lot today—that it is criminal to have so many of our citizens living in fuel poverty. However, we also have among the most energy-inefficient housing stock in Europe, and we need to address a number of issues at the same time. The scale of this is huge.
To return to today’s order, the response to the question of why it should be extended for a year if it is working so well is that we want to extend it to a year but, as the noble Baroness is aware, the commitments will then be dependent on the next spending round. While we can commit to the extension this year, the next Government will have to make commitments for further extensions, or not. We need to look at the core reasons underpinning why people are living in such inefficient homes and at how we better ensure that we resolve that part of the difficulty. The measures that we have undertaken, whether it is the Green Deal, the ECO or the rollout of the smart metering programme, will all add to helping consumers to take greater charge of how they have control over their own energy needs.
I agree with the noble Baroness that we have a long and high hill to climb, which is why, as she points out, we need to work much better across government. We are working with the Cabinet Office on how we can better data-share. On her question, “Why use energy suppliers?”, the mechanism to deliver this is cost-effective. It is right that we also try to ensure that we do not add extra costs in delivery. If it is in the interests of the suppliers, given that competition is now greater in the marketplace, it will ensure that they deliver better, more effectively and more efficiently; otherwise, they know that the process of switching to another supplier is much easier. There are lots of processes going on, and we need to ensure that those people who need to benefit the most have access to the information.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that it would be better to write to him. He has laid out rather a detailed question on Northern Ireland. He has already mentioned the Department for Social Development, which, as he will know well, already offers energy efficiency improvement schemes for low-income households. It would not do justice to his question if I were to skimp on replying now; I would rather write to him and perhaps send a copy to the Committee, if that is agreeable.
Baroness Worthington
I am sorry to rekindle the debate. While the Minister was responding, I was thinking that it may be time to introduce some form of test for energy policy to articulate the impact of energy policy decisions on fuel poverty. One of the reasons why I think that might be necessary is, if we look at what is happening with some of the extensive costs coming from last year’s Energy Act—by this I mean the cost of CFDs, for example—it is proposed that those costs should fall only on consumers, not on industrial participants. I can see the logic for that, but it will have the effect of loading those extra costs on to consumers at a time when we have a problem with fuel poverty. I wonder whether we can have a discussion on having a fuel poverty test on policies. We would then at least be aware, when we decide where costs should fall, that we are not blind to the impacts on fuel poverty.
Baroness Verma
As the noble Baroness is always aware, I am very happy to take that away and have discussions outside of the Committee with her and any other noble Lord who would be interested in the subject matter. The ultimate goal for all of us is to try to reduce the impact of any extra cost on those who can least afford it. I am very happy to take that away and have discussions with the noble Baroness and others.
Lord Empey
I am very happy that the Minister has said that she will write to me; I appreciate that. For clarity, I am aware of the Department for Social Development’s role, but my precise point is that similar roles appear to be played by the Scottish and Welsh Governments. I am trying to get at the precise difference between those three. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness.
Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, and the Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2015. I am required to confirm to the Committee that these provisions are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, and I am happy to do so.
These two regulations will increase by 1.2% the lump sum amounts payable under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the diffuse mesothelioma scheme set up by the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. These new amounts will be paid to those who first satisfy all the conditions of entitlement on or after 1 April 2015. These two schemes stand apart from the main social security benefits uprating procedure and there is no legislative requirement to review the level of payments each year. None the less, I am happy to confirm the increase of the amounts payable for 2015 by the consumer price index. This is the same 1.2% rate that is being applied to industrial injuries disablement benefit and some other social security disability benefits under the main social security uprating provisions.
The Government recognise that people suffering from diseases as a result of exposure to asbestos or one of a number of other listed agents may be unable to bring a successful claim for civil damages relating to their disease. This is mainly due to the long latency period between exposure and onset of the disease, often stretching back decades. Also, even pursuing a claim can take some time. We therefore fulfil an important role by providing lump sum compensation payments to sufferers of certain asbestos-related diseases through these two schemes. This does not debar a civil claim, which can still be pursued. These government schemes also aim to ensure that sufferers receive compensation while they themselves can still benefit from it, without first having to await the outcome of civil litigation.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has introduced the regulations today. He has talked about some very significant sums of money to assist some of those who, through either pneumoconiosis or mesothelioma, have had a death sentence merely as a result of their going out to work. I commend the Government for the uprating that they have announced today.
I have some questions for the Minister. He rightly said that Members from all sides of your Lordships’ House have been anxious, first in supporting the Government in the provisions of the Mesothelioma Act last year, but also in pressing for far more resources to be made available, both to those who have been victims of mesothelioma and for the important work involved in research in finding cures and the causes of mesothelioma.
I notice that the Government say in the Explanatory Note:
“An impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument”.
Although I realise that that is a fairly technical thing and it is not a requirement for the Government to do that in this case, I wonder if that might be reviewed for the future, with regard to such an impact statement and assessment along the lines that the Minister has just referred to. I was not certain what he meant about the year in which he said the number of mesothelioma victims was likely to peak. Perhaps he could repeat it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
The year is 2018. It is very helpful to know that that is the case. That seems to differ from some of the dates that have previously been given by Ministers and in parliamentary replies.
Will the Minister assure me about continuing assessments, so that when these regulations come forward—alas, they will come forward on a regular basis—we can have much more up-to-date information about the total numbers and how the trajectory appears to be working out? I hear very different accounts from people who say that, as a result of diagnosis now being made in a different way from the past, the numbers are being assessed in different ways. Quite alarmingly, we see the incidence of mesothelioma in non-traditional groups. Those of us who have represented sufferers—through the trade union movement, in the case of some noble Lords here, or by representing constituencies, particularly in urban areas—have always been used to meeting people who worked as tunnellers or masons, or in traditional heavy industries. However, there is no doubt that there has been a significant increase in the number of people who present with the disease for no apparent reason—people who are domestic workers, who perhaps have just been at home or who work in schools, and particularly people in the Armed Forces.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, who mentioned in the House people he had been at Dartmouth with and literally playing snowballs with asbestos at that time, not realising the dangers. He mentioned the number of significant figures in the Royal Navy who had contracted mesothelioma and subsequently died. One of the things that I would specifically like to see in an impact statement would be categories of workers, such as those in the Armed Forces, for which we monitored the number of deaths from mesothelioma that were recorded so that we had a far better idea of the impact that this was having. I know that there will be particular interest from a number of those from the Armed Forces who have been following our debates. It was wonderful that the noble Lord, Lord West, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and others, were able to meet some of those from the Royal Navy who have contracted mesothelioma, here in your Lordships’ House just a couple of weeks ago.
The Explanatory Note also says:
“It is intended that these rates will be reviewed each year”.
Perhaps the Minister could confirm whether that will always be in accordance with the consumer prices index, as it has been on this occasion.
I shall return to a Question that I raised on the Floor of your Lordships’ House on 9 December, which was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, on behalf of the Government. It touches directly on the allocation of money, and where it comes from, regarding some of the payments that are made to those who have become victims of mesothelioma. During the passage of the 2014 Act, Ministers said that the levy on the insurance industry would be set at 3%; in fact, the quote from the Minister in another place was:
“Three per cent. is 3% and we have no intention of moving away from it”.––[Official Report, Commons, Mesothelioma Public Bill Committee, 12/12/2013; col. 117.]
I asked this on 9 December and I ask it again today: why then has it been set at 2.2% when that original undertaking was given by the Government? That represents a shortfall from the insurance industry of around £11 million, so this is not a small sum of money. Although I welcome the subsequent uprating that the Government have announced in the total amounts of money that victims will be awarded under that legislation, I wonder whether there is a shortfall that still can be reclaimed from the industry and which might therefore be used to assist with the problem of research.
I moved an amendment in your Lordships’ House—I think it was defeated by a majority of about seven—which would have placed a requirement on all insurance companies to contribute to another levy to provide for mesothelioma research. I commend those insurance companies, and there are two big players, which have continued to step up to the plate to provide contributions towards research, voluntarily and without a statute. They put the other companies, of which around 150 are involved, to shame but what they contribute is far from enough. It also raises the question of why more public funding is not provided to tackle the disease.
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm a figure. The Government have previously said to me that around 50,000 to 60,000 people will die of mesothelioma over the next 20 to 30 years. The Chief Medical Officer, Professor Dame Sally Davies, who is also the Government’s chief scientific adviser for health, has said:
“I hope the research community will now respond by generating new research proposals that will provide robust evidence to help people with mesothelioma”.
What I have quoted was also said by the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who said:
“There needs to be a certainty that the money is there but the top-level researchers also need to be aware of it so that the money and the level of the research capability are brought together”.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, also said:
“The funding is very much there”.—[Official Report, 9/12/14; col. 1711.]
However, that seems to contrast with both the Question that I tabled in your Lordships’ House and a letter which I have received from him.
The Question I refer to was answered as recently as 23 February where, in a table, the Government say that there have been four successful applications. One of them is “Subject to contract” and the others have been successful in coming forward to tackle mesothelioma. But then there are several applications which have been turned down, and which were for substantial sums of money. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us how this therefore accords with the idea that there are plenty of applications and that they have been sufficiently successful, because that does not seem to be the case.
In the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, wrote to me on 16 December 2014, following the exchanges on the Floor of the House, he said:
“In the last five financial years, the MRC and NICR have received just over twenty applications for grants or fellowships that relate to research on mesothelioma. Of these eight applications were successful resulting in an average success rate of 40%”.
That does not seem to be a very high success rate when we are dealing with the potential loss of life of so many British people, who have contracted this disease simply as a result of going out to work.
During the debate on my Question the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, told your Lordships that his own wife had died of mesothelioma. A few days ago, along with the noble Lords, Lord Giddens and Lord Saatchi, I met the British Lung Foundation. I met a brilliant young woman who is a registrar in London. She told me that she is the only person working anywhere in the world on an innovatory treatment, using adult stem cells which are targeted at mesothelioma cells. She says that that has proved extremely successful in the animal models that have been used. My heart rose when I heard that, and there are other examples that I could cite but I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships’ time today. Surely this is how we must proceed. During that meeting, she told us that it would take £2.5 million to move from the stage that she has reached now on to clinical trials. Again, that does not seem an outrageous sum of money in terms of what we need to do.
As a result of bringing forward these regulations today, I hope that the Minister will give us some assurances that he will return to the House—with a letter that can be sent to Members of the Committee, with further written replies to Parliamentary Questions or in Statements to the House—to tell us what progress is being made to ensure that we tackle this problem at source. Otherwise, I suspect that year after year, for the next 20 or 30 years, we will be gathering in places like the Moses Room and looking at lists of people for whom compensation is being given to deal with the effects of a disease which at the moment has no cure and which wreaks such tragedy in the lives of so many ordinary working people in the United Kingdom.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for the assiduity with which he pursues the case for the sufferers of mesothelioma, and in particular for the plea that he has just made that those conducting research into a cure for this horrible disease should receive more favourable treatment. Whether that should come out of the 3% levy or from some other source is a matter that we were talking about just before we came into this debate. I know that there are other sources and I hope that the researcher whom he mentioned, who has got as far as she has in using adult stem cells to treat sufferers of mesothelioma, will be able to secure grants from one of them. The noble Lord showed me a list of other applications that have been made but which have not been successful. I very much regret that the sources of funding for research into a cure for mesothelioma have not been more forthcoming in the cases that he mentioned.
I am most grateful to the Minister for his careful explanation of the regulations. I have discussed them with Mr Doug Jewell, the chairman of the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK, who told me that the forum is pleased that the Government are raising the payments by 1.2%—the same as the increase in social security payments—although they were not obliged to do so by the primary legislation. I thought that it would be even better if the Government undertook to make uprating in line with social security payments obligatory, in primary legislation, when a suitable opportunity arose. It seems that they have every intention of following that path, but it could be an additional safeguard under future Governments if these upratings were in line with those promised for social security payments. Perhaps the Minister could say something about that in the course of his reply.
The forum is also happy with the statement that was made by my noble friend Lord Freud on 10 February, increasing the tariff of payments made under the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme—the DMPS—from 80% to 100% of the average payment made on civil claims for those diagnosed from that day onwards. My noble friend said that this was possible because the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office—the ELTO—had been increasingly successful in tracing insurance policies, enabling victims of the disease to pursue a remedy from the companies that issued the policies.
My honourable friend the Member for the Forest of Dean said that that uprating could not be retrospective to the start of the DMPS last July because it was usual for upratings of benefits to be paid from the date of the announcement. In this case, however, the initial decision to pay only 80% of the average civil claims payment was based on a miscalculation of the success rate in tracing insurers. The Government may have needed to be careful not to exceed the 3% gross premiums cap on the contribution to the scheme which had been agreed with the insurance industry, so I assume that they worked on the assumption that the number of successful civil claims would remain constant, and so would the number of claims under the scheme, making no allowance for the work of ELTO. If that is the case, and the decision to pay only 80% was based on a miscalculation, will the Minister please tell your Lordships what the levy is expected to be as a percentage of gross premiums in its first year with the scheme as it is, and what it would have been if the scheme had paid out 100% from the start? I understand that 3% of gross premiums would be £43.6 million, that the cost of the scheme as it is would be £32 million, and that backdating the payment of 100% of civil claims to last July would be £5 million, so that the total would still be well within the 3% gross premiums cap.
These regulations cover the related question of payments under the 2008 lump-sum payments scheme and the workers compensation Act 1979, as my noble friend has explained. These payments are also uprated by 1.2%, so that a person of the Minister’s age—I am talking about my noble friend Lord Freud—and diagnosed in July would receive the princely sum of £23,881. Someone of my age would receive £13,445. Neither of those amounts would provide financial security for the victim’s partner or dependants when the patient died, as they do within an average of 12 months from diagnosis.
But the situation is even worse if the claim is submitted after the victim dies. Patients with mesothelioma realise only too well that their life expectancy is limited, and one of their main concerns is the financial security of their dependants after they die. Most of them manage to submit claims themselves, obviously while they are still living, knowing that the amount paid out in a posthumous claim is greatly reduced. In the case of a patient of my age, a surviving spouse would receive £7,462. Thus, of the 3,770 payments that were made in 2014, only 360 were posthumous. The DWP estimates that it would cost another £2 million to equalise payments between sufferers and their nearest and dearest. Will the Minister please explain on what assumptions that calculation has been based? Does it take into account the substantial incentive that patients have to make a claim so that the number of posthumous claims would decline as time passes?
The forum also suggests that the DWP’s figure does not take into account the sums that are recouped when the applicant is eligible for the DMPS, which they say would amount to £960,000, making the net cost of uprating just over £1 million instead of £2 million. The argument for moving towards equalisation relies not on the relatively small cost in relation to the social security budget as a whole, but on the fact that because of sufferers’ short life expectancy, the beneficiaries of compensation schemes were always going to be mainly their spouses and children, not the applicants themselves, and it was illogical to divide them into two classes according to the date when the claim was made.
The forum also points out the unanimous view of parliamentarians and stakeholders, which was acknowledged by the DWP in the person of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, when he was Minister in 2010, that the difference in payments was “unfair and unhelpful”. He added £5,000 to the amount that dependants would otherwise have received under the regulations then under consideration, which he said went some way towards our commitment to bridge the gap.
It is an ancient principle of law that when Governments enter into commitments the public faith is thereby pledged and cannot be lightly abrogated by their successors. I know that neither my noble friend Lord Freud nor his predecessors since the coalition came into office have said that equalisation has been abandoned, but they rely on the argument that in the prevailing economic climate the cost would be too high. I hope my noble friend can say in replying to this debate that the Government are still committed in principle to eliminating the difference and that if the economic conditions continue on their present trajectory, they will do so if they remain in office after the election.
Baroness Donaghy
My Lords, as a former president of the TUC, I reiterate the tribute to the trade union movement for its identification and campaigning on this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has mentioned, it was a tremendously long time after the start of the trade unions’ campaign before there was any official recognition. I also speak having had a sister-in-law who died of mesothelioma. I am currently the chair of the oversight committee of the mesothelioma fund. The fund was set up after debate by this Parliament and is a matter for congratulation on all sides. I will not say too much about the work of that committee as I am not sure how appropriate that is.
I will say something first about the non-traditional industries that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned. It would not be appropriate for the oversight committee to take responsibility for this, but the DWP could undertake more publicity about the so-called non-traditional industries. I will mention jewellery repairs as an example that may surprise some. In the old days, particularly in the big centres where there was a jewellery quarter, the glossy shops would take the jewellery that needed repairing off to somewhere else. There would be asbestos benches and the workers would sit with their chin virtually on the bench, scraping grooves into the asbestos to put the mould in so that they could secure the jewellery. Some people worked in these sorts of surroundings for years, but it may not have been an obvious area for others to identify what was wrong with them. They therefore may not know that the disease could have happened as a result of their work in the 1950s and 1960s. In some of the non-traditional industries there was consistent exposure to asbestos but it is not so well known as in some of the traditional industries.
Often when people worked in factories, they were called, for instance, warehousemen. That covered a multitude of sins in the 1950s and 1960s. They were not always warehousemen at all; sometimes they swept up pure asbestos from factory floors. The term “warehouseman” was simply a designation of the grade or the pay rather than an accurate job description. We were all a bit more casual about job descriptions in those days, compared with the rather minute detail that we seem to go into now. Again, it would be useful if some publicity could be given to the fact that job descriptions did not always accurately describe the work that was done. Some publicity by the DWP would be very welcome.
One of the awful things about this dreadful disease is that by the time it is diagnosed people are sometimes so ill, and their families so upset, that the last thing they think of doing is filling in a form. I know that we are supposed to live in a “compensation culture” age, although personally I do not believe that, but some of these families have to be dragged kicking and screaming to fill in a form when all they want to do is think about their loved one. Any publicity or ease of access into the system that the DWP can provide would perform a genuinely good social service.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations, and all noble Lords who have spoken. It is a privilege to be gathered with the same cast of people with whom we have debated these issues over the past couple of years. This is a terribly cruel disease. Some of the stories that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Donaghy, which reminded us of the ways people contracted these conditions, should give us pause for thought about what we are missing today. As the Minister has indicated, there is no requirement to uprate these payments. We welcome the uprating by 1.2%, particularly since it is broadly in line with increases to some other social security disability benefits and industrial disablement benefits.
The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on whether the Government would consider putting these upratings on to a statutory footing, was also raised by my honourable friend Kate Green when these regulations were considered in another place. As she noted when the regulations were considered last year in a Delegated Legislation Committee in another place, the then Minister for Disabled People said that the Government were actively reviewing the way that the uprating could be done. Kate Green asked how that was getting on. The answer she got this year was that the matter was still under review. Could the Minister tell the Committee something about the nature of that review and how much longer it might take? Could he share the barriers found during the past year to putting this uprating on a statutory footing in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury? Has the Minister any sense of the timescale for when that might be resolved?
Secondly, I want to revisit the question of differential treatment of dependants and sufferers under the scheme, also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. This came up when these regulations were being uprated last year. Dependants receive lower awards than sufferers in these two schemes, in three broad ways. The cut-off age for dependants to be in receipt of an award is 67 for dependants, compared with 77 for in-life claims. Some in-life claimants can receive a 10% enhancement under the 1979 scheme, although not, I acknowledge, under the 2008 scheme.
Awards for sufferers are also set at a higher level than those for dependants. As we discussed last year, that is at odds with the treatment of civil claims for mesothelioma compensation in the courts, where dependants receive higher awards. Because sufferers live for such a short time, as the Minister acknowledged, this can become a real problem. I very much agree with my noble friend Lady Donaghy about the fact that when someone is diagnosed, often the last thing that people want to do is spend the little bit of time left to them having to worry about money. Because the awards are lower to dependants, though, there could be pressure on a sufferer to spend that bit of time trying to sort out a claim because they are worried about what will happen to their dependants. Because the amount is lower if the claim does not get in before they die, that can add to the pressure on them. Have the Government been able to think any more about that?
As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, when my noble friend Lord McKenzie was the Minister in 2010 he began to eliminate that difference in treatment and began to work towards equalising payments for dependants and sufferers. However, there has been no progress since then in narrowing the gap. When we debated the uprating last year, the noble Lord, Lord Freud, said that the Government were also keeping this issue under review. I had hoped that the Minister would come back to it. Perhaps he can tell us how that review is going: is there any intention to revisit it? Since he told us that we are now looking at deaths from mesothelioma peaking in 2018, the amount of time for this to be addressed is beginning to run out. Can the Minister tell us anything today?
Finally, before I come on to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I have a brief question about education. When the noble Lord, Lord Freud, wrote last year after our uprating discussion to all of us who had contributed to the debates, he mentioned an awareness-raising campaign due to launch in Autumn 2014 with a budget of £1.3 million. He also kindly gave details about what the campaign would cover and how it would be run. Will the Minister update the Committee as to whether the campaign was launched and is proceeding in line with the information given in that letter a year ago? How will the campaign be evaluated and will the evaluation be published?
I turn to the Mesothelioma Act 2014 and the important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The question of 3% is very important. We spent a huge amount of time in this House at every stage when the Bill was going through discussing the appropriate level. We negotiated in careful detail about the amount of the levy, who would be covered, what the backdating period would be and the levels of the payment. We were absolutely reassured that that was the most that could possibly be afforded. So be it.
When the Bill then went to another place, the amount of compensation was raised from 75% to 80%, which was very welcome, but the question of the level of the levy was raised then. On Report in another place, my honourable friend Kate Green moved an amendment to enshrine the 3% in law. The response given by the then Minister for Disabled People was:
“Three per cent. is 3% and we have no intention of moving away from it”.––[Official Report, Commons, Mesothelioma Public Bill Committee, 12/12/2013; col. 117.]
and that the amendment was therefore unnecessary.
Now, of course, the amount has come out at 2.2%. When the order was debated in another place, the Minister said that it is not a target, it is a cap. What has happened to move from what was clearly a flat 3% to something that becomes a cap, not a target, in the intervening period? One indication being given, as has been suggested, is that the take-up rate is lower than expected. I very much hope that the Minister can give us some information to help us to understand why the take-up rate is so low and what action the Government are taking to look into either the success rate or the coverage, the reach, being taken into non-traditional areas—a point made by my noble friend Lady Donaghy. That would be very helpful.
If more money is available, there are plenty of ways in which it could be spent, which were pushed for when the Bill was going through Parliament but we were told that the money was not there. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, made a point about research, to which he has returned more than once on the Floor of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made a point about entry. There was much pressure on the Government at the time to backdate claims to earlier than 25 July 2012, which was the date eventually settled on. Did the Government consider that?
I echo the request from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Donaghy for more information about what is happening. If the Minister can give information about the categories of workers affected, can he also give us further information about those who were not workers at all, whom we discussed at length, such as spouses? There was much discussion when the Bill was going through of spouses who had contracted mesothelioma from washing the overalls and work clothes of people of people who contracted it, but who were not covered because they were not workers. Is there any more information about that? I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their helpful contributions to the debate. The Government recognise that the two schemes form an important part of the support available to sufferers of mesothelioma and certain other dust-related diseases, and the regulations will ensure that the value of those schemes is maintained. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said, there is no statutory liability to uprate them but, like other noble Lords, I am pleased that this has been managed this year as it was last year.
Let me try to deal with the many valid points raised. In so far as I cannot supply information, or if I miss anything, I will ensure that we write to all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I will try to take the points in the order in which they were raised.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his support and acknowledgement of the assistance that we have provided. We believe that the impact will be greatest in 2018. That is our best information but we will double check that, and will certainly write to noble Lords if that is inaccurate. We do not intend to make an annual impact assessment but we will look at whether it is possible. We certainly will have access to the indication of the estimates of the people who are likely to contract the disease, and I hope that we are able to do something around those in terms of the increase as it comes each year—hopefully, it will—to indicate that in some sort of impact assessment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for intimating that at least the proposal will be looked at. It is pretty clear from all the interventions that have been made in these proceedings that it would be incredibly helpful if a narrative could be provided annually, along with these upratings, of where we stand on the broader horizon of the issues that have been referred to during the debate. For me, it would be a very useful outcome of these proceedings if we could have an undertaking that an impact assessment will be provided routinely each year.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I can certainly undertake to look at this and I hope that we will be able to do so. I need to go back to the department to make sure that it can be done, but the noble Lord can have my undertaking that we will certainly look at that.
The measure currently being used is the CPI, and many people have suggested that that could be put on a statutory basis. We are still looking at that and certainly have not ruled it out. That would require a statute, but we are continuing to look at the evidence as to whether it is something that we should be doing. In the mean time, we have flexibility and I think the record speaks for itself: we have been seeking to do what we can.
The noble Lord was keen to push for more research money for projects on mesothelioma. Like him, I was delighted to see that Aviva and Zurich have agreed to pay £1 million to the British Lung Foundation, which does fantastic work. I remember the work that it did when I was in the National Assembly for Wales. It is indeed an excellent organisation. We have set up a partnership that includes patients and clinicians to identify mesothelioma research priorities, and the results were published in December. I will make sure that those are circulated to noble Lords so that they have a record of what is happening in that connection.
I turn to the 3% levy, which has been raised by many noble Lords: the noble Lord, Lord Alton, my noble friend Lord Avebury and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. It is a cap, and setting it at 3% was a hard-fought agreement with the insurance industry. It is not, as it were, a budget; it is a cap and it was set at that level because we wanted to ensure that there would be sufficient funds in the scheme to pay out the money. We have to take account of the cost of the scheme, and that is what the agreement was—it was not to fund research. However, I hope that other insurance companies will follow the excellent example set by Aviva and Zurich, which I have mentioned.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but this is an important point. It seems grievously unfair on the two companies that the noble Lord has rightly referred to, which for purely voluntary reasons have stepped forward and provided £1 million of funding to the British Lung Foundation, when there are around 125 insurance companies involved in this. The two companies that have provided these resources have asked why other companies are not being required to do the same. There is a question of equity here, apart from anything else. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, welcome though the £1 million is, even the one suggestion that I have made, which would require £2.5 million to bring it forward to clinical trials, indicates that the sum really is a drop in the ocean. When compared with all other cancers, mesothelioma has traditionally always been at the bottom of the league table in terms of private and public funding.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I think that the noble Lord is being a little inventive in suggesting that we should compel other insurance companies to follow the voluntary effort being made by two. I certainly commend that effort but it is a voluntary one, and there is always room for voluntary effort. We would not want to see insurers having to pass on additional costs of the scheme to their customers. As I say, a hard-fought, robust agreement has been made with the insurance industry. That is not to say that it cannot ever be revisited but, as things stand at the moment, it was set as a cap, not as a budget.
Lord Avebury
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that you cannot compel the rest of the insurance companies involved to pay money when two companies have voluntarily come forward and made contributions, but perhaps he would write to the 125 other companies asking whether they consider that they are in any way morally obliged to follow the lead which has been set by those two companies and make a voluntary contribution.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I do not undertake to write to the 125 companies involved, but we will make sure that a copy of the debate and a covering note is sent to the Association of British Insurers so that it can pass it on. The noble Lord made a very fair point.
Equalisation with dependants has been raised. The rules on the status of dependants and the amounts they get are not straightforward because it depends slightly on the nature of the dependency, when the sufferer died and so on. We certainly have not ruled out equalisation but it is not a top priority. The top priority is to get money to sufferers quickly, which we do under the 1979 and 2008 Act schemes. That remains our priority. I am not saying that equalisation will never be looked at. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, along with other noble Lords, asked about an indicative estimate of the cost. It is about £2 million per annum. We will review the situation in more detail and I will write to noble Lords on that issue.
I acknowledge the work the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, has done as a former president of the TUC and, indeed, the role of the TUC in campaigning on this issue. It has certainly done more than its ration in this regard. The noble Baroness usefully highlighted some of the hazardous industries which are not immediately obvious, such as the jewellery repair business, which she mentioned, and gave the example of a warehouseman who was exposed to the substance we are discussing while sweeping up.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, referred to publicity on this issue and the campaign mentioned by my noble friend Lord Freud on a previous occasion. My honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People helped to launch the current £1.13 million Health and Safety Executive asbestos awareness campaign in October 2014, to which the noble Baroness referred. The campaign aims to help at-risk workers recognise that asbestos is relevant to them and their work, encourages them to seek reliable information on how they can protect themselves and encourages safer working with asbestos through behavioural change. The campaign is not due to end until March 2015, and a full evaluation will be undertaken before any decision is made about a further campaign so that we are able to take that information onboard in framing any future campaign. However, we will, of course, report back after the evaluation has concluded. I do not have a date for that, but I suspect that the evaluation will be completed some time in the spring or early summer of this year.
I think that I have covered the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for her comments on, and general support for, the uprating. As I say, we have not ruled out the statutory footing and I have just referred to the awareness campaign. I think that I have dealt with the other points that she raised. Do we think that the low uptake is a communications issue? I do not think so. Specialist health workers and clinicians support sufferers and are fully aware of the nature of asbestos. Our schemes are in addition to that. However, I am not being complacent. Obviously, we will make an assessment of the current campaign. We also make use of social media to ensure that we get messages across.
I think that I have dealt with the points that noble Lords have made. This is a really important issue. I am very pleased that we have been able to bring in uprating at 1.2%. I will write to noble Lords with the points that I have mentioned and any other points that I have missed. In the mean time, I commend the uprating of the payment scales and ask for noble Lords’ approval to implement them.
Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2015 and the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2015 were laid before the House on 19 January 2015, and I am satisfied that they are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
I start by touching briefly on the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order. The order provides for contracted-out defined benefits schemes to increase their members’ guaranteed minimum pensions which accrued between 1988 and 1997 by 1.2%, in line with price inflation as at September 2014. As the Committee will be aware, we are not here to discuss the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Order 2015, which was made on 14 January. The rates increased under that order, by 1%, were debated in Parliament during the passage of what became the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 2013.
Turning to the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, I start with the increase in the basic state pension. One of this Government’s first acts was to restore the earnings link to the basic state pension. Indeed, we went a step further and provided for a triple lock for pensioners: a commitment from the Government to increase the basic state pension each year by earnings, prices or 2.5%, whichever is the highest. This year, as 2.5% is greater than the increases in prices and average earnings, the basic state pension will increase by 2.5%, twice the increase in prices and four times the increase in earnings, which is the minimum required by law. The new rate of basic state pension will be £115.95 a week for a single person, an increase of £2.85 from last year. We estimate this means that the basic state pension will be around 18% of average earnings, its highest comparative level for more than two decades.
Our triple-lock commitment means that someone on a full basic state pension can expect to receive £560 a year more than if it had been uprated by earnings since the start of this Parliament. This commitment also means that, since coming into office, the coalition has increased the basic state pension by around £950 a year.
On pension credit, we have taken an important decision to ensure that the poorest pensioners are able to benefit from the effects of our triple lock. That means that rather than rising in line with earnings at 0.6%, the minimum required by legislation, the standard minimum guarantee credit in pension credit will be increased by 1.9%, so that the poorest pensioners benefit from the full cash value of the increase in basic state pension. Single people will therefore receive an increase of £2.85 a week, while couples will receive an increase of £4.35 a week. Consistent with our approach last year, the resources needed to pay for that above-earnings increase to the standard minimum guarantee have been found by increasing the savings credit threshold, which means that those with higher levels of income will see less of an increase.
Turning to additional state pensions, I can confirm that these will again rise in line with price inflation in 2015-16 and so will be increased by 1.2%, which is the CPI level. The decisions we have taken on pensioners reflect the Government’s belief that even in difficult economic times, it is important to protect those who are less able to increase their spending power. This belief is reflected in our decision to ensure that those benefits that reflect the additional costs because of disability will be protected, too, and will be increased by the full value of CPI at 1.2%. These payments are the personal independence payment, disability living allowance, attendance allowance, incapacity benefit, the disability-related premia paid with pension credit and working-age benefits, the support component of the employment and support allowance, and the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit. Carer’s allowance and carer premia paid with pension credit and working-age benefits will also be protected and increased by the full value of CPI at 1.2%.
I ask noble Lords to note that, at a time when the nation’s finances remain under real pressure, this Government will be spending an extra £2.5 billion in 2015-16. Of that, about £2 billion is for state pensions, including an above inflation increase for the basic state pension, around £300 million will go to disabled people and their carers, and nearly £200 million will go to people who are unable to work because of sickness and unemployment.
The up-rating commitment that I have outlined today provides for increases above both inflation and earnings in the basic state pension and the standard minimum guarantee credit in pension credit. It also protects benefits that reflect the additional costs that disabled people face against increases in the cost of living. On that basis, I commend these orders to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I suppose that I should declare an interest as a recipient of one of the pension benefits that the Minister has just announced. I should get that on the record. When he read out the increases, I was reminded that I was the 75p Pensions Minister. He took me back down memory lane as he spoke.
Lord Rooker
I remember it well, too.
I want to raise a very narrow point on this order. Article 10 under Part 2 concerns the rates of the personal independence payment. Within the PIP is the mobility component, which enables people to access the mobility scheme for the lease of vehicles. I was in the Commons in the 1970s when the scheme replaced the old invalid trike, so I am well aware of the positive change. I make no comment on the scheme, save to say that it has given safe access to mobility for many thousands—indeed, millions—over the years, and I hope that it will for years to come. Given that it is public money that we are dealing with, I want to call now for a full inquiry in the next Parliament by the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Select Committee into the finances of the scheme and particularly the banker-sized salaries paid to certain individuals.
The DWP is paying the Motability charity around £20 million per annum. The charity receives about £7 million in lease levy from the vehicles used. It has a total income of about £30 million. The £20 million from the DWP is paid to a company in respect of advance payments and adaptations. The charity itself—I will come to another one in a moment—is dependent on the money in this order. The chief executive of the charity, which is over 60% dependent on public funds—the money paid from the DWP—was paid £160,000-plus in 2013.
However, the main vehicle scheme is operated by Motability Operations Group plc, a company owned by four banks—Barclays, Lloyds, HSBC and RBS. It operates as a contractor to, and is overseen by, the charity. This point is crucial because it is the link with the money in this order. The revenue of the operations company is broadly £4 billion: £2 billion from operating leases and £2 billion from the sale of vehicles at the end of the three-year lease. Six hundred cars a day are placed on the second-hand car market, and I am aware that one in my family was once such a car.
The company, Motability Operations Group, claims, on page 4 of its report, that it gets no money from the Government, but the £2 billion for leases is in fact the DWP payment—now, the PIP—paid to over half a million people. Because the people receiving the PIP have agreed to assign the DWP allowance to the scheme, it is paid directly to the operations company and it is clearly government funding. I call that public money.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
My Lords, it is pleasure as always to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I was the chairman of the Social Security Select Committee when he appeared in front us with his 75p increase. When I asked him if he thought he could live on that, he was honest enough to say, “No”. His reputation for honesty derives from that moment, as far as I am concerned.
The noble Lord has made a very effective intervention, even if it is on a narrow point, and I support what he is saying. I certainly think it needs to be looked at in the Select Committee in the other place and if not, the PAC is certainly the place to do it. There is a huge amount of uncertainty about the consequences of the changes. It is not just a question of transparency and proper use of public funds; there is a public policy downside that might cause great concern to large numbers of people. I do not want to detain the Committee. I just did not want to miss an uprating order because I have done 18 of them in the past 18 years and I would not want to be left out—people would think I was not well if I did not appear.
My first question is a broader one about the process we are now in. The Minister was quite correct to say that the 2013 uprating Act supersedes the Government’s usual review process for establishing value for money. What are the consequences of that? This is a unique uprating order in that sense. Was any review of any kind undertaken? Obviously, working-age benefits are largely absent from this order, except, as he said, disability carer benefits and ESA support components. What are the consequences for the future? Can we be given an assurance that when the three-year period of the 1% uplift, which was automatic under the 2013 Act—I got very excited about that at the time and I am still concerned about it—is over, we will go back to business as usual and there will be serious modelling in the department? I understand that Ministers review everything all the time and they always have done but in the old days of the Rooker-Wise amendment, for example, these things were seriously discussed on the Floor of both Chambers and that gave confidence to people that some serious modelling was done. I am nervous that that process is being eroded; it was always a valuable protection. There is a lot of corporate knowledge in the department and if it is deployed properly it can inform Ministers and Parliament. If that goes or is considered to be downgraded by the experience of the 2013 uprating Act I would be the first to queue up at the Minister’s front door and complain about it.
The other thing I noticed was the Minister’s references to the uprating of the basic state pension. The coalition Government have made some substantial progress with the uplift and the triple lock. I hope that that can be taken forward and enshrined in perpetuity, if the economy can bear the weight. The other side of that is the interesting front-page story in the Financial Times yesterday about the £7 billion reduction there has been in working age benefits that are not in these orders. I do not know if the Minister saw it.
My point is that there has been a dramatically increasing trend, in my view, of support for people past retirement age—both the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I are beneficiaries of that and, as I say, I welcome what has been done—but it should not be consistently at the expense, over long periods, of the working-age cohort of our society. There are two reasons for that. First, as colleagues know, the value of the CPI versus the RPI erodes. There has been another erosion, too: the change to the CPI in the 12 months to September 2014 was 1.2%, while the change in the RPI in the same period was 2.3%. That is another salami slice in the erosion of the respective relative benefits available to the retired population as opposed to the working-age population. Other benefits are involved, too. No doubt the upcoming election will allow everyone to talk about this—hopefully, more intelligently than some of the debates in the past. It cannot go on like this; the working-age population cannot be expected to be the source of increased resources for people who are past retirement age. I hope that that point can be addressed.
Schedules 9 and 10 of the order talk about some of the changes to the jobseeker’s allowance provisions. I am very worried about the impact of sanctions now on the jobseeker’s allowance, and they are covered in this order. One of the big increases in poverty that we have seen—the use of food banks—both in my experience and in the intelligence available to me, is among people who are temporarily out of work. I think that the great British public perceive people who are out of work as being a static group, as opposed to those who are in work. That is not the reality, as I am sure the Minister knows; there is a churn all the time and there are families going in and out of benefit. I am really surprised at the extent to which sanctions are being applied; I never for a moment expected 800,000 to 900,000 sanctions to be applied each year—I am really concerned about that.
My third point is that the department should weigh in the balance the fact that in 2010, when the Autumn Statement set some of this policy in place, there was a clear expectation, certainly in my mind, that by now universal credit would be bringing relief to big numbers of low-income households. We all know that there have been difficulties with the IT, but I am not satisfied that it is on the right track. We need to get it in as soon as we can. It will probably be 2019 before it is finished. In 2010 we were saying, “Well, this will provide some comfort”, but the fact that it is absent except for 61,000 people—and half of them are under 25-ish—will be weighed in the balance of benefit uprating, if not in this one then certainly in the next. If universal credit had been as operational as expected, and I think 2 million people were expected to be in place by now, that would have been a significant assistance to some of these low-income households. The early rushes that I have seen from the early evaluation of universal credit show that it is working; the cohorts are actually going into work, and it is sustained work. If the anti-poverty strategy is all about getting people into work, then the main engine of getting people into work, as far as I can see, is absent. I am really quite nervous about that; it needs to be thought about more carefully.
My final point, because disabilities are involved in this uprating order, is that single-parent families are under stress. Low-income households with disabilities, and some of those people are working-age, are really struggling. The Minister said that there was an uplift of £300 million. That is very welcome, but it does not match the demonstrated need that my intelligence leads me to believe is necessary to do this job properly. We have to be very careful. We are right to pursue universal credit progressively and positively, and to pursue the Work Programme and help people in that direction. We need a housing policy because, in the long run, it is the only way that we will deal with the burgeoning housing benefit bill, which is far too big and a waste of public money in the sense that it does not build any houses.
This uprating order is unusual in that it is constrained. When we get back to normal business and the economy starts to flourish, as we all hope it will in the coming months, I hope that we can get an assurance that we will not lose any of the important mechanisms that we have had for protecting the ability of Parliament to cross-examine government, just because we have had three years of a different system. I hope that the Minister can give the Committee some assurance on that point.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these orders and all noble Lords who have spoken. I shall be waiting with bated breath for his answer to my noble friend Lord Rooker; I look forward to hearing what he has to say about that. It is always a pleasure to be reunited with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. Had he not appeared, a search party would have been sent out for him. It is very good that he has saved us all the trouble. It is always good to come back and do this.
I was going to play really nicely, but the Minister kicked off by boasting about the wonderful triple lock. I just cannot let that go. I am sorry, I know that time presses on, but I will say just a brief word. This is the first time since it was invented that the triple lock has delivered a higher rise in the state pension than the formula that was linked to the RPI which was in place before 2010. If the Minister is looking a little baffled, I am sure that inspiration from behind him will confirm that.
It is worth reflecting on the triple lock’s history. In its first year it was announced but not used because it would have given too small a rise—75p was probably ringing in ears. For the next three years the triple lock was applied but each year it delivered a pension increase lower than what would have been delivered had the previous formula linked to the RPI been used. This is the first year in which it has been higher than what would have been delivered under the system that was around pre-2010—the increase here is 2.5%; an increase of only 2.3% would have come from the RPI. This is the first year that it has actually kicked in. That is a little bit of context; I shall calm down and return to my more specific questions.
I notice that yet again the Government have decided effectively to pass through the pension credit effect, which is welcome, but to fund it yet again essentially at the expense of the savings credit. Can the Minister unpack for the Committee what effect that will have on the incentive to save? Inevitably, it is not a cost-free element. Could he tell us what the consequence of that will be?
As well as the state pension, the order contains uprating details for some elements of universal credit, as we have heard. Does the Minister have an estimate of how many people are likely to be affected by these? I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, made a very important point. When the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill was going through Parliament, the Opposition and other noble Lords expressed concern about the effect on poorer households, particularly working households. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, prayed in aid universal credit in seeking to persuade noble Lords to back that Bill. That is exactly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood. She said,
“I would ask your Lordships to remember that we are working to restore the welfare system as well. This year will see the introduction of universal credit, an historic change that will create a welfare system that is simpler, more effective, and designed to ensure that work pays. We expect some 3.1 million households to gain from the move to universal credit, on average by £168 per month”.—[Official Report, 11/2/13; col. 460.]
We are some way from having 3.1 million households; I am not sure that we have even 10% of that. Could the Minister tell us what the current number is? Could he also tell us whether the Government still expect the average household to gain by £168 a month from the move to universal credit? If that is not the case, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, is significant. Universal credit was offered up as being the reason why lots of other things had to happen, but that it would all be okay. If it is not, Parliament needs to know that.
I would also like to ask a very specific question about universal credit. One of the problems about having disaggregated all the ways in which uprating happens is that it is quite a job of work to track down where any particular element of any particular benefit is being uprated. The hardest thing to find is what is missing. What is happening to work allowances in universal credit? I fully admit that I may well have missed them. I tried to go through but I could not see them here. When I raised this last year, I was told that there was no requirement to mention them unless they were changing. If they are here, could the Minister point me to them and tell me what percentage they are being increased by? If they are not here, does that mean that they are not being increased for the second year in a row, so they are being cut in real terms?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I am sorry. I missed which benefits the noble Baroness was asking about.
Baroness Sherlock
I was asking about the work allowances in universal credit. I think that inspiration may be coming on this point. That information may be in the document, but last year I could not find it and was told that the reason it was not there was because the measure was not changing; in other words, it was not being increased even by the rate of inflation. I have not been able to find it this year.
However, what I have found this year is the childcare costs element—the maximum amounts. Again, they look to me as if they have not changed in cash terms. Is that right? We debated this issue at length when the Welfare Reform Bill was going through the House and we were told in careful detail what the improved work incentives would be under universal credit. However, if we keep effectively having real terms cuts in the work allowances and childcare elements, then each time we do that we are eroding the gains to work. Therefore, it is important that the Government are open and transparent with the Committee about what they expect the work incentives to look like. I understand that the Minister may not be in a position to give me that information today, but I would be very grateful if he would write and tell me what changes have been made to the new work incentives, and gains to work in particular, as a result of those moves.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, referred to the overall impact on living standards of the various measures that have been taken. I understand that the argument for the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act was that it was a temporary deficit reduction measure. However, one of the things it has made harder to understand is what the cumulative impact has been on low-income households. As the Minister will be aware, there have been repeated calls from outside as well as inside Parliament for a cumulative impact assessment of the effects. We have always been told by Ministers that that could not be done. Recently, the Institute for Fiscal Studies published a report, The Effect of the Coalition’s Tax and Benefit Changes on Household Incomes and Work Incentives. The opening sentences say:
“Tax and benefit changes introduced by the coalition have reduced household incomes by £1,127 a year or 3.3% on average”.
The report points out that the average loss was made up of an increase due to reductions in direct taxes which was more than compensated for—badly—by increases in indirect taxes, and that is before the benefit cuts were taken into account. The IFS found that the result of that was that households with children have been hit hardest by tax and benefit changes and that the poorest households have lost more than 6% of their incomes. Meanwhile, those without kids in the middle of the income distribution saw their incomes rise. Whenever the Government mention the rise in the income tax personal allowance, of course what they do not point out is that that benefits those richer people who do not lose out as a result of social security changes such as those to tax credits, so the effect is regressive in that respect. Can the Minister tell the Committee what has been the impact of the combination of the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Act 1% increase and the uprating decisions on the benefits covered by these orders on those low-income households? If he cannot do so, will he write? Finally, what difference has the delay in rolling out universal credit made to the anticipated impact of its uprating strategy?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have participated in this informative debate. I shall try to deal with the points in the order in which they were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, rightly has a reputation for being independent and honest, as was indicated by the reference to the 75p amount. That took me completely by surprise. I have spoken to officials and we obviously take it very seriously. We will look at it in some detail and I will make sure that the Minister for Disabled People—Mark Harper—the noble Lord, Lord Freud, and the Secretary of State are aware of it, and will write to noble Lords accordingly.
Coming to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—although not necessarily in the order in which they were raised, as Eric Morecombe might have said—first: why is CPI used over RPI? I knew that I was not going to agree with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, said when she said that she was going to be a good girl but then changed her mind at the last minute. I know her sense of humour, so I regard that as having been said tongue in cheek. I will come back to her points about RPI.
The CPI is now the correct index for use, as recognised by the Paul Johnson review which was commissioned by the Office for National Statistics. Internationally, it is now the recognised medium for adjusting benefits. I have not heard the Labour Party commit itself to going back to RPI, but perhaps the noble Baroness wants to intervene at this stage to say that of course it will. Perhaps she wants to keep her tinder dry—understandably. The CPI is internationally recognised as the right way to review benefits.
In relation to the three-year welfare order of 1%—I phrased that somewhat clumsily—it will obviously be a matter for the next Government what processes are followed in future. I cannot give any undertaking on that, for obvious reasons. It will depend on the shape of the next Government what the policy is. I cannot anticipate that.
In response to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, on the state pension, I welcome the fact that he welcomed the growth of the state pension—at least I think he did. It has grown—if we accept that there would have been a move away from RPI to CPI—it has undoubtedly grown positively. Many pensioners are very vulnerable and poor, and they do not have the same access to the jobs market at that age as other people. Necessarily, they are in a different position from people of working age. I recognise what the noble Lord says, and there are many cases where one wishes that we could do more, but these are the economic times in which we live. If it was a time of great expansion, no doubt we would be looking at it differently.
The number of JSA sanctions actually decreased in the year to September 2014, the last year for which we have figures, but the Oakley review stressed that they are a key element of the mutual obligation that underpins the effectiveness and fairness of the social security system. We need to recognise that they are an essential part of the system. On food banks, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has said, this is a complex issue. It should not be a party-political issue. It is far more complex than just the level of benefits. There is high take-up of food banks—higher than in the UK, I believe—in the US and in Germany, for example, so it is a complex issue. I pay tribute to the work that food banks have done and continue to do.
On universal credit, it is right to say that we have taken a softly softly, test-and-learn approach. It is also fair to say that the evidence is pretty irrefutable, certainly in the north-west, where it has been rolled out more substantially than elsewhere, that it is working. There has been very successful work with local authorities, for example, in getting people into jobs. We are having some success. On rollout, we are hoping that the great bulk of those affected by universal credit will migrate to it by 2019.
Using evidence from claimants in the north-west of England, the analysis found that compared to similar claimants on jobseeker’s allowance, universal credit claimants are more likely to enter work and spend more time in work. They are consistently more likely to be in work and to earn more. The results are statistically significant. It is only early evidence and we cannot be totally complacent, but it is very encouraging. I hope that noble Lords will welcome that.
Points were raised about housing benefit—I forget who raised the issue; perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood—and house building. I could not agree more: that has to be part of the solution. We are committed to that in projects such as Ebbsfleet, which will help.
I do not have the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. The figures for savings credit used by the Labour Party—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Countess of Mar) (CB)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. We will adjourn for 10 minutes, so we will come back at 10 minutes past seven.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, it looks as though everyone who is meant to be here is back, so shall we continue?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I was dealing with the point about savings credit, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. An assessment has been made regarding helping the most vulnerable, which we took to be those people who were not on savings credit. It is worth noting that, while no detailed assessment has been made of the number of people affected, there are more than 500,000 savings credit customers who qualify for other payments, which are being uprated by CPI, so a significant number of them are getting other benefits, as it were.
Baroness Sherlock
Did the Minister say that no assessment had been made of the impact of the change to the savings credit threshold?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
No, I said that we have no precise figure for the number of people affected, which is somewhat different. I will write to the noble Baroness giving any information that we have but, as I understand it, we do not have a detailed figure on the number of people affected. What we know, though, is that more than 500,000 savings credit customers qualify for additional amounts under other benefits, which are being operated by CPI, so it is not something one can look at in isolation.
The noble Baroness made some points about universal credit. More than 3 million households will gain £176 per month on average when it is fully rolled out. She will have noted today’s PAC report, which recognises that the programme is more open and transparent and better governed, and that the twin-track approach is the best course of action. As I say, our approach appears to be working well, and that is borne out by the figures from the north-west.
She asked about the work allowances and the childcare element. Both of those are frozen. She is quite right to suggest that they are not being uprated; they are frozen at where they were last year. I think it is right to say that we are intending that there should be a move from 70% of childcare costs to 85%. I think we are aiming for 2016, so that is some good news on that front.
The noble Baroness referred to an overall assessment of the impact of benefits and tax changes. I will write to her on that; it would be a complex assessment to do over the length of the Parliament but, as I see it, it is certainly not an unreasonable request. I think that some of the figures produced by the Labour Party that I have seen knocking around—in fairness, the noble Baroness did not refer to them; she referred to independent ones—do not take account of the tax changes and seem to concentrate only on the benefits. To get the full picture, as I am sure she would acknowledge, we have to look at both—the increases in personal allowances, for example—and some of the figures that I have seen also use RPI rather than CPI. However, I will take that back and write to her, copying in other noble Lords, about how we see it playing out. I hope that I have covered the main points, although obviously I have not covered everything.
Baroness Sherlock
I thank the Minister for offering to write to me. On the question of cumulative impact, if he does not like the figures used by the Labour Party, the best thing to do is to offer the Government’s own, so I look forward to receiving them.
On the question of universal credit, I had hoped that he might be able to provide more information to interested noble Lords about the effect on what we are now likely to see in terms of gains to work and work incentives, because they will be affected by the changes to work allowances. Is that something that he might be able to do in due course?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
On the first point, as I say, we will look at that to see how we can do it, but we will come up with figures only if we can be sure that they are sustainable, which I do not think the Labour Party figures are. That is the point that I was seeking to make. We can toss that one backwards and forwards all evening—or night, if this goes on—but yes, we will have a look at that and I will write to the noble Baroness about it.
On universal credit, I will pick up the point that she makes, but it is worth noting—I hope that she is not going to be churlish about this—that we have more people in employment than ever before. The evidence is that the impact is very favourable in the north-west, and it is best that we acknowledge this, along with the efforts that are being made by the Government and by local authorities—not necessarily being run by the Conservatives—to make sure that this is a success. The early signs are very favourable.
As I say, I will ensure that any other points that I have not taken up fully or not taken up at all are covered in writing to noble Lords. I hope that I have explained that we are spending an extra £2.5 billion on uprating pensions and other benefits in 2015-16, enabling us to protect key benefits. The order protects pensioners, many of whom have worked hard all their lives and are no longer in a position to increase their income through work, and also benefits disabled people, reflecting our commitment to protect those who are least able to increase their spending power. These are the principles behind the order, and on that basis I commend it to the Committee.
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce this instrument, which was laid before the House on 19 January. I am satisfied that it is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The order amends the automatic enrolment figures that will set minimum savings levels from April of this year. The automatic enrolment earnings trigger sets the automatic entry point to determine who saves in a workplace pension. The qualifying earnings band then determines how much people save and sets employer minimum contribution levels. These figures must be reviewed annually; indeed, this is the fourth such annual debate we have had.
Given that automatic enrolment is in its fourth year, I think that it is a good time to take stock. To date, more than 5.1 million workers have been automatically enrolled by around 43,000 employers. Automatic enrolment has been a significant success, with opt-out remaining significantly lower than expected, but there are still important challenges ahead. Next year, small and micro employers will be brought into automatic enrolment for the first time. It remains as important as ever that automatic enrolment and the figures we are debating today remain easy to explain, understand and administer. It is also important that we target the right people. There is a balance to be struck between those who should save and those who can decide to save. As such, the Government decided that the timing was right to conduct a formal consultation as part of this year’s review. We wanted to learn about employers’ experience of live running and to test whether it remained right to maintain alignment between the earnings trigger and the income tax personal allowance in the light of proposed increases to the allowance and lower than expected earnings growth. The earnings trigger is key to targeting and striking the balance that I have outlined.
Automatic enrolment is a tailored policy. It does not force pension saving on to everyone, regardless of earnings. Our overall aim in setting the figures in this instrument is to maximise the number of people saving who can afford it, while excluding those who cannot. The new state pension full rate of nearly £7,900 per year is a significant factor in determining who should save. The Pension Commission suggested that for those earning around £10,000 a year, a sensible replacement rate in retirement would be 80%. As my honourable friend set out in another place, once you disregard national insurance, those earning under £10,000 will already receive around an 80% replacement from the new state pension. Therefore, this order does not amend the earnings trigger and it remains frozen at £10,000 for 2015-16.
As part of the consultation and review, we considered some alternative options for setting the trigger, including increasing it in line with the income tax threshold, as we have done in previous years. This option has the benefit of administrative simplicity for some but, given the above inflation rises to the tax threshold, we did not believe it was the right approach in 2015-16.
In the recent debate in the other place, it was suggested that the trigger should be lowered. We disagree. Automatic enrolment should continue to exclude low earners for whom saving, on top of the pension they will get from the state, may not make economic sense, and they should be relied on, instead, to opt in. It is important to stress that we are not excluding people from pension saving; people earning under the threshold can choose to opt in or join a pension scheme. It has also been argued that we should enrol everyone and rely on opt-out instead. Again, there is a balance to be struck. As I told noble Lords earlier, opt-out is currently somewhat unusual. The risk of having a much lower threshold is that opt-out will become much more common and start to undermine the principle of automatic enrolment. Opt-out also comes with an administration overhead. Employers have to refund moneys and unwind membership. High opt-out rates increase nugatory work, so we firmly believe that it is better not to enrol people who are likely to walk away.
I am aware from previous debates on this issue that noble Lords will be interested in the impact that this instrument will have on the number of women savers. Freezing the trigger at £10,000 represents a real-terms decrease in the trigger, resulting in around 20,000 extra people being brought into automatic enrolment in 2015-16. Fourteen thousand, or 70%, of these are women.
The automatic enrolment earnings trigger does not exist in isolation. It is the entry point to pension saving that works alongside the qualifying earnings band. The band sets a minimum definition of pensionable pay. If you earn £10,000 a year, you will pay pension contributions on anything over £5,824. The qualifying earnings band also needs to cap minimum employer contributions for higher-paid staff and let existing arrangements cater for this market. The Government believe that aligning the qualifying earnings bands with the national insurance lower and upper limits remains the right approach.
The Secretary of State has a lot of discretion to determine the right level for the automatic enrolment thresholds and what factors to consider. This year, we consulted on these factors and on a number of options for setting the earnings trigger. Freezing the earnings trigger in 2015-16 strikes the right balance between administrative simplicity for employers and ensuring that the right people are brought into pension savings. Continuing to align the qualifying earnings band with national insurance thresholds ensures that people continue to build meaningful pension pots. It is straightforward to administer and caps minimum employer contributions for higher-paid staff. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, each year with some predictability, I am sorry to say, I contribute to the debate on the relevant statutory instrument to express my concern that in linking the earnings trigger for auto-enrolment to the income tax threshold it is being set too high, and that too many women are excluded such that only one in three workers targeted for auto-enrolment is female. So many women are excluded because their earnings are below the level required to trigger the new employer duty to auto-enrol a worker into a pension scheme.
Given my persistency in raising this issue, it would be lacking in grace not to say that I am therefore pleased that the Government have chosen to freeze the trigger at its current level and not increase it further. I understand that as a consequence 20,000 people, 70% of whom would be women, will no longer be excluded from auto-enrolment when they otherwise would have been. Therefore, the Government’s decision to break the link between the earnings trigger and the income tax threshold is welcome.
I am also pleased that the Government’s decision supports the argument that it is wrong always to say that simplicity for employers, by linking the trigger to the tax threshold, is worth the price of excluding yet more thousands of women from the benefits of auto-enrolment.
I also welcome the Government’s decision that it is not right to maintain the alignment between the earnings trigger for auto-enrolment and the income tax threshold in the light of the proposed increases and the relatively low earnings growth. Low earners are likely to have lower earnings growth, and the UK has a greater concentration of low-wage jobs than some other advanced European economies, so the earnings trigger remaining linked to a rising income tax threshold would exclude even more workers over time. Those excluded, who are mostly women, would suffer a loss in lifetime pay because they would not have received the employer contribution, but they would still lose out due to any general reduction in wage levels that flowed from the cost to the employer of automatic enrolment contributions. Those are my positives, and they are three or four things that I welcome.
However, I remain concerned that, even with the freeze on the trigger at £10,000, far too many people will still be excluded from auto-enrolment. I would have liked to have seen it decreased under Section 14 of the Pensions Act 2008, as is permissible. I do not agree with some of the arguments which have been deployed by the Government for retaining it at its current level. The Government have argued that low earners for whom saving on top of their state pension does not make economic sense, and because the state pension gives them a high replacement income in retirement, should be excluded from auto-enrolment, but earnings are not static for many workers—men or women. They can change significantly over a lifetime. Most low earners go on to earn more—a point confirmed in the Johnson review commissioned by the Government. Therefore, auto-enrolment would be beneficial because it would increase persistency of pension contributions over their working lives.
Millions of women have a life pattern in which periods of full-time work are interspersed with periods of part-time work when caring responsibilities are at their greatest. But the effect of a high earnings trigger is a policy which asserts that women should not be auto-enrolled when they are working part-time and caring. That is in fact the consequence, and the figures confirm it. Almost half of those in the lowest earnings group are in couples where one works part time and the other full time. Most very low earners are women who live in households with others on higher earnings and they are receiving working tax credits. As the Johnson review confirmed—it is his analysis as much as my observation—these are precisely the people who should be automatically enrolled in saving, yet they are excluded.
The Government argue that if people on low earnings are auto-enrolled, they will build up their pots in pennies, not pounds, and that anyway the state pension gives them a sufficient replacement rate. But the problem with that argument is that pension savings are no longer reserved for pensions or replacement income. Freedom of choice means that the purpose of private pension saving is wealth accumulation. People can do what they wish with their money. There is now a complete separation between pension saving and securing a replacement income, which makes the Government’s support for a high earnings trigger even more tenuous. Why should low earners not be allowed to accumulate assets to build up their pot of wealth for their personal use? Why should an asset accumulation facility be available only to the better off?
Talking about “pennies, not pounds” resonates with that outdated and now unacceptable argument that women working part time are doing it only for pin money. It is possible to lower the earnings trigger below £10,000 without running up against the pennies argument. If, for example, the lower value of the qualifying earnings band is £5,824 and the earnings trigger is £8,000, then on a default contribution of 8% this would produce pension savings of £174 per annum. Taking a nominal value, this would produce £1,740 after 10 years and £5,220 after 30 years. For persistent low earners, that is a pot worth having, and it is arrogant to apply an analysis that because you are on low pay, asset accumulation even of that modest pot—which to them will not be modest—should not be available. That is simply a base case. It assumes a persistent low earner with no other changes but ignores that many employers are contributing above the minimum statutory level and that most low earners go on to earn more. I am sure that, over time, the employers’ statutory minimum contribution will rise. Excluding so many low-paid workers from auto-enrolment is another example of the weakness of public policy in assisting low-paid workers to accumulate capital or assets.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this order and my noble friend Lady Drake for a characteristically forensic and impressive contribution. Like her, I welcome the fact that the Government have seen the light—there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner returned, et cetera. I am delighted that they have accepted our long-standing argument that the trigger threshold for auto-enrolment should not simply be tied to the personal allowance, as it has been hitherto under this Government.
We on these Benches have argued for many years that the problem with the approach taken by the Government is that it undermines the basic consensus on which auto-enrolment was built: that it should be a mass pension system encompassing as many people as possible, a point made clearly by my noble friend Lady Drake. It should encompass the low-paid as well as the better off, women as well as men and those in multiple part-time jobs as well as those in single, steady employment in one job. Viewed from that perspective, the Government’s tying of the auto-enrolment threshold to the personal allowance has had significant weaknesses.
When we debated these orders last year, my noble friend Lady Drake built a completely damning indictment of the effect of the Government’s approach to setting the threshold, which I suspect may have contributed to their change of heart. We recalled last year that the original idea proposed by the Pensions Commission, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, and of which my noble friend was such a distinguished member, was that the qualifying earnings band should start at the primary threshold for national insurance purposes and finish at the NI upper earnings limit. The previous Government said in their 2006 pensions White Paper that they would adopt broadly that approach, so the lower and upper limits of the qualifying earnings band were set at £5,035 and £33,540 respectively, with provision for them to be increased in line with earnings.
When this Government brought in the Pensions Act 2011, though, they introduced an earnings trigger for auto-enrolment at a level higher than the lower equivalent of the qualifying earnings band, and every year since then we have seen more and more people excluded. For 2011-12 the trigger was set at £7,475 rather than the planned threshold of £5,035 and 600,000 people were excluded, 75% of them women. The next year 100,000 people were excluded, 82% of them women. In 2013-14, 420,000 people were excluded, of whom 72% were women. Last year, when the threshold rose to £10,000, it excluded another 170,000 people, of whom 69% were women. So although I genuinely welcome the decision to freeze the threshold, and the confirmation from the Minister that the measure will bring 20,000 more people into the system, 14,000 of them women, does he accept that by tying the threshold to the personal allowance for the last four years more than 1 million low-paid people, most of them women, have been excluded from auto-enrolment?
I want to ask the Minister about the coverage of women by auto-enrolment. Can he remind the Committee how many people the Government now estimate will be covered by auto-enrolment, when it is fully rolled out? Does he accept the figure given by my noble friend Lady Drake that one in three of the target enrolment population are now women? If so, do the Government regard that as a problem? Last year I noticed that the Government had offered the defence that so many women are affected because they work part-time and are likely to earn less than men, so they are disproportionately represented. That is true, of course, but it is not a defence; it is simply a description. Do the Government regard it as a problem that so many women are excluded?
The other defence offered by the Minister was that workers paid below the earnings trigger, as the Government have set it, were likely to be able to achieve their target replacement rates through the new state pension if they remained low earners. Presumably, therefore, it is not beneficial to direct income from working life into workplace pension savings—and, presumably, that applies particularly to low-paid women. But, as has recently been widely discussed, when it kicks off in 2016 only 45% of those who reach state pension age will get the new state pension, so there is a significant issue there.
I will not detain the Committee any further at this point. Labour invented auto-enrolment but the Government deserve credit for having rolled it out. We all think it is a good thing. I am very pleased that the Government have broken their ill advised link between the trigger threshold and the personal allowance, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister a better account of how the Government will ensure that the benefits of auto-enrolment can reach the masses for whom it was designed.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in this debate on the clearly important issue of auto-enrolment and the trigger. I shall seek to deal with the points made by the noble Baronesses in the order in which they were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, was extremely gracious—at least initially—in welcoming the change, and I welcome her welcome. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, would want to go on a historical journey rather than review the current good news in the present order, but 20,000 more people being brought within auto-enrolment, 70% of whom are women, is of course good news.
On the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, of whether the trigger should be set at a lower limit, such as the national insurance limit—I think that she used £8,000 as another example—it is worth restating that this does not prevent people opting in to a pension. Auto-enrolment means that they will not be automatically enrolled, but it does not stop them saving. If they are above the national insurance limit they can opt in to their scheme and their employer will be obliged to contribute the 1%, as they currently are. Those figures are on an upward trend. I will ensure that I write to noble Lords about the percentage figures in future years because they are set to go up for employees and employers. That is an important point to nail. Also, if your earnings go above the threshold in a particular year, you will of course be automatically enrolled. The assumption is then that you can opt to stay in the pension, even if your earnings dip. You are not automatically de-enrolled; if you want to stay in, you can. That is a significant point to make, and one that I am perhaps able to clarify here.
On the fluctuating income argument, if you are above automatic enrolment in a particular year you can stay in the scheme if you want to do so, provided that your income does not dip below the national insurance limit. You could even stay in then, but you would not be entitled as a right to the employer contribution—although, anecdotally, quite a few employers pay it if an employee is in the scheme. It is a relatively low cost and while that is not a statutory obligation, it is happening. There is some good news there. We have clearly broken the link with the income tax threshold, so there is of course no question about whether we can break it. We will look at the experience of this.
We should restate that auto-enrolment has been a massive success. It has been supported by all parties; I pay tribute to the support that has been given. The priority now is to make sure that small and micro-employers are brought within the system. As noble Lords would expect, we will look at the evidence on how it is progressing. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on how many people will be covered by automatic enrolment, we estimate that 8 million to 9 million will be newly saving or saving more. I will write to her on the percentage of women; of those, I think that it is roughly 3 million.
Baroness Drake
I think that the Government’s figures will show that their estimate is now 37%. Allowing for error, I am not far wrong with one-third.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I think that is borne out. I will write with a more detailed figure if we have it. I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful intervention. As I was just saying, we believe that it is roughly 3 million, which I think would be consistent with the figure that she presented.
With that, if there is anything that I have missed I will write to noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I thank them for the general support and welcome for what we have done this year and commend the order to the Committee.
Employment Allowance (Care and Support Workers) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Allowance (Care and Support Workers) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to introduce the two regulations and the order standing in my name on the Order Paper. I can confirm at the outset that the provisions in them are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
The changes to the NICs rates and thresholds and the extension of the employment allowance covered by these three instruments were announced as part of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement on 3 December last year. In the Budget on 23 March 2011, we announced that for the duration of this Parliament the basis of indexation for most NICs rates, limits and thresholds would be the consumer prices index instead of the retail prices index. I can confirm that the basis of indexation used to calculate the changes follows that approach. The exceptions to this are the secondary threshold and the upper earnings and upper profits limits.
I will start with the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds) (Amendment) Regulations. These are necessary in order to set the class 1 national insurance contributions lower earnings limit, primary and secondary thresholds and the upper earnings limit for the 2015-16 tax year. The class 1 lower earnings limit will be increased from £111 to £112 per week from 6 April this year. The lower earnings limit is the level of earnings at which contributory benefit entitlement is secured. However, NICs do not need to be paid by the employee until earnings reach the primary threshold.
The class 1 primary threshold will be increased from £153 to £155 per week from 6 April. The secondary threshold is the point at which employers start to pay class 1 NICs. In line with the commitment in Budget 2011, this is being increased by RPI from £153 to £156 per week.
From this April, the income tax personal allowance for people born after 5 April 1948 will be increased above indexation from £10,000 to £10,600, and the point at which higher-rate tax is payable will be increased from £41,865 to £42,385 in the 2015-16 tax year. As I mentioned, the upper earnings limit is not subject to CPI indexation. This is in order to maintain the existing alignment of the upper earnings limit with the point at which higher-rate tax is paid. The upper earnings limit will be increased from £805 to £815 per week from 6 April.
Employers have to pay NICs at 13.8% on earnings above the secondary threshold. In the Autumn Statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a zero-rate earnings band for employers’ NICs for earnings of employees under the age of 21 from 6 April. The introduction of the zero-rate earnings band for employees under the age of 21 is expected to benefit about 340,000 employers, helping to support the jobs of almost 1.5 million young people currently in employment.
The zero-rate earnings band applies only to earnings up to the equivalent of a new threshold called the upper secondary threshold, which is to be set at the same level as the upper earnings limit for the 2015-16 tax year. These regulations introduce the upper secondary threshold and set it at the same level as the upper earnings limit of £815 per week from 6 April.
Finally, these regulations also set the prescribed equivalents of thresholds and limits that I have mentioned for employees paid monthly or annually. Apart from the introduction of the zero-rate earnings band for employees under the age of 21, there will be no other changes to NICs rates in the 2015-16 tax year. Employers will continue to pay contributions at 13.8% on all earnings above the secondary threshold. Employees will continue to pay 12% on earnings between the secondary threshold and the upper earnings limit, and 2% on earnings above that.
The social security order sets the class 3 contribution rate for those paying voluntary contributions and the class 4 profits limits for the self-employed, as well as providing for a Treasury grant.
Starting with voluntary class 3 contributions, the weekly rate will increase from £13.90 to £14.10 a week for the 2015-16 tax year. Moving on to the self-employed, today’s order also sets the profit limits for class 4 contribution liability. The lower profits limit on which these contributions are due will increase from £7,956 to £8,060, in line with the increase to the class 1 primary threshold.
At the other end of the scale, the upper profits limit will increase from £41,865 to £42,385 for the 2015-16 tax year. This is to maintain the alignment of the upper profits limit with the upper earnings limit for employees. The changes to the class 4 limits will ensure that the self-employed pay contributions at the main class 4 rate of 9% on a similar range of earnings as employees paying class 1 contributions at the main rate of 12%. Profits above the upper profits limit are subject to the additional rate of 2% in line with the 2% paid by employees on earnings above the upper earnings limit. For completeness, I mention that the weekly rate of class 2 NICs, which are also paid by the self-employed, will increase from £2.75 per week to £2.80 per week from 6 April.
From 6 April, class 2 contributions will be due only if taxable profits for the 2015-16 tax year are at or above the small profits threshold of £5,965. This threshold replaces the class 2 small earnings exception and, along with the class 2 rate, was set in the National Insurance Contributions Act 2015.
The Government need to ensure that the National Insurance Fund can maintain a working balance throughout the coming year, which the Government Actuary recommends should be one-sixth of benefit expenditure for the year. The re-rating order provides for a Treasury grant of up to 10% of benefit expenditure to be made available to the fund for the 2015-16 tax year. A similar provision will also be made in respect of the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund.
Lastly, I turn to the regulations relating to the employment allowance for employers of care and support workers. The Government wish to support individuals and families with the cost of care. These regulations will allow employers of care and support workers to claim the NICs employment allowance. As a result, they will be able to reduce their employer NICs bill by up to £2,000 a year. Claiming the NICs employment allowance is quick and simple. Employers, or their agents, simply tick a box in their payroll software to confirm that they are eligible for the allowance and wish to claim, and their employer NICs liabilities will be reduced accordingly. Employers need to tick the box only once and this will be transferred to future years as well.
In the first six months since its introduction, the NICs employment allowance has already been enjoyed by more than 850,000 businesses and charities. We estimate that a further 20,000 employers of care and support workers will benefit from the extension of the allowance. I commend the order and regulations to the Committee.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations and order. This is something of an annual feast, and I commend him for the speed at which he read out his speech. The same three statutory instruments were debated yesterday in the Seventh Delegated Legislation Committee of the other place, where the Opposition put their traditional questions and got detailed responses. I am going to give everyone encouragement by saying that I do not intend to ask exactly the same questions to receive exactly the same answers. I commend the Commons report of the proceedings to anyone present who is interested in those detailed questions.
I have a couple of questions on the first of the three instruments that we are considering—the Employment Allowance (Care and Support Workers) Regulations. Three questions asked in the Commons were detailed in nature, but the fourth question asked by my colleagues in the other place was: why have the Government made this change? They introduced the NICs employment allowance to aid small businesses, and we did not oppose that. At the time, there was a debate about the care issue. The Government resolutely set their face against that but then, rather suddenly, they changed their mind. I am genuinely curious as to which road to Damascus the Government went down to come to this conclusion. It is not a conclusion that we particularly dissent from but we are interested in whether there is any further logic behind the reasoning.
As far as I can see, the only problem with these regulations is that the decision to make the change seems to have been reasonably recent. I worry a little, as do my colleagues in the other place, about the extent to which it might induce tax avoidance, which both sides of the House are firmly against. It seems to me that the simplicity with which this allowance can be claimed, as the Minister outlined, is essentially, in tax avoidance terms, also its intrinsic weakness. The difference between a personal servant and a care worker seems somewhat semantic. I have read the regulations, and of course the employer or the person being cared for has to fall within the definition in them. Nevertheless, those definitions could be rather nudged by people who are seeking to avoid NICs. I would value some further comment from the noble Lord as to the extent to which the Government expect this to be used for tax avoidance, because somebody is going to use it. It is inevitable that any new tax or national insurance regulation will be exploited by tax avoiders. Somebody will use it. What are the Government going to do to make sure that does not happen? What additional resource is that likely to cost HMRC?
The other thing about this is that, as far as I can see, it does not have an impact assessment and I am curious as to what the Government’s assessment is of the cost of this move. They estimate 20,000 may qualify for it and stress that it could be up to £2,000 per annum. I can do the arithmetic and I think that is £40 million per annum. I do not think there is an expectation that all will be at the maximum by quite a margin. I would value the Government’s estimate of the cost of this policy move.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his welcome of these SIs. He asked me a number of specific questions. Why did the Government change their mind? We saw the error of our ways. We listened to our stakeholders and they thought that this was a very strong idea, so we decided, in line with our general commitment to reducing the cost of care and helping with care needs, that we would make this change.
The noble Lord asked whether this opens up a big new scope for avoidance. Given the scope of the change, we do not anticipate that it will really broaden the scope for avoidance. HMRC uses its routine compliance checks to identify and tackle potential avoidance and we have an anti-avoidance rule in the primary legislation. The incentive for avoidance here is relatively small and we think that the benefits of introducing the scheme more than outweigh any small potential for avoidance.
The noble Lord’s final question was about the cost. We estimate it will cost about an extra £10 million a year. I hope I have answered his questions and that he will now be happy to support the measures.
Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds) (Amendment) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds) (Amendment) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Childcare Payments (Eligibility) Regulations 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the Grand Committee do consider the Childcare Payments (Eligibility) Regulations 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the regulations before the Committee today were laid on 13 January under powers set out in the Childcare Payments Act 2014, which introduced the new tax-free childcare scheme. They were announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the 2013 Budget and will provide financial support to working families with their costs of childcare. Once the scheme is in place, the Government will meet 20% of eligible working families’ childcare costs up to an annual maximum of £2,000 for each child. Support will be delivered through childcare accounts, into which a parent will deposit their funds to pay for childcare and into which the Government will add a 20% top-up payment.
The regulations before us today were published for consultation between 14 July and 3 October last year, and I would like to put on the record my thanks to all those organisations and individuals who responded. As I will explain in a moment, the Government listened to the suggestions which were made and introduced some small but important changes to the way in which some of these regulations operate.
There are 18 regulations in all, but I am pleased to say that I do not intend to describe each of them in detail. However, I would like to give an overview of who will qualify for support once the new scheme is introduced. First, a person must be in the UK, over the age of 16 and have responsibility for looking after a qualifying child. It does not matter whether they are the child’s biological parent; they simply need to be responsible for their care. Secondly, the person responsible for the child must be in paid work, either for an employer or self-employed in their own business. If they have a partner, both partners will need to be in work. Providing support to the self-employed with their childcare costs is a significant, perhaps the most significant, advantage of the new scheme over the one it replaces; namely, the employer supported childcare scheme. As its name implies, that scheme was available only to people in employment.
The third eligibility condition is that the person’s income, and that of their partner if they have one, must be below the level which would make them liable to pay income tax at the additional rate of 45%. This currently applies to individuals with an income of more than £150,000 per year. Finally, someone will not be able to qualify for this scheme if they are already in receipt of support with their childcare costs from other government-funded schemes, most notably tax credits, universal credit and employer supported childcare. These are the eligibility conditions as they are set out in the Act. However, it is essential that the Government should retain the necessary flexibility to make adjustments to these conditions to ensure that the scheme remains properly targeted where it is most needed. This is why some of the detailed rules determining eligibility for support are set out in these regulations rather than in primary legislation.
I would like to draw the attention of noble Lords to some specific aspects of the regulations. First, regulation 5 sets out what is meant by a “qualifying child” for the purposes of the scheme. In broad terms, this is any child under the age of 12 or, in the case of a disabled child, under the age of 17. Regulation 9 defines what is meant by being in paid work for the purposes of the scheme. This is that a person will meet this condition if they receive as little as what someone would earn if they worked for one day a week at the prevailing rate of the national minimum wage, equivalent to around £52 a week, or £676 a quarter. Regulation 10 defines income in the case of self-employed parents. This broadly follows the well-established approach used for income tax purposes and is based on the net profit they generate from their business over the relevant period.
I will turn briefly to the ways in which the regulations have been amended following the consultation. Two significant amendments were made to the regulations as they apply to self-employed parents. The first concerns the requirement to generate a specified amount of profit every quarter. The point was rightly made that this had the potential to exclude self-employed people in very seasonal businesses where they are able to make a profit only at certain times of the year. To address this, the regulations were amended to give self-employed parents the option of meeting the minimum income level across a full tax year rather than in each quarter, as had been the case originally.
The second change applies to newly self-employed parents and again concerns the minimum income rule. The point was made that it is very common for new businesses not to make a profit immediately and that therefore it would be unreasonable to require them to reach the minimum income rule straightaway. The regulations were therefore changed so that someone starting out as self-employed will not be required to reach that level in their first entire year of trading. This will mean that they will not be disqualified from using the scheme as they struggle to make a profit when they are starting to establish their business.
A further change to which I would draw your Lordships’ attention concerns parents who are about to return to the workplace. The point was made during consultation that such parents need sufficient time to put suitable childcare arrangements in place before they start working. As originally drafted, the regulations provided a seven-day window during which a person could apply to open a childcare account in anticipation of starting a new job. The argument was made that seven days is simply too short to allow parents to make adequate childcare arrangements before they take up work after an absence. The regulations were therefore amended to allow someone to be treated as being in paid work where they have accepted the offer of a job up to 14 days before they actually start work. This will help to smooth the transition back to work and encourage parents back to the workplace.
Finally, I would like to refer to the position of those with responsibility for disabled children. As both the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield rightly pointed out at Second Reading of the Bill, such parents can face significantly higher childcare costs than other parents. The Government are keen to ensure that this is reflected in the way that the new scheme will operate.
As I said at that time, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury made a commitment in another place to consider whether it would be possible to increase the maximum amount which families with disabled children could receive from the Government. I am glad to confirm that the Minister has honoured that commitment. She has said that such parents will be able to receive up to double the amount of support that other parents will be entitled to. This will mean that they will be able to receive support of up to £4,000 a year for each disabled child, rather than £2,000 a year as is the case for other parents. This change, which has been warmly received by the childcare sector as a positive step for disabled children and their families, does not feature in the regulations which we are considering but will be brought into effect by a separate instrument. However, given the interest shown in the matter at Second Reading, I thought that it would be appropriate to mention it now. I beg to move.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the regulations. I particularly thank him for the way in which the Government have reacted to the consultation by introducing some detailed changes. I also thank him for what he has said about disabled children, in giving us notice of further regulation to follow. I have only one or two points to make about these regulations, which we are not going to oppose as we see value in more money being put into the whole issue of childcare. First, I have a couple of detailed questions about them and then some questions about whether the right balance has been achieved in terms of the distributive effect that the Act has.
Of the two questions about implementation the first is about NS&I, which has been the chosen instrument for these accounts. If I have read the impact assessment properly, I believe that there could be 2 million such accounts. I understand that when NS&I introduced what I think were called pensioner bonds in the new year, it processed 30,000 accounts and its systems failed. Can the Minister assure me that by the time this scheme is introduced, the NS&I systems will be robust enough to cope with the volume?
Secondly, the choices that people will have to make between this, the current scheme which is being phased out and other potential state sources of support are really quite complex. The Government acknowledged this by assuring us during the debate on the primary legislation that there would be an online calculator to help individuals. I wonder whether the Minister can give us some indication of progress on the online calculator. I think that these regulations are expected to be rolled out in the autumn which, in terms of delivering things, is relatively close.
The substance of my concern is in regulation 15. The Minister does not have to look it up; it is the £150,000 regulation. These regulations existed in draft when the original primary legislation was debated.
I think this is the order that specifies that it will be £150,000. That is a large figure. Perhaps this is because of the paucity of my friends, but I do not know a lot of people on £150,000. Indeed, the figure could rise to £300,000 in a household with an affluent wife and an affluent husband together. That seems to be a pretty high figure. I wonder why the Government have chosen such a high figure, because of the subsequent distributive effects.
In effect, the order was debated when the primary legislation was debated in the other place. I draw attention to the Public Bill Committee in the other place on 16 October 2014, when Vidhya Alakeson, then deputy chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, said in evidence;
“Our analysis shows that 80% of families that will benefit from tax-free child care are in the top 40% of the income distribution. The evidence on how parents respond to child care investment is reasonably limited, but we know from self-reported surveys that parents with a family income of more than about £60,000 a year are not predominantly making work decisions and suchlike on the basis of the affordability of child care. The vast majority of this funding is targeted at those families, which suggests to me that you are unlikely to see much of a change in behaviour, but you will get a cost shift from parents to Government”.—[Official Report, Commons, Childcare Payments Bill Committee, 16/10/14; cols. 100-01.]
Does the Minister accept the Resolution Foundation’s analysis that 80% of the benefit will go to the top 40% of households? If not, does he have some Treasury-based analysis to counter that claim? I know of no other analysis. So far, the Government have not revealed any analysis that they have done; there is certainly no distributive analysis in the impact assessment. Therefore, I have to take the Resolution Foundation’s statement as the best analysis available.
The scheme will cost, say, £600 million a year—it varies by year in the impact assessment, but it is £600 million-plus. Well, 80% of that is half a billion pounds, which is a not inconsiderable sum. Is it true that half a billion pounds is being directed at the top 40% of households? Was that the Government’s intention, was it a mistake or do they not know?
The position that we took in the other place during the passage of the Bill is that if the upper limit had been lower, money would have been saved that could have been used to increase the percentage relief to those who qualify. Therefore, the distributive effect would not have been this apparently amazing situation where half a billion pounds is going to the top 40% of the income distribution. The Minister’s colleague in the other place, Priti Patel, was pressed on the matter of distributional analysis. At the end of one of her responses—before she was interrupted—to the Public Bill Committee on 21 October, 2014, which is now some time ago, she said:
“Officials are discussing with colleagues across Government the possibility of considering the matter in more detail and of carrying out distributional analysis of all Government child care support. Much child care support is outside the Treasury’s remit and lies with the Department for Education, and many of the schemes that exist have been touched on in the Committee”.—[Official Report, Commons, Childcare Payments Bill Committee, 21/10/14; col. 164.]
That seems to me like a promise of a report about the distributional analysis of government childcare support. Am I right in interpreting it as such a promise? If so, when do the Government intend to produce such a report, which I think we would all find very interesting?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a number of questions about these regulations. First, is NS&I up to it, given the teething problems with the pensioner bonds? NS&I is up to it. It is an established provider of payment processor services within government. It manages the premium bonds. The difference between this and pensioner bonds is that those bonds suddenly became available and there was a great rush. These provisions will be introduced on a phased basis and there will be no incentive for hundreds of thousands of people, even if the phasing worked that way, all to want to do it within an hour or two of each other.
The noble Lord asked about the online calculator. As he pointed out, the scheme is due to be introduced from the autumn. The online calculator will be introduced in good time before implementation. It would be of no particular benefit to anybody if the calculator were available now, but it will be available well before the scheme is implemented.
I think the main burden of the noble Lord’s comments is about whether the £150,000 cut off is appropriate. It is worth pointing out two aspects of the context here. First, this scheme replaces one that has no limits to the income at which people can benefit. It also does not cover the self-employed, many of whom will not be high earners. In that respect, it is a more inclusive and fairer scheme. The other element of context is that the Government’s overall system of childcare support remains focused on people with lower incomes. Families in receipt of tax credits already receive more generous support with childcare costs than under universal credit. Support will be intended to cover up to 85% of the cost of childcare and will be available regardless of the number of hours worked. It is not a scheme about helping the wealthy. There is a question about where you put the cap. The only two logical places would be at the thresholds for the 40% or 45% tax rate. Any other limit between those two would involve a disproportionate amount of effort and administrative change. The Government took the view that, given the history of this scheme and the fact that the cap on those who can benefit is being reduced, the 40% threshold was too low. We want to support people with childcare at incomes above that level. Therefore, we went for this limit. An intermediate limit would have been complicated and confusing.
The noble Lord’s final question concerned what had happened to the commitment given by my colleague in another place, Priti Patel, to carry out a cross-departmental distribution analysis of all childcare support. I reassure him that officials across government are currently examining the feasibility of carrying out distributional analysis across all childcare support schemes, but this is taking time because of the complexities involved.
House of Lords
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Small Businesses: Finance
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harrison
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken in the past year to increase access to finance for small businesses.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, it was announced in the Autumn Statement that the Government are providing further funding to two British Business Bank schemes, the enterprise capital funds and enterprise finance guarantee schemes. Additionally, the Funding for Lending scheme will be extended and focused on lending to SMEs, and furthermore, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill ensures that SMEs which are rejected for finance by banks are referred to alternative finance providers and that those providers have access to the credit data they need.
Lord Harrison (Lab)
My Lords, according to the Federation of Small Businesses, credit availability and affordability has declined in the past quarter and indeed the Government’s own Funding for Lending scheme has sputtered and spluttered into reverse over the past two years. Will the Government take heed of Keith Morgan, the leader of the British Business Bank, who has said that there are market failures which need to be addressed if our small businesses are to grow and to provide jobs for the future?
Lord Newby
That is why we have created the British Business Bank specifically to deal with these market failures. The bank aims to unlock £10 billion of new finance by 2017-18. On lending to small businesses, the noble Lord should be aware that gross lending has grown by 25% in the past year and by 41% over the past two years.
Lord Cotter (LD)
My Lords, recently the Business Minister wrote to the FTSE companies which are not signed up to the Prompt Payment Code. More than £39 billion is owed in overdue payments to SMEs, so this is a very important issue. Can the Minister tell us what progress has been made on encouraging the many FTSE companies which are not signed up to the code to do so and on ensuring that we carry on pursuing this matter? SMEs are saying that late payment of bills is the main bar to their growth.
Lord Newby
My Lords, I agree absolutely with my noble friend. We are looking at this in the context of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill and tightening up the speed with which the Government pay their bills. We will keep bearing down on businesses to make sure that they improve their performance in this area.
Baroness Sharples (Con)
Can my noble friend say whether government ministries are paying their bills on time as that would surely help small businesses?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I think that the track record of government departments on paying bills is significantly better than that of the private sector, but we are always keen to improve performance.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
What steps have the Government taken since the Insurance Bill Special Public Bill Committee to make sure that the insurance industry signs up to its own scheme to deal with the late payment of bills? This is a cause of great concern to many of the people who otherwise would use the British insurance industry.
Lord Newby
My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the insurance industry has a payment code and we are encouraging all firms in the industry to abide by it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
What action will the Government take on non-traditional funding for small and medium-sized businesses such as crowdfunding, which is becoming a far more important route to gaining funds for small and medium-sized businesses?
Lord Newby
My Lords, the Government have been supportive of the peer-to-peer and crowdfunding lending sectors and have removed barriers to ordinary people making investments while limiting their exposure to risk. So far this support has included allowing peer-to-peer lending to be included in ISAs and to be eligible for bad debt relief, channelling investment from the British Business Bank towards peer-to-peer, and helping investment crowdfunding take off through the enterprise investment scheme.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
The Minister’s initial Answer suggests that he is utterly oblivious to the fact that we have a productivity crisis in this country, a massive balance of payments issue, and that small businesses are constantly emphasising that their access to finance is very limited and difficult for them. Does the Minister not agree that Labour’s commitment to a British investment bank is the next Government’s solution to this Government’s failure?
Lord Newby
The noble Lord will be amazed to discover that I do not agree with him at all. He has failed to point out that since this Government came into office private sector employment is up by well over 2 million and the majority of that is likely to be in small and medium-sized businesses.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
May I commend to my noble friend my experience in running a small business where I found that our bills got paid significantly faster if we asked our auditors to call up the company that owed us money?
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
Can the Minister explain why the British Chambers of Commerce has stated that small and medium enterprises are being increasingly left out in the cold by lenders?
Lord Newby
As I explained, gross lending to small businesses was up by 25% last year. That is the figure, my Lords. The noble Lord shakes his head, but that is the figure. Banks have not been as open-handed to small businesses as they were before the crash, partly because at that stage in some cases they were lending irresponsibly and partly because they have had to strengthen their balance sheets—something which the noble Lord has been very keen to encourage.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
Was finance for small businesses discussed at any of the 56 meetings Ministers had with HSBC over the past five years?
Broadband
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of broadband speeds, capacity and coverage in rural areas of the United Kingdom and in city technology hubs such as the Old Street roundabout.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, UK broadband coverage is near universal. Superfast broadband, capable of speeds over 24 megabits per second, is available to 78% of UK premises. This compares with superfast coverage of 33% in rural areas and 90% in Greater London. The average overall download speed is 23 megabits per second—10 megabits in rural areas and 27 megabits in Greater London. Tech City, the hub around Old Street roundabout, is well served by business connections. The coverage of residential superfast broadband varies.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that broadband must be seen as a utility, with high-speed, high-capacity access for all? Allied to this, does he also agree that we must ensure that everyone has the skills to transact, to interact and to fully participate in this digital future?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, this issue was raised by the Select Committee on Digital Skills, which reported on 17 February—last week. The Government are considering the report and will reply in due course. I completely agree with my noble friend that broadband is increasingly seen as an essential service. That is why we are committed to providing universal broadband coverage by the end of 2015, and by 2017 in Scotland. Whether it should be a utility requires careful consideration. The commitment for universal coverage referred to is non-regulatory, and we would need to consider the implications of making it a utility. I completely agree with my noble friend about the importance of digital skills. Broadband is the infrastructure, and the important thing is what happens at either end of the infrastructure. In order for people to use it correctly, and to take advantage of the infrastructure we have put in place, they need digital skills.
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
My Lords, I think the Minister is living in some sort of cuckoo land. Last Friday, I was in Plymouth, looking at some very interesting and exciting technology companies. Their biggest complaint is that the broadband they are getting is totally insufficient. A few months ago I was in Norwich, where it is the same story. If you go to Tech City, which is the hub of what we are doing in this country, you will find time and time again the complaint that we are not getting the speeds that are required. Can the Minister say when, instead of being complacent about what is happening, there will be some degree of urgency about improving coverage and speed?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
What I was referring to mainly with essential services was the basic broadband service. Superfast broadband, which is what I think the noble Lord is referring to for business, is necessary. At the moment, 78% of premises in this country have superfast broadband. By the end of 2016, it will be 90% and in 2017 it will be 95%. The remaining 5% will be dealt with later.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister please put a rocket under Ofcom with regard to broadband speeds? The service providers boast of speeds of up to 15, 20 or 30 megabits per second, and I suppose you might just get that on a wet Sunday morning at 3 am, if you are the only person online. The vast majority of people do not get those speeds. Will he please tell Ofcom that we, the consumers, are fed up being misled about speeds and being ripped off, and that we want action on guaranteed minimum speeds?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, every local authority area will have at least 90% at superfast levels by the end of 2017. The rest will be 95%, but there will be an absolute minimum of 90% superfast coverage by the end of 2017.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, many small rural schools, for instance in Cumbria, where I come from, struggle to access a high-quality broadband connection. That results in pupils missing out on educational opportunities through not having a good internet-based information supply. Can the Minister tell us what assessment the Government have made of this situation and how they intend to address it?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes a very good point. We are obviously concerned that schools have the benefit of superfast broadband, which is important if schools are to take advantage of the opportunities offered by learning technology. However, not every school is the same. Schools have the autonomy to buy a connection that meets their needs. Schools’ connectivity needs will vary depending on the size and type of school. The Government’s £780 million investment programme in broadband infrastructure will increase the broadband options available to schools, including to rural schools.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
Order, order. Thank you. It is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, the Minister mentioned rural areas and whether broadband is deemed an essential service. The Government are saying one thing about broadband while those in the rural economy, particularly farmers, are being told that they need broadband to complete forms and participate for VAT. On the one hand, the Government require it; on the other, they are not delivering it.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I have already said that we have made a commitment that universal coverage will be in place by the end of this year, and 2017 in Scotland. I accept that that is at the lowest end of the scale—up to two megabits per second. However, it is possible—and I speak from some experience, living in an area in which you are unable to get superfast broadband; although I should inform the House that the government website says,
“but it could be coming to you soon through government and local authority investment”,
so I remain optimistic—to upload forms, such as farmers have to do, on that speed of broadband. As I say, it will be in place by 2015 in the UK.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, the Government have put into place a potentially valuable broadband connection voucher scheme for companies in our major cities. However, there is concern about the level of take-up of that voucher scheme. I wonder whether my noble friend can give the House the accurate figures on that.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, nearly 80% of homes and businesses have superfast broadband, yet only 22% of all broadband connections are superfast.
Baroness O'Cathain (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of how great a social exclusion issue this is becoming? Only today the Carnegie UK Trust and Ipsos MORI brought out research showing that it is now a serious issue, particularly in Scotland. What are we going to do? It is not the speed of broadband that matters in this case but the actual access to it.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I completely agree with my noble friend. As I said, a bare minimum of two megabits per second will be in place by the end of this year and in Scotland by the end of 2017. As I said to my noble friend Lord Holmes, we, too, regard this as an essential service today.
Soil Quality
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the soils in England will sustain food production at current levels in the long term.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, we are committed to delivering the natural environment White Paper aspiration of ensuring sustainable management of all soils by 2030. We have introduced new cross-compliance rules to protect soils while reducing paperwork for farmers. Through our agri-tech strategy and sustainable intensification platform we will help farmers to take advantage of the latest techniques, to help them improve productivity while protecting the environment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s commitment to this issue, because of course no soils equals no foods. He will know that 2015 was designated the International Year of Soils to help to highlight this fact and the enormous soil loss, which in the UK is 2.2 million tonnes of topsoil alone per year. He mentioned the new rules that have been introduced. Perhaps he could tell me how farmers will receive practical advice on their soil management from people who are not seeking to sell inputs. Could he also tell me—given the rate of the loss of soil and microbial health, and even the loss of soil scientists, as they are not being replaced at the rate they need to be—whether he thinks that the actions being taken are urgent and effective enough to ensure the continued and, indeed, increased production of British food?
Lord De Mauley
My noble friend asks a number of questions. The Farming Advice Service is a service to help farmers understand and meet the requirements of cross-compliance, greening and the European directives on both water protection and sustainable pesticide use. It has a helpline, newsletters, guidance and technical articles. During 2015 its priorities will be to give advice on the changes to the cross-compliance rules, which include the new soil standards, which go to the prevention of erosion, which she mentioned; maintaining soil cover; and the protection of organic matter.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the study of the soil, its microflora and microfauna, and its interactions with trace elements is both fascinating and essential? In view of the shortage of soil and plant scientists, will he tell us what the Government are doing to increase the numbers of those scientists, and impress upon them how important it is that we have them?
Lord De Mauley
I very strongly agree with the noble Countess. She might be comforted to know that we are investing £10 million through NERC and BBSRC programmes specifically to investigate soil security, with a strong focus on soil biology, which she referred to. We are also undertaking research on soil management approaches to stimulate soil organisms.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, everybody is frisky today. Having heard from the Back-Bencher from the government side first, we have had a Cross-Bencher, and it is now time to go to the main Opposition—rather, the only Opposition—on the Labour Benches.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Then we will come back to the government Benches.
Lord Clark of Windermere
I thank the noble Baroness. Does the Minister accept that tree planting plays a critical role in stopping the erosion of soil? As this problem gets more and more acute, what plans do the Government have to engage with the Forestry Commission to allow it to get more in touch with farmers to point out the advantages of tree planting and the disadvantages of removing hedges?
Lord De Mauley
Yes, I strongly agree with the noble Lord. He will be pleased to know that over the past five years not only have we planted 1 million trees, principally in urban areas, through the Big Tree Plant, we have also planted 10 million trees, funded through Pillar 2 of the CAP. We think it is extremely important and I agree with him very strongly on that.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, does my noble friend think it is entirely wise to cover good-quality agricultural land with solar panel farms producing electricity at an enormous cost to the taxpayer and the user of electricity?
Lord De Mauley
I take my noble friend’s point entirely. The Government’s position is that farmers should not be subsidised twice. They should either take the subsidy for the solar panels or take the subsidies through the common agricultural policy.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a farmer receiving CAP payments. Healthy soils were also identified in the Pitt review, which recommended,
“water retention through management of infiltration”,
to reduce flood risk and delay water flow during flash-flood events. Given the pressures for efficiency in farming, with the ever increasing use of heavy machinery leading to soil compaction and run-off, what were the principal reasons behind the Government’s recommendation that the EU withdraw its proposed soil framework directive to establish a common framework to protect soils, bearing in mind that none of us wants excessive bureaucracy and regulation?
Lord De Mauley
The noble Lord makes an important point. He is right that matters such as compaction affect flood risk. The proposal from the EU lacked flexibility and it was overly prescriptive for member states that already have effective soil protection measures in place, such as the United Kingdom, where we have cross-compliance rules that specifically have measures in place to stop erosion, to maintain a minimum level of soil cover and to protect soil organic matter. There is already a large tranche of existing EU legislation that addresses soil protection.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of the healthiest soils in this country are to be found in allotments? Will he therefore encourage local authorities to avoid building on allotments wherever possible and, when they cannot avoid it in the public interest, to ensure that the land that is given in compensation is of similar quality? Not any old piece of land will do—it takes 20 years to develop a good soil.
Lord De Mauley
I certainly take my noble friend’s point and I will take it back. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, reminded me that I should also have declared an interest as a recipient of CAP funds.
Leisure Industry: Turban-wearing Sikhs
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking with the leisure industry to support turban-wearing members of the Sikh community.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, the Sikh community is a vital part of our vibrant nation. The Government are committed to ensuring that people are protected against discrimination because of race or religion and we always seek to balance individual freedom with our responsibilities to keep citizens safe. Legislation is in place to allow for exemptions for turban wearers where appropriate and the Government expect businesses, including those in the leisure industry, to comply with the law.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. It is indeed good that the recent Deregulation Bill sought to deal with issues of turban-wearing Sikhs on building sites and in other workplaces, but it also threw up some anomalies. A turban-wearing Sikh may help to build a new sports facility and work in that new sports facility but may be barred from membership or sporting activities in that facility—sometimes just through ignorance. The Sikh Council reports inconsistencies across the country. There may be an Olympic talent out there in the turban-wearing Sikh community who is not able to get sports training, so will the Minister undertake to have discussions with the sports organisations, the EHRC and the Sikh Council to unlock and solve these issues?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
The noble Baroness is quite right to point out these anomalies. Through Sport England the Government are investing just over £1 million in Sporting Equals over two years. Sporting Equals provides expertise in encouraging more black and minority ethnic people to play sport. It has produced fact sheets with issues relevant to particular cultures and religions, including Sikhism. Of course, the Sikh Council would be very welcome to speak to Sport England and the Secretary of State would be pleased to take part, too.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I have played cricket and rugby to a respectable level without mishap. Will the Minister remind the leisure industry and assorted health-and-safety and conformity fanatics who argue that we cannot even change a light bulb without protective clothing that the Sikh turban is not cultural headgear but a religious requirement to remind us of a commitment to ethical living, gender equality and a respect for all faiths and beliefs?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
Indeed, my Lords, there is a very rich and valuable tradition, culture and religious faith behind the turban. We are aware of that. The fact that the noble Lord has taken part in those sporting activities is evidence of the fact that the turban need not be a barrier to sporting prowess.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend is aware that the Government have made legislative concessions in the past to make sure that the religious requirements of the Sikh community are met. The classic example is the wearing of crash helmets when riding a motorbike. If it is good enough for the Government, why is it not so for some of the leisure industry? Will the Minister meet the Sikh organisation in this country with people from the leisure industry to make sure that the matter is fully discussed and that concessions are made in that respect?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My noble friend has great expertise in these areas and he is quite right. The legislation is there and it is for individual organisations to ensure that they comply with it. Sometimes problems arise because quite small organisations—leisure centres and sports facilities—may be unaware or unwilling to take the risk of moving outside the very strict legislation, so getting messages to them will be a very important factor, as will meetings with the Sikh Council.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, the Minister should tell us why the Government have not taken any action to stop this discrimination. It is discrimination. Sikhs are allowed to ride motorbikes and work in industry with a turban. Sikhs have fought two British world wars wearing turbans, not helmets. This is nothing. The Government must take action and we would like to hear what action they are going to take.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, again, my noble friend speaks with great experience of this. There is legislation in place that discrimination cannot take place on spurious grounds, so it would be discrimination under the Equality Act if the provider of a leisure centre were to require a turban-wearing Sikh to wear a safety helmet when head protection is not justified. Of course, it is sometimes a matter of balance because there are some sports where head protection is required. It is for individual sports to take that decision, but they must not debar people from sports because they are wearing a turban; it has to be on other grounds.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, health and safety is one excuse being used to discriminate against Sikhs wearing turbans. Insurance is also being cited by some leisure facilities. Given that legislation is in place, is it not important that all the leisure industry starts to act within the law and that there is consistency throughout the industry? It is unacceptable that individuals should be turned away and deprived of the opportunity of using facilities.
Baroness Garden of Frognal
I agree with my noble friend; that is absolutely the case. It is probably a matter for Sport England, possibly working through Sporting Equals, to ensure that the information is disseminated. I come back to the point that a lot of these sporting and leisure organisations are quite small and may not be fully informed of all the facts and figures. We need to get that information better disseminated.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
Are the Government not being rather complacent about this? The Minister told us that anomalies arising from the passage of the Deregulation Bill will mean that turban-wearing Sikhs can be involved in the construction of a leisure facility, but acknowledged that those leisure organisations may none the less ban turban-wearing Sikhs from using those leisure facilities. Surely it is time that the Government did something. The Minister mentioned the fund used by Sport England. How much of that £1 million will be devoted to issues around turban-wearing Sikhs?
Baroness Garden of Frognal
My Lords, I can only apologise if I gave the impression that leisure centres can ban turban-wearing Sikhs. I was trying very carefully to say that they could not. There may be some sports that require protective headgear. For instance, in competitive riding it would be important to wear protective headgear. The noble Lord said he played cricket. Many cricketers cover their head with a smaller version of the turban—a patka—and play with that. It is important to get the message through that there should be no barriers to people wearing turbans playing the sports that they wish.
House of Commons Commission Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ukraine
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)
“The Government’s position has been from the outset that we deplore Russian aggression in Ukraine. We do not believe that there is a military solution. There needs to be a diplomatic solution that should be enabled by sanctions and pressure and the economic weight of Europe and America, but as the Prime Minister said, obviously where we can help a friend with non-lethal equipment, we should do so.
The second Minsk agreement on 12 February provided a framework for stabilising the situation in eastern Ukraine. We want it to succeed, and we urge all sides to take the necessary steps to implement it. In light of continued Russian-backed aggression in Eastern Europe, the UK is committed to providing additional non-lethal support to the Ukrainian Government to help their forces deal with the pressures they are facing. As the Prime Minister confirmed yesterday in Parliament, we are providing additional non-lethal support by sending advisory and short-term training teams. This support, provided at the request of the Ukrainian Government, will help their armed forces develop and maintain the capacity and resilience they need, and reduce fatalities and casualties.
Support to the Ukrainian armed forces is not new; the UK has been providing advice and training support to Ukraine for some time and has well established relationships. Over the last year the UK has also provided personal protective equipment, winter fuel, medical kits and winter clothing to the Ukrainian armed forces.
As part of wider government effort to support Ukraine and ensure a robust international response to Russia’s aggression, UK personnel will now provide training in medical, logistics, infantry and intelligence capacity building from mid-March to the Ukrainian armed forces. Most of the advisory and training support will take place in Ukraine but well away from the areas affected by the conflict in the east of the country. The number of service personnel involved will be around 75.
In terms of medical support, we will be providing combat life support training through a “train the trainer package” to multiply the numbers trained. The logistics team will identify and help improve deficiencies within Ukraine’s logistics distribution system. The infantry training package will focus on protective measures to improve survivability. The intelligence capacity building team will provide tactical-level analysis training.
We are considering further requests from the Ukrainian Government for support and assistance and we will work closely with key allies through the Ukraine-US-UK-Canada joint commission. In the mean time, Russia must abide by its commitments at Minsk. That means making the separatists withdraw their heavy weapons, stopping continued separatists attacks so that an effective ceasefire can hold and allowing effective monitoring to take place.”
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question. We agree that the international community must continue to put diplomatic and economic pressure on Russia and we endorse the non-lethal support for Ukraine just set out by the Minister.
I wish to raise a few points. On what basis was the conclusion reached that up to some 75 military personnel should be deployed in Ukraine as opposed to a significantly higher or lower figure than that? For how long are we committing to deploying members of our Armed Forces in Ukraine? Can the Government confirm that our Armed Forces will not be deployed under any circumstances anywhere near the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine and that, as a result, issues of force protection should not arise?
In what circumstances, if any, would the Government decide to either withdraw these military personnel from Ukraine earlier than intended or, alternatively, significantly increase their numbers in Ukraine? When do the Government envisage making a decision on the further requests from Ukraine, to which the Minister referred, for additional assistance and support?
Finally the deployment of our Armed Forces in Ukraine is not, as I understand it, being done under the NATO umbrella. Is that regarded as a potential strength or a potential weakness by the Government, and which other NATO countries are also deploying, or have committed to deploying, members of their armed forces in Ukraine, and in what numbers and capacities?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for non-lethal support for Ukraine.
The noble Lord started by asking me about the 75 military personnel. Up to 75 UK service personnel will be based in Kiev to provide the training advisory support in four areas, as mentioned in my speech. In practice, lower numbers of personnel will be in country initially, and the numbers of personnel required to train in each area will be assessed according to Ukrainian requirements and capacity to absorb the training.
The noble Lord asked for how long the deployment will last. The length of training will be dependent on the Ukrainian capacity to absorb this. We will work closely with them to continuously refine the length and forms of the training packages.
The noble Lord then asked for a commitment that there will not be any deployment near the conflict zone. I can confirm that UK service personnel will only be training well away from the conflict in the east. Most of the trainers will be around Kiev in the west, which is an area that we know very well. It is peaceful, and we do not expect our troops to be armed, but obviously we are keeping that under review.
The noble Lord asked under what circumstances we would withdraw our troops earlier or possibly increase them. Training will be tailored to meet Ukrainian requirements; for example, the medical teams will initially deliver short combat life-saver courses to Ukrainian students.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House whether the United Kingdom Government’s position that we are not contemplating shipments of defensive weapons to Ukraine still stands, and what the arrangements will be as regards the short campaign and the period thereafter if the situation on the ground, particularly with respect to Mariupol, changes significantly?
Lord Astor of Hever
I can confirm to my noble friend that the last point she made could be a game-changer, and obviously, we are keeping that under review. We are getting requests for equipment from the Ukrainian Government, and we are considering that seriously. At the moment we feel that it is best to give only non-lethal equipment.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty’s Government are cognisant of two very grave dangers in this connection? One is what historians call “mission creep”, bearing in mind how the United States of America, from the deployment of a handful of advisers, found itself sucked into the war in Vietnam, deploying millions of conscripted troops. Secondly, will he also confirm that the problem is of course much wider than Ukraine itself? The presence of strong Russian minorities in so many other parts outside Russia means that the Sudetenland game can be played ad infinitum by Putin.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we are aware of mission creep and the history here. This is a closely defined training and advisory mission, and we are well aware of the other point that the noble Lord made.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, as is the practice where British troops are engaged, will rules of engagement be agreed with the law officers that will ensure that they remain well away from the areas affected by the conflict to avoid the slippery slope situation or mission creep?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we will consider the rules of engagement very seriously. However, as I said earlier, we anticipate that our trainers will be in a peaceful area, and they will not be armed. We will keep this under review, but we are optimistic on that point.
Lord Hurd of Westwell (Con)
Since my noble friend referred to the second Minsk agreement, which we all hope will be effective, can he tell us what his latest information is about that? The first reports were that implementation was only partial, and there were bits of Ukraine which we thought were covered by the agreement but which according to the Russians were not. Can he tell us if that is still the position?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, we welcome the diplomatic efforts that the French President and Chancellor Merkel brought to the Minsk meeting. There is concern that the situation is breaking down in places, and we are watching it very carefully.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, a surprising omission from the Statement is any reference to NATO—it mentions only Canada and the US. To what extent has the new provision been dovetailed and co-ordinated with our NATO allies? Given the danger in the Baltic states, is there not a serious argument for revisiting the definition of Article 5, because of hybrid warfare, cyberwarfare and economic warfare, beyond the direct military incursion which was in mind when Article 5 was drafted?
Lord Astor of Hever
I took a question yesterday from my noble friend Lord Howell on hybrid warfare. It is an area that NATO is looking at very carefully. The noble Lord mentioned the UK/US/Canada commission. The UK formally joined this commission earlier this year. The commission provides a framework for co-ordinating our support to Ukraine with allies, ensuring all support provided is consistent and complementary.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
What reaction does the Minister expect from the Russian propaganda machine to this very loud announcement of the deployment of 75 people, particularly should one of the 75, God forbid, fall into their hands? Secondly, have there been any discussions with the Greek Parliament to see whether they could let us have 300 Spartans to help out?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I cannot answer the second part of the noble Lord’s question. As for the first part, we would obviously rather avoid the path of confrontation with Russia. We hope that recent diplomatic efforts will bring lasting peace; the choice lies with the Kremlin. Russia faces a clear choice. If the destabilisation of Ukraine continues, there will be further sanctions and increasing isolation.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
Is this aid coming out of the defence budget or the international development budget?
Lord Astor of Hever
I can confirm to my noble friend that the costs of this mission are coming out of the defence budget.
Lord Hylton (CB)
Will the Minister discuss with his colleagues the use of Britain’s soft power, with the help of the world’s media, to establish the truth of what has happened in Ukraine and to point out Russia’s many internal weaknesses?
Lord Astor of Hever
The noble Lord makes a very good point. There are a lot of weaknesses in Russia. Their economy is in a very bad way, the rouble is falling and it is very important that this message is given out. We will endeavour to pass this on to the media.
Modern Slavery Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - Division on Amendment 90 - Ayes: 183 / Noes: 176 - Amendment 90 agreed.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 53, 56, 58, 59 and 71. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, and I have fought a battle with two separate Governments over the past six years or so to be able to create a situation in which child victims of human trafficking, from overseas, in particular, have someone as a mentor, or to monitor them, outside social services. We fought that battle—it took a long time—and I am absolutely delighted to be able to say that I strongly support Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates. It is for that reason that I think, for the first time, that the battle the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and I have fought has achieved, with the existing part of Clause 48 together with these amendments, nearly everything that we both want—certainly that I want. However, it would be helpful, when regulations and guidance are given, if the other matters in various amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and with my name on them, were to be found somewhere, in secondary legislation or guidance. But for the time being I am delighted with the result that has been achieved.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely pleased that Clause 48 is part of the Bill. It recognises that trafficked children have particular needs and experiences that make them especially vulnerable. It has been a great pleasure to work with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, over these years and it is great that the Minister has been so co-operative and helpful. I am also particularly grateful that he arranged the very helpful meeting with officials from the Home Office and Barnardo’s, which operates the child trafficking advocacy scheme.
The Minister’s amendments to Clause 48 deal precisely with the key areas of concern that we raised in Committee, and they are a testament to the Minister’s willingness to engage constructively on those issues—and I am very pleased to speak today in support of the majority of his amendments. I shall not go into great detail on matters contained in the amendments, trusting that my views are well known to your Lordships, and I shall focus my remarks on areas on which I would appreciate further clarification from the Minister.
Amendments 62 and 64 address the power to make regulations about details of the advocate scheme and will now require that regulations are made and cover the functions and appointment of the advocate. I strongly urge your Lordships to support Amendments 62 and 64, which will require the creation of regulations ensuring a robust statutory foundation for child trafficking advocates.
I have one question for the Minister. In previous amendments that I have brought to the House on this issue, I have always ensured that the functions of the role were based on internationally recognised best practice guidance from UNICEF and, more recently, from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Can the Minister assure me that such international guidance and recommendations from other British studies such as the Still At Risk report will be considered in drawing up the functions in the regulations, as well as from the trials currently being undertaken?
I particularly welcome Amendment 61, in the name of the Minister, which gives child trafficking advocates the power to assist the child in obtaining the legal advice and power to appoint and instruct legal representatives. As I mentioned in Committee, I have met a number of lawyers who represent trafficked children and who have all told me that they have great difficulty in taking instructions from trafficked children. They have therefore recommended that the advocate should have the power to fill that gap.
I welcome the Minister’s Amendment 72, which states that regulations about the advocates will require public authorities to,
“recognise, and pay due regard to, the advocate’s functions, and … provide the advocate with access to such information … to carry out those functions”.
We have heard in the past various stories from organisations such as Barnardo’s where advice from charity workers supporting trafficked children has not been heeded by a local authority, resulting in a child going missing and no longer receiving the help that they need.
Amendment 72 would help to prevent this happening. I have one question for the Minister about that amendment: which bodies and agencies will have this duty? During the meeting with Barnardo’s arranged for Peers by the Minister, I was disappointed to hear the story of a child whose college did not accept the child’s valid reason for missing classes, which had been to attend official immigration appointments. It was frustrating to hear that the advocate had had to make repeated representations to the college explaining the child’s situation before it heeded her advice and removed the negative attendance report from the child’s records. I hope that such a scenario would not be possible in the future, as a result of Amendment 72.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I simply want to ask a question relating to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me; I will be brief and then I will not need to intervene again.
Following the very useful meeting that the Minister called with Barnardo’s, he subsequently wrote to us explaining that local authorities had, in fact, taken proper action. This again raised a concern that I would like to put on record and for the Minister to speak to regarding the line of accountability between the local authority and the independent advocate. At the meeting, he made it clear that ultimate responsibility for the oversight and care of the child remained with the local authority, and that the independent advocate was, if you like, a help in terms of that. Something clearly went seriously wrong with communication but not with action, and the Minister subsequently told us that. My only question is to ask him to put on record that the respective roles of the independent advocate and the social worker are absolutely clear. Otherwise, we will have subsequent confusion. I was reassured at the meeting. I am no longer reassured about this and remain doubtful about the way in which this will work. I apologise but that was the only point I wanted to make.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I wish to speak to my Amendment 59A in this group. First, however, I would like to commend the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for his perseverance in bringing this issue before the House over so many years. I hope your Lordships would agree that his work and that of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have been recognised in the amendments to Clause 48 that we are discussing today.
In Committee, I said that I was disappointed that the Government would not “be bolder” in their statements of the principles that would underpin the role of the advocates. I am glad to see that today they have gone some way towards meeting my concerns. At Second Reading, I said that we needed,
“a proper definition of child trafficking advocates”.—[Official Report, 17/11/14; col. 307.]
Again, I am glad to see that the Government have put forward some helpful clarifications in the series of amendments tabled by the Minister. In particular, I welcome the addition of the word “independent” in eight of his amendments.
However, as was said about the anti-slavery commissioner, adding the word “independent” does not mean that the role really is independent. I am grateful that the Government have recognised the strength of the argument in the case of the commissioner and amended the Bill to ensure that there really is independence with budgets and staff. I feel the same way about the use of the word “independent” in relation to child trafficking advocates.
Clause 48(2) currently says that the Secretary of State,
“must have regard to the principle that, so far as practicable, a child should be represented and supported by someone who is independent of any person who will be responsible for making decisions about the child”.
I know that the Minister said in Committee:
“Our provision sets out key principles in the Bill, such as that the advocate must be independent”.
He also said that,
“we are very clear that these advocates need to be independent in order to support and protect the child effectively”.—[Official Report, 8/12/14; cols. 1683-84]
The noble Lord said that the principle of independence was set out in subsection (2), so it was therefore unnecessary to include the word “independent” in the title of the clause or the title of the role.
I welcome the Minister’s change of heart on the use of the word “independent”, but there are so many new references to “independent” included in this clause that Clause 48(2) remains unamended. I am left perplexed about what “independence” might actually look like if it was only to be “so far as practicable”. It is for that reason that I tabled Amendment 59A, which would amend Clause 48(2) and clarify what “independent” means in this subsection, thereby removing the uncertainty that the words “so far as practicable” engender.
The need for an independent person was recognised in the 2013 report, Still at Risk, produced by the Children’s Society and the Refugee Council. That report recommended that,
“a system of protection needs to be developed which includes an independent trusted adult appointed to a separated child as soon as they come to an authority’s attention”.
The handbook on child trafficking advocates published last year by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights has independence and impartiality as one of its six fundamental principles, saying that advocates must,
“be in a position to make independent and impartial decisions, assessments, actions and representations guided by the best interests of the child”.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, one of the most important aims of the Bill is undoubtedly to better protect children from the scourge of slavery and trafficking. I have welcomed from the outset the enabling provision for specific child trafficking advocates but have also joined other noble Lords in pushing for such advocates to be given greater clout and full independence in working to protect the children they are assigned to. To that end, I am heartened by the Government’s proposed amendments which seek to do this.
At Second Reading I was also clear about the need to assign full and proper legal powers to advocates. Again, I welcome that the power to appoint and instruct legal representation on behalf of the child is now being proposed by the Government in Amendment 61.
I would, however, emphasise the importance of the constructive working relationships between the advocates and other professionals working with the child. It is important that this should be a fundamental part of their roles. I am still a little concerned that there is not enough clarification on the definition of their responsibilities. Perhaps the Minister would comment on this when he responds.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I support the government amendments and Amendment 60, which stands in my name and that of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. At the outset, I, too, pay tribute to the battles, as the noble and learned Baroness put it, fought by her and the noble Lord, Lord McColl, to bring about child trafficking advocates with the appropriate powers. I have always been pleased to support their powerful advocacy.
As noble Lords have said, we are grateful for the Minister’s efforts in securing these important amendments, which significantly strengthen the role of child advocates in the Bill. In Committee, we pushed for changes to be made to Clause 48, and specifically to give advocates the legal powers that they would require in order to carry out their role effectively. This is the purpose of Amendment 60—but, of course, I am delighted to see that the same powers are outlined in government Amendment 61. Alongside the legal powers, we are pleased that government Amendment 72 gives child trafficking advocates the ability to co-operate and work for public authorities. These are important steps in securing the protection of vulnerable children who have been, and are, the victims of the most heinous crimes.
Guardians will be able to effectively and successfully act in a child’s interests only if they have the appropriate powers to instruct solicitors and have access to the required information from public authorities. Evidence from members of the Refugee Children’s Consortium, the Children’s Society and the Refugee Council demonstrates that local authorities have, unfortunately, failed on many occasions to respond adequately to the needs of the trafficked child.
While I give the Minister the warmest thanks for the amendments that he has brought forward today, I am rather disappointed that between Committee and Report we were not given sufficient information on the interim outcomes of the pilots that are being undertaken. I am grateful for the letter sent out by the Minister on Monday evening, but there is not quite enough detail to tell us clearly what needs to be improved, what is working in the current trials and what is not. The trials started in September 2014 and it would have been helpful if, five months on, we could have had more details and information to inform our debate today. So I have a few questions for the noble Lord.
It would be helpful if he could tell us how many children each advocate represents at a time, what services are available to help with any potential language barriers the children may have, and—as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, said—what the difference is between the role of the advocate and that of the social worker. Do the trials demonstrate that there is a clear enough definition between those two very specific roles? Have any areas been identified thus far where more work needs to be done or where there are potential problems? I wonder, for example, why there has been a slower rate of uptake than may have been expected.
With that, I say again that I am very grateful to the Minister for all that he has done on these issues, and I look forward to his response.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, while welcoming very much the enormous progress that has been made—I have no doubt that a lot of that is due to the Minister’s personal efforts—I have two points that I should like to raise. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, was going to ask about independent reviewing officers, but I suppose that that is subsumed within the question of accountability.
My first point, highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, concerns the use of the term “reasonable grounds to believe” which the government amendments apply in place of “reason to believe”. On Monday when we discussed legal aid, the Minister said that he thought it was important that no one should be deterred from applying to be referred to the national referral mechanism, and therefore that it would be better to have “reasonable grounds to believe” as the catalyst or prompt for various things to follow. It would be ironic if that were to be a reason for the change today in the case of child trafficking advocates.
I wonder whether there is in fact any difference between the terms. Is one more subjective than the other, or is one a harder test than the other? I ask this because if they mean the same, would it not be better to retain a non-technical term in order to anticipate any change there may be in the arrangements for the national referral mechanism? We know that consideration is being given to having a single stage going straight to conclusive grounds. Are we constraining a change which a lot of NGOs are calling for by including a technical term in the legislation? This is a question that goes to quite a number of the amendments that we will be considering today.
My second point is about legal representation. I think that on pretty much every occasion when we have discussed this issue I have argued for its importance. I did wonder whether the instruction should be given by the child or by the advocate. Is it the advocate’s role to assist, which is the Government’s amendment? I think that perhaps it is. The lawyer needs to hear from the child, but I am not even sure whether a child—I hesitate to ask this question in the presence of the noble and learned Baroness—has the capacity to give instructions to a legal representative. Should they instead be given by someone on the child’s behalf? However, that is not the main thrust of my question.
Government Amendment 61 states:
“The advocate may (where appropriate) assist the child to obtain legal or other advice”,
and so on. Can the Minister flesh that out? If a lawyer is approached and asked for advice, but legal advice is not appropriate in the circumstances, the lawyer is going to say so. We do not need legislation to put a block in the way—and, indeed, there should not be a block in the way of that approach.
I would not want to think that the advocate would be in a position to stop the question to a lawyer: “Is this a legal issue that you can help sort out?”. I would not want to think that the term “appropriate” in this context is because it is appropriate to the trafficked position of the child—because a child victim may have much wider needs than those which are directly related to his or her having been trafficked. Again, I think it would be a great pity if those who are involved are made to question whether seeking legal advice is the right thing to do.
If the Minister can flesh out and get rid of my concerns about Amendment 61, it would be very helpful to have that on the record. If he cannot, I will really wish that I had not raised them, because I would not want the negative points to be on the record, either.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for moving her amendment. I will speak to my amendments as well. I begin by joining others in paying tribute to the noble and learned Baroness and to my noble friend Lord McColl for eventually securing the amendments that they are looking for. I am grateful that we have been able to do that.
A hallmark of the way in which this Bill has gone through is that it has drawn upon the incredible level of expertise in your Lordships’ House in these particular areas. We have tried to distil that into strengthening the Bill, which enjoys cross-party support and which we all want to see passed. That expertise is also reflected in the 23 amendments that the Government tabled in Committee and by the further 72 amendments, 27 of which we will be considering on the second day of Report. I was reminded by officials that this is something of a record. I do not know if they meant that as a compliment—equating the number of amendments to the effectiveness of the Bill. However, as we have gone through this process, time and again, new pieces of evidence—new gaps—have come to light and, where at all possible, the Government have sought to respond to them.
I will speak to my amendments first and then deal with the questions which were raised. The government amendments reflect the European Union fundamental rights agency’s key functions for such a role and the Northern Ireland human trafficking and exploitation Act. These amendments have been drafted following significant consultation with NGOs and Peers on the precise wording necessary to seek the overall objective of ensuring that we have set out the fundamental principles of these roles in statute.
The government amendments clarify beyond doubt the independence of the child trafficking advocate’s role; ensure the advocate promotes the child’s well-being as well as acts in the child’s best interests; and give the advocate the power to assist the child in obtaining legal advice, as referred to by my noble friend Lady Hodgson. I will return later to the question raised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I know that this has been at the very forefront of the debate on this issue and is reflected in the amendments tabled by noble Lords today.
These amendments also remove the Secretary of State’s discretion to make detailed regulations and replace this with a duty to do so. We are also ensuring, through these amendments, that the regulations provide for advocates to be appointed to potential child victims of human trafficking as soon as possible.
The government amendments will also place a requirement on public authorities to co-operate and share information with child trafficking advocates, where any disclosures do not contravene a restriction. This will place beyond doubt the status of the advocate across the criminal justice, care and immigration systems. Again, these government amendments closely reflect those made by noble Lords, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I thank the Minister but I did not get that letter, and I think that many other noble Lords did not get it. It would have been helpful because I tabled the lead amendment.
Lord Bates
Of course; that goes without saying. A copy was placed in the Library. I readily accept, having been on the Back Benches and followed legislation, that that is meant as a get-out clause. However, the noble and learned Baroness should have had that letter as a courtesy, and I will make sure that she is furnished with one within the next few minutes.
The University of Bedfordshire has been appointed to undertake an independent evaluation of the child trafficking advocates trial. That evaluation will establish what difference the specialist advocate scheme made for child trafficking victims compared to the existing provision. The success of the trial will be measured by assessing the impact of advocates on the quality of decision-making in relation to the child trafficking victims’ needs by key professionals—for example, social workers, immigration officials and police officers—the child trafficking victims’ well-being; their understanding, experience and satisfaction of the immigration, social care and criminal justice system; and their perceptions of practitioners. The evaluation will include a process assessment to show how the advocate process operated in practice and what might be improved. The early findings show that in the first four and a half months, 59 children were allocated to the child trafficking advocates trial. The advocates are largely perceived by stakeholders to be doing well, and there is emerging evidence of advocates’ positive impact in individual cases.
The point was raised about the college case, where one individual who was being helped by an advocate was having problems being released by their college. The very fact that the advocate was there and was able to make representations to show that the individual’s college record was not being damaged as a result of the necessary meetings she had to attend is a good example of the work that is being done.
I have a copy of the letter for the noble and learned Baroness and I will make sure that she receives it. I am aware that a number of other specific points were raised. I will look very carefully at those and will be happy to write to all noble Lords, particularly the noble and learned Baroness, following this. But I hope that on the basis of those reassurances, the noble and learned Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
The Minister is being very clear that there is no difference between “reason to believe” and “reasonable grounds to believe”. Many people who will encounter these provisions will have been used to the “reasonable grounds” formula through dealing with the NRM. This point is relevant to other parts of the Bill as well. Can he reassure the House that the guidance that will be published will make it crystal clear that there is no need to get to that point in the NRM procedure in order for the provisions to bite and to be applied?
Lord Bates
I totally agree with that. I also recognise that the guidance will be a key part of filling in some of the gaps in the information. When the guidance is released, it will be informed by the results of the trial. That will strengthen still further the operation of the role going forward.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I just wondered why the Minister had not made any comments about my Amendment 59A. I was hoping that he would reconsider the wording in Clause 48(2).
Lord Bates
I am sorry about that. I do not appear to have a note relating to that amendment. Just looking at Amendment 59A, which says:
“Page 37, line 27, leave out from beginning to ‘be’ in line 28 and insert ‘For the purposes of subsection (1), a child must’”,
perhaps I could come back to the noble Baroness on that. I am sorry I did not deal with it specifically. If she wants to raise a specific point about the effect of that amendment, which I could perhaps respond to, I would be very happy to deal with that.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I am happy to await any sort of further answer the Minister may have to my point. I was just somewhat surprised that there was no mention at all of what I was saying.
Lord Bates
I can say that the response was given in my answer but I did not highlight it as being in response to Amendment 59A. The government amendment to allow for independence when practical was drafted to give some flexibility for the basis of a future national scheme depending on what was learnt from the evaluation of the trial. We are clear, however, that the advocates will be independent. Although not tagged as such, that was our response to Amendment 59A.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I wanted to make a small number of points. First, I add my thanks to those offered to the Minister, who has listened with enormous care to the various points that we have made throughout this Bill and particularly on the issue of child advocates, both in meetings that I have had with him and other Ministers, and within this Chamber.
I think that Clause 48 is good enough. It is not as good as perhaps some of us would like, but it is important to have it in place, to look at how the independent child advocates perform, to watch with interest on the guidance and then to come back, either privately or publicly, to say if we are not satisfied with it and how we would like it to be changed. That seems to me better than pushing any further amendments on Clause 48.
I have two points on the advocates. First, I would assume that an advocate for a child victim of human trafficking who is almost certainly a foreigner in this country would be likely not only to be sympathetic and compassionate but robust and effective. That will not only be with lawyers but with everybody else, from the immigration officials through to mental health and physical health issues and so on. That is the most important part of the advocate’s role: to be the friend, the mediator with organisations and the mentor from the beginning to the time when the child has settled. That is what we now have in the Bill, and I look forward to seeing how well it will work.
The issue of capacity of a child was probably best defined by Lord Denning many years ago, on whether—I forget her name; she was the good lady who was a devout Roman Catholic and who did not want her teenage daughters—
Baroness Butler-Sloss
Yes, Gillick. She did not want her teenage daughters to receive advice on either the pill or other forms of contraception. What Lord Denning said, which has reverberated around the courts more perhaps than anywhere else, was that a child may have the capacity to do all sorts of things much younger than the age of 16 and, in many ways, some capacity at the age of 10, 11 or 12 in relation to the particular issue on which the child is being asked to give an opinion. Being a child, their capacity may mean that they can be decisive or that the opinion will be listened to but not necessarily agreed to. That is another aspect of the robustness of the child trafficking advocate. They will come to a view as to whether what the child wants is actually what is best for the child, because, at the end of the day, for child victims as well as all for other children, it is their welfare that is the paramount consideration.
I think that this will be an interesting problem from time to time with 14 year-olds and 15 year-olds—it might be an interesting problem with the 11 year-old—but it will have to be dealt with. The guidance in relation to Clause 48 will be of enormous importance, and I hope that those around the House who have expressed an interest in how the independent human trafficking advocate will work might be given the opportunity to express views on the guidance when it comes forward, which would be helpful. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bates
Lord Bates
Lord Bates
“( ) A person appointed as an independent child trafficking advocate for a child must promote the child’s well-being and act in the child’s best interests.
“( ) The advocate may (where appropriate) assist the child to obtain legal or other advice, assistance and representation, including (where necessary) by appointing and instructing legal representatives to act on the child’s behalf.”
Lord McColl of Dulwich
Lord Bates
Lord Bates
Lord Bates
“( ) requiring an independent child trafficking advocate to be appointed for a child as soon as reasonably practicable, where there are reasonable grounds to believe a child may be a victim of human trafficking;”
Lord Bates
Lord Bates
(i) recognise, and pay due regard to, the advocate’s functions, and(ii) provide the advocate with access to such information relating to the child as will enable the advocate to carry out those functions effectively (so far as the authority may do so without contravening a restriction on disclosure of the information).”
Lord McColl of Dulwich
Lord McColl of Dulwich
I speak to amendments to Clause 49. First, I have tabled Amendment 74 because I am keen to ensure that there is joined-up thinking between different sections of the Bill. Part 4 has created the position of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner and has charged the commissioner with encouraging good practice in the identification of victims. It seems logical, therefore, that the commissioner be involved in the production of statutory guidance directly relevant to promoting good practice in the identifying of victims—namely, the indicators of trafficking and the process of deciding that a person is a victim of trafficking and entitled to receive assistance.
The commissioner will have a great deal of expertise and will gather a lot of information from front-line professionals about the challenges and good practice in identifying victims in the course of carrying out his work. That expertise and information will be key to determining what the guidance produced under Clause 49 needs to cover. We must ensure that the commissioner’s knowledge and findings are incorporated into the development process for the guidance. Amendment 74 would make that a requirement of the guidance provision. I urge the Minister to accept Amendment 74 to guarantee a role for the commissioner in drawing up the statutory guidance. Can the Minister also confirm that the guidance produced under Clause 49 will go through public consultation processes to enable NGOs and other groups with relevant expertise to make an input into the guidance?
I am pleased to introduce Amendment 74 in my name and in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Swansea and Lord Morrow. I am extremely thankful to the Minister for the new measures that he has introduced on Report to strengthen protection for child victims and bring victim support into the consideration of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner. However, I feel that there is still a gap in the centre of the Bill: the lack of a guarantee of assistance and support for victims. Amendment 82 creates a power for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations about providing assistance and support to victims, which I welcome as far as it goes—but I do not believe it goes far enough. An enabling power provides no assurance to victims and makes no commitments about what victims are entitled to. Amendment 78 is a better way forward. My Amendments 75, 79 and 80 are consequential on Amendment 78.
It has been noted by the Minister and others that the Bill before us today has vastly more measures to address the needs of victims than the draft Bill. This is undoubtedly true, and I welcome all the improvements that have occurred here and in another place, but on the specific matter of victim support, the Modern Slavery Bill comes up very short when we compare it with the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, which was steered though the Assembly by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and the Human Trafficking and Exploitation Bill proposed by the Scottish Government. Amendment 78 would insert a new subsection (1A) which would require support to be provided and a new subsection (1B) which would require the Secretary of State to provide guidance on the provision of support and assistance.
There are three key elements in Amendment 78 which echo the provisions of the Northern Ireland Act and the Scottish Bill but are missing from both Clause 49 and the amendments proposed by the Minister. The first is putting in statute a basic duty for the state to provide victims with,
“support and assistance for physical, psychological and social recovery”.
Setting out in the Bill that victims are entitled to a period of support and assistance will help give them confidence to come forward and seek help. It should also give them confidence to engage with police officers and talk about what has happened to them—and perhaps even to give testimony in court against the perpetrators of these horrible crimes.
During the very helpful meeting with Peers arranged by the Minister, the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner spoke about the many victims he had encountered in his time as a police officer who were too fearful to speak to officers. It was only after they had been brought to a place of safety in the care of people outside the law enforcement apparatus that they felt confident to speak. In Committee, the Minister drew attention to the assistance provided under the victim care contract, which is a very positive thing. However, unless we establish in law a duty to provide that assistance, I fear that the victim care programme will not be protected for the long term when budgets become squeezed or departmental priorities change. In Committee, I mentioned that GRETA, the Council of Europe’s group of experts, recommended in 2012 that the convention right to a recovery and reflection period for victims should be enshrined in British law, and my amendment would do exactly that.
Establishing victim support in law will also provide a basis for achieving a greater level of consistency in the support provided to victims across the care programme. Paragraph (d) of new subsection (1B) inserted by Amendment 78 additionally promotes this by requiring the establishment of minimum standards for victim support, while paragraph (g) of that new subsection requires the service to be audited, as recommended by the NRM review.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 78 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, to Clause 49, to which amendment I have also added my name. I commend the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for putting forward this important amendment today.
Some noble Lords may be aware that I brought forward legislation in the Northern Ireland Assembly on human trafficking. It took over three years to get from the genesis of the legislation to the granting of Royal Assent last month, but to my mind it was worth every minute. Noble Lords will undoubtedly agree with me that victims of human trafficking are some of the most vulnerable people within the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland most certainly is not exempt from the impact of human trafficking, and I brought forward the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Bill to improve the response to the crime of human trafficking in Northern Ireland, crucially with regard to this amendment, to ensure that victims of trafficking are effectively supported.
The statutory requirement to assist and support victims of trafficking is a crucial part of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act. The relevant section was the product of a collaborative effort between the Minister of Justice, David Ford, and me, alongside our respective support teams. We were determined to ensure that victims of human trafficking who have entered into the NRM process have a statutory right to access support including: appropriate and safe accommodation; material assistance; assistance in obtaining health care services, counselling, translation and interpretation services; assistance in obtaining legal advice or representation; and assistance with repatriation.
That section was supported unanimously by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Northern Irish society may be divided on many issues, but the need to effectively support victims of human trafficking is not one of them. The NGO community in Northern Ireland also overwhelmingly supported the introduction of this section. In my opinion it is vital that the requirement to provide assistance and support is in statute. It makes it crystal clear to victims of trafficking, the NGOs supporting them and state agencies what victims are legally entitled to. It gives victims and those seeking to support them the ability to challenge the actions of the state if it has failed to provide effective support. It also ensures that the support and assistance provided to victims cannot be withdrawn or restricted by government if, for example, it faces challenges, particularly a challenging budgetary situation.
I have added my name to Amendment 78 because I believe it fills an important gap in what is otherwise an excellent Bill. First, it will help to ensure that victims of human trafficking are effectively supported in England and Wales. I appreciate that the Bill requires the Government to issue guidance to public authorities setting out,
“arrangements for providing assistance and support to persons who there is reason to believe may be victims of slavery or human trafficking”.
This requirement is better than nothing but in my opinion does not go far enough. There are no directions or guarantees about the content of the guidance, which can be varied at the will of the Secretary of State. Guidance also does not have the same status as legislation and cannot be relied on in the same way. It would be far better for victims if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, were adopted. It would ensure that there is a legal guarantee of support for victims.
Secondly, it seems clear to me that if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, or something like it is not accepted, victims of trafficking in Northern Ireland—and in Scotland once the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Bill has passed—will have more legal rights than victims of trafficking in England and Wales. This would be a rather unfortunate situation. Surely, most of us here and most of the public would think that victims of trafficking, regardless of where in the United Kingdom they have been identified, should have the same or similar legal rights. Of course, it is Parliament’s prerogative to decide whether this will be the case.
I urge noble Lords to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. It rectifies a significant omission in the Bill and will help to ensure that victims of trafficking in England and Wales are effectively supported.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, to which I have added my name.
I have been watching the passage of the Bill with great interest. I recognise that many noble Lords who have spoken on Report have much greater knowledge and a longer history of raising these issues than I have. In particular, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for his tireless efforts in bringing the needs of vulnerable people to the attention of your Lordships. It is listening to his contribution that has encouraged me to step forward.
I do not doubt that the Government take victim protection very seriously, but I have concerns that the Bill itself does not yet provide the necessary framework for victims to receive the support that they most desperately need at the time when they are at their most vulnerable—when they are first rescued or identified. Nor does it give a clear enough signal to victims and those who first encounter them that access to immediate assistance is a matter of utmost priority.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak in support of Amendment 78, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Swansea and Lord Morrow.
In Committee, I highlighted the concerns raised by the Council of Europe’s group of experts and quoted in detail from their recommendations 26 and 27 that the UK,
“should make further efforts to ensure that all potential and actual victims of trafficking are provided with adequate support and assistance from their identification through to their recovery”.
I quoted from the Joint Committee on the draft Bill about the lack of consistency in the support being provided to victims of human trafficking. I said then:
“If this Bill contained details of the minimum levels victims should be receiving under our international obligations, it would strengthen the likelihood that all victims would receive that level of assistance”.—[Official Report, 8/12/14; col. 1693.]
I continue to have concerns that provision of support will be patchy and may not reach the standards expected by international treaties if the Bill does not make a specific guarantee that support of particular types will be available to victims, and create a statutory framework to govern how that support is provided.
I understand that an organisation that provides support to victims told the evidence review in the run-up to the draft Bill:
“In order to ensure that victims of human trafficking are confident that the UK will provide adequate protections it is vital that protections, entitlements and support are clearly defined in legislation and are not afforded through a ‘policy’ approach that can be subject to different interpretations .... Clear, legally defined obligations towards supporting potential victims of trafficking will improve confidence in the state to provide protection for them, further encourage cooperation and lead to the successful prosecution of perpetrators”.
I agree, and am disappointed that the amendments tabled by the Minister do not address this issue at all, especially as the Government’s own NRM review revealed that the current provision of support falls short of what we might expect and of the UK’s obligations in international treaties. For example, as the NRM review noted, the use of asylum support accommodation for victims of trafficking who are also making an asylum claim raises concerns with regard to victims’ safety and protection. This has been mentioned by other noble Lords. The report concludes that asylum support accommodation,
“may be suitable for some, but not all. Shared rooms or mixed gender accommodation are not suitable for those who are highly traumatised or who have been victims of sexual exploitation for example”.
Article 11.5 of the EU anti-trafficking directive requires that victims should be provided with “appropriate and safe accommodation”, as does Article 12 of the European convention, which specifically requires countries to take due account of the victim’s “safety and protection needs”. The evidence from the NRM review about the use of asylum seeker accommodation calls into question how well those international obligations are being met. Amendment 78 contains the requirements for appropriate and safe accommodation and for support to be provided with due regard for the victim’s need for safety and protection. Putting these requirements into law would prevent the placement of a vulnerable victim in unsuitable accommodation.
The review also “noted with concern” that there is no formal audit or inspection of services provided. I am glad to see this addressed specifically in Amendment 78, through proposed new subsection (1B)(g) and through the creation of minimum standards in proposed new subsection (1B)(d). The noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred to this. The absence of official minimum standards and independent auditing processes for support services means there is no way to ensure consistency in the type and quality of the assistance provided to victims. Victims of human trafficking are all different: they have experienced different types of exploitation, and their national and cultural backgrounds are different. Men and women can respond differently to the trauma that they have been through. Different needs will mean that different forms and methods of support will be appropriate.
I agree with the recommendation of the NRM review, which states:
“Support should be provided based on an assessment of the individual needs of the victim”.
But, as the Centre for Social Justice report on modern slavery, It Happens Here, notes:
“Whilst a variety of approaches is to be welcomed there is a need for consistency across all organisations which are providing support”.
The report goes on to recommend the establishment of minimum standards, echoing an earlier recommendation from the Council of Europe group of experts report, which I quoted earlier. The Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group has also made this recommendation on more than one occasion.
We must ensure that all victims receive the care that they are entitled to and that they are cared for in a safe and appropriate manner. Amendment 78 provides a foundation to do that. I commend it to the Minister. If he is unable to support it today, perhaps he may reflect on how key elements ensuring consistency in standards of care might be incorporated into the regulations that he proposes in Amendment 82.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland
My Lords, I want to speak briefly on what might appear to be a rather discordant note. I support the government amendments for the following reasons. I have great sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, which has been supported. However, when the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raised the issue about child exploitation, we talked about the spectrum of people with needs.
In local authorities there are individuals with as high a level of need as some trafficked individuals—and I am not saying that trafficked individuals do not need a specialist service. I work with some of the relevant organisations, and a specialist service is needed. There are numerous sexually exploited young people who the local authority is attempting to support—the Children Act 1989 was as special as this legislation is—but because of cuts in local authority spending, children’s services are unable to provide the level of service needed, particularly in mental health support services, hostels for runaways and a whole range of services that we would expect to be given to asylum seekers. It is therefore difficult to set a standard for one group of individuals and say that we are not going to meet it for others.
I would be delighted if the Minister were able to say, “We are going to set this standard, and it should be for all individuals who have these needs”. However, under the 1989 Act, children who are described as being in need—there are thousands on local authority books—are simply not receiving those services. I wanted to inject that into the debate because someone has to speak for the local authorities, which are continually derided as not providing services appropriately. I speak as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, but that is neither here nor there. I simply hear from social workers and people in communities who are attempting to deliver services but against all odds. If there are specialist advocates who can give a high-quality service, such as guardians ad litem—I was eight years in CAFCASS, and I know all about the services such specialists are able to give—we need to look to enabling local authority social workers to give such services to every child in need.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, we dealt in the previous group of amendments with the distinction, or lack of it, between “reason to believe” and “reasonable grounds to believe”, and to which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, referred. Here, just as on that issue, the guidance will be important in making clear the position. That is because the first few days are so critical, as the noble Lord and others have said.
Guidance will also be important as regards our international obligations, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, referred. Looking at Amendment 78, I have been wondering whether it is necessary to detail what are already obligations, or whether one should have simply the general umbrella description, so that we are not stuck on any particular points. It might be necessary because we are, we hope, making quite a step change. It might also be necessary because having them spelt out in primary legislation will be an easier route to a remedy through the courts; but I raise the point because, if the amendment is not accepted, the guidance will be important in that regard.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, we are not directly associated with any of the amendments in this group, but the proponents of Amendment 78 have certainly made a powerful case in support of it. They referred to the Northern Ireland Act and to the Bill in Scotland which are much more specific on support and assistance for victims than this Bill as it is currently worded. We will wait to see whether the Government are going to give a helpful response to Amendment 78 in particular; or, alternatively, whether, when the Minister comes to propose his amendments, he can persuade us that they actually address the point.
There must surely be a need for the Government to say something now at least on what minimum level of assistance and support they would expect would be provided to victims of slavery or human trafficking and in what circumstances. This major question should not be left so much in the air as is the case in the Bill as it is worded. It would still appear to be the case—we will wait for the Minister to speak to his amendment—in government Amendment 82.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 74, moved by my noble friend Lord McColl, to the amendments tabled by him and other noble Lords and to the nine government amendments standing in my name in this group. I shall speak, first, to the government amendments and then respond to the amendments tabled by other noble Lords and address at that point some of the questions which have been raised. I am grateful to noble Lords for tabling these amendments relating to the identification and support of victims, particularly through the national referral mechanism. I shall move government amendments on this issue.
The quality of the identification and support of victims is an essential issue. As I have said before, the victim is at the heart of the Government’s approach to tackling modern slavery. It is right that we had a thorough debate in Committee on issues relating to victims and we are very grateful that so many noble Lords took part in the excellent discussions we had outside the Chamber ahead of Report. Given the importance of identifying and supporting victims I entirely understand the sentiment behind Amendment 78—tabled by the noble Lords, Lord McColl, Lord Anderson of Swansea, and Lord Morrow, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—which would place support of victims on a statutory footing immediately.
At this point I pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, in introducing this important, ground-breaking legislation in Northern Ireland. We have been following closely the excellent work by the Assembly—by the noble Lord and David Ford—in bringing this forward. It is an example of the way in which we can learn together. There is the potential for the role of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner—who I know has had constructive meetings in Northern Ireland—to be UK-wide. This would help ensure consistency of standards and support as we move forward. I want to place on record my thanks and our respect for what the noble Lord has done.
As I set out in the debate on a previous group of amendments I have some concerns about moving immediately to a statutory footing for the NRM. We have just had a review of the system which found that major changes are needed, and we have, in principle, accepted all its recommendations. Many have referred to the NRM and Jeremy Oppenheim’s excellent review, which has received widespread approval. However, he stopped short of recommending that there should be a statutory element to the NRM at that stage.
Some of the changes in the national referral mechanism reflect key concerns raised in Parliament through the pre-legislative scrutiny process and since, for example, changing the decision-making process so that final decisions are taken by multiagency panels rather than UK Visas and Immigration or the NCA alone. We are setting up pilots to test out the new arrangements. I do not believe that an immediate move to a statutory footing while the system is in flux would be appropriate. I am also concerned that we need to consider the conclusions of the review of the national referral mechanism, which raise concerns that a statutory footing could lead to a loss of flexibility.
However, the Government have listened carefully to the debates on the issue, particularly the imaginative and practical idea put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in Committee; and under Amendment 48, which we have already debated, we have brought forward that change. Given the changes being made currently, an enabling power which allows for the Government to place the national referral mechanism on a statutory basis once we have a more settled and effective system is an excellent idea. That is why I am bringing forward today government Amendments 76 and 77, 81 to 87 and 107, which place an enabling power in the Bill to make regulations in relation to the support and assistance of victims of modern slavery. The amendments will allow for regulations to be made about accommodation, financial assistance, assistance in obtaining healthcare—a question that was raised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee—the provision of information, and translation and interpretation services where a person is a victim of modern slavery or there are reasonable grounds to believe that they are. These are exactly the types of support that were previously covered by Amendment 78.
Amendment 74, tabled by my noble friend Lord McColl, seeks to require the statutory guidance set out in Clause 49 to be developed in conjunction with the commissioner. We are determined to involve the commissioner fully in the development of the statutory guidance set out in Clause 49, and have also committed to a formal public consultation. One of the commissioner’s core functions is encouraging good practice in the identification of victims of modern slavery. Given that we already have a clear intention to involve the commissioner in the development of the guidance, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, although I think that we are very much in the same area on the points made by my noble friend.
I turn now to some of the specific questions which have been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, talked about minimum standards. As part of our work to retender the adult victim care contract, we have included minimum standards of care which will ensure that the care provided through the contract is routinely inspected.
On average wait times, individuals who need support immediately will be accommodated under the adult victim care contract from the point they come to the attention of the first responder and are referred for support. There will be no gaps, 48-hour delays or anything like that; it comes into play as soon as they come to the attention of the first responder. Of course, a huge section of the NRM dealt with the effectiveness of the first responder system, and clearly some were much better than others. Most of the referrals to the system were coming via the Home Office, perhaps fewer than one might expect were coming from local authorities, a small number were from NGOs and an even smaller number were from the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. One of the key elements that we need to look at is the quality of the training that people are provided with, and this was recognised by Jeremy Oppenheim. We need to make sure that the first responders are more able to deal with these issues.
My noble friend Lord McColl said that we need the words “the right to support” in the Bill. The Government are under a duty to provide support services to victims under the Council of Europe convention and the EU directive on trafficking. Placing this phrase on the face of the Bill would not change this duty, as the NRM review set out. In fact, Jeremy Oppenheim said in the review that:
“Any process put on a statutory footing can become inflexible and unresponsive to changing demands and indeed improvements, due to the requirement to further legislate before making changes. Pinning the National Referral Mechanism down now would not be an effective methodology particularly when the National Referral Mechanism is going through a period of significant change”.
I simply repeat that to demonstrate that neither here nor throughout the Bill are we objecting out of hand to the proposals. We are trying to move forward on the basis of the evidence and the advice that we are getting from various expert groups, and that was a clear recommendation. The fact that we have tabled these amendments is a good indicator of that.
My noble friend Lord McColl also asked about support prior to the reasonable grounds decision. The NRM pilots will be implemented as soon as possible. They will include testing the amalgamation of the referral and reasonable grounds decision, which will allow victims to access support and accommodation immediately. Currently, support and accommodation can be provided to the individual prior to receiving a reasonable grounds decision, which I know was at the heart of the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Where there is a need, this is provided for on a case-by-case basis, recognising of course that the local authority has the first responsibility to provide immediate care, particularly in the case of vulnerable children.
I am happy to reflect on those outlines and explanations further, and indeed to look again at the comments made in this debate—as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser has invited me to do; I am happy to continue doing that, as I have done throughout. With that, I hope that my noble friend Lord McColl will consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, does he happen to know whether the Northern Irish legislation includes the person who has the obligation to provide the support? This amendment does not seem to have that. I wonder whether the Minister knows whether the Northern Ireland legislation says who must provide the support.
Lord Bates
I always slightly quake in my boots when my noble and learned friend asks me a question, because if I think I have actually understood the question, I am probably overreaching myself in terms of my understanding of it. I think that we are talking about the individual—the noble Lord, Lord Morrow can respond, should he wish, on the specifics of Northern Ireland—and making it clear that the support to be provided is through the care contract, which is currently provided through the national referral mechanism. In addition, there are particular statutory duties, of course, on the part of local authorities to provide social care for vulnerable individuals. I will, again, reflect on that and if there are any changes I will certainly write and clarify the remarks that I have made.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contribution, and I especially thank the Minister for his and for many of the explanations that he has given. I also thank him again for the many ways in which he has accommodated us. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 74.
Lord Bates
Lord Bates
“( ) If the Secretary of State makes regulations under section (Regulations about identifying and supporting victims), the references in subsection (1) to “arrangements” include arrangements under the regulations.”
Lord Bates
“Regulations about identifying and supporting victims
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for assistance and support to be provided to persons—
(a) who there are reasonable grounds to believe may be victims of slavery or human trafficking;(b) who are victims of slavery or human trafficking.(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations providing for public authorities to determine (for the purposes of regulations under subsection (1) or other purposes specified in the regulations) whether—
(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of slavery or human trafficking;(b) a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking. (3) Regulations under subsection (2) may in particular make provision about the public authorities who may make such determinations, and the criteria and procedure for doing so.”
Lord Bates
“(a) any regulations made under section (Regulations about identifying and supporting victims)(1);(b) ”
Lord Bates
“(a) may provide that a public authority which includes information in a notification in accordance with the regulations does not breach any obligation of confidence owed by the public authority in relation to that information;(b) may not require or authorise the inclusion of information which contravenes any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).”
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 89 and 108 in this group. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s excellent report on the Modern Slavery Bill recommended specifying on the face of the Bill an initial list of public authorities which will be subject to the duty to notify potential victims of modern slavery to the Home Office and ensuring that authorities could only be removed from the list through the affirmative procedure.
I welcome the Committee’s balanced and constructive consideration and agree that these measures would give Parliament the appropriate level of scrutiny of the new duty. We are therefore tabling amendments to reflect these recommendations. On commencement of this provision, the duty to notify will apply to the police, the National Crime Agency, the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and local authorities. These are the key public authorities that make referrals into the national referral mechanism and have a key role to play in tackling modern slavery. They are most likely to encounter victims and also have the expertise effectively to identify them.
However, we are determined to improve the identification of victims, including through the statutory guidance provided for in the Bill. We will work with other public authorities to improve their knowledge and, should it become clear that other public authorities should also be made subject to this duty, they can be added via regulations. In line with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, such additions will be made via the negative procedure. Amendment 108 ensures that any removal of an authority would be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Government Amendment 88 clarifies what information can be provided as part of the duty and takes a similar approach to information safeguards as govern the disclosure of information provided to the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner under the duty to co-operate. We have looked again at the detail of this provision to ensure that the duty to notify respects existing restrictions on the disclosure of information, including those set out in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Crime and Courts Act 2013, and is pertinent, given that the duty will now apply to the National Crime Agency.
These amendments place the duty to notify on a wide group of key public authorities and ensure that Parliament has appropriate oversight of this provision. I hope that noble Lords therefore feel able to support them.
“(5) This section applies to—
(a) a chief officer of police for a police area,(b) the chief constable of the British Transport Police Force,(c) the National Crime Agency,(d) a county council,(e) a county borough council,(f) a district council,(g) a London borough council,(h) the Greater London Authority,(i) the Common Council of the City of London,(j) the Council of the Isles of Scilly,(k) the Gangmasters Licensing Authority.(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend subsection (5) so as to—
(a) add or remove a public authority;(b) amend the entry for a public authority.”
Lord Hylton
“Protection from slavery for overseas domestic workers
All overseas domestic workers in the United Kingdom, including those working for staff of diplomatic missions, shall be entitled to—(a) change their employer (but not work sector) while in the United Kingdom;(b) renew their domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visa, each such renewal being for a period not exceeding twelve months, as long as they remain in employment and are able to support themselves without recourse to public funds;(c) a three month temporary visa permitting them to live in the United Kingdom for the purposes of seeking alternative employment as an overseas domestic worker where there is evidence that the worker has been a victim of modern slavery.”
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for the absence from this debate of my noble friend Lady Cox. She is overseas on one of her many expeditions. I thank those noble Lords who have put their names to the amendment, perhaps in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, with her expert knowledge of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where, sadly, so much abuse of domestic workers has taken place. In moving the amendment, I thank the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Bates—for his constant efforts to be constructive. He has seen me and other noble Lords twice since Committee, and has sent me two letters, totalling 12 pages. I am also grateful for another letter, from Karen Bradley MP, a Minister in the Home Office.
The issue of domestic slavery may be new to Ministers but I have been working with it and on it with, I am sorry to say, only very partial success, since the early 1990s. The sad fact is that many people, mostly women, have suffered greatly during these long years. The Minister wrote that there would be an independent review, which is to report by the end of July. There may be a new Government by then, and we have no idea of their future plans for legislation or their willingness to change the Immigration Rules. Either course would take time and thus prolong workers’ suffering. We currently have a legislative opportunity, so let us grasp it.
The noble Lord also wrote about the new visa-linked contract and the cards to be given to both employer and worker. These may help slightly, perhaps most of all with the majority of decent employers. However, the caseworkers at the point of departure overseas have to be satisfied that the national minimum wage will be paid. How, in practice, can they do that when the employer is bound to say yes to their questions? The letter from the Minister also said that,
“an extensive package of support is available to trafficked Overseas Domestic Workers”.
This has not, I am sorry to say, proved very effective so far for other categories of people, such as those forced into prostitution. How will it protect domestics who are here legally but may be prisoners in their employers’ houses? Have any of them, I wonder, benefited from discretionary leave to remain?
There is a hoary old theory in the Home Office that allowing domestics to change employers would create a pull factor, enticing extra people to come here. I reply that they cannot come at all unless their employer brings them here. The Home Office may be thinking of domestics from the European Union, but they can come here anyway and register for work with all the employment agencies in London. Furthermore, our amendment specifies an extension of 12 months—it could perhaps be 15—so that the worker cannot stay indefinitely. Nothing in the amendment encourages extra immigration.
The amendment should be seen in the context of forced labour and gross abuses of tied workers worldwide, but perhaps especially in the Middle East. I am glad to know that the Government are ratifying the ILO protocol to the Forced Labour Convention. That makes it all the more disgraceful that they should tolerate a loophole which has allowed exploitation and abuse to take place here. Ministers have called for changes to the kafala system, which ties huge numbers of workers to their employers in the Gulf and Saudi Arabia. There migrants may require employers’ consent for an exit visa, even for a holiday. Human Rights Watch has documented widespread abuses in the Emirates, and conditions are similar in other parts of that region. The mentality that sees nothing wrong in exploiting workers and domestics then comes to England, in particular to London. Compensation cases, both here and in Ireland, have shown the scale of the wrongs, crying out for redress.
There can be no doubt that domestic workers tied to one employer and living on his premises are extremely vulnerable. They are almost all sending remittances to support children and families in their home countries, where, it is most important to know and understand, there is no welfare state. This therefore makes them reluctant to complain of hardships or to leave their employer, whether that is in the Middle East or here in Britain.
The key protection that is needed is access to our civil courts and to employment tribunals. This was available between 1998 and 2012. During that time, some 50 cases were brought, securing between £1 million and £2 million in compensation. That is roughly £30,000 per case. My noble friend Lady Cox showed on 10 December how conditions have got worse since 2012. The victims often cannot run away; or if they do, they become illegal immigrants. I conclude with a quotation from an unnamed Filipino domestic in London. She said:
“It’s worse than Saudi Arabia. They treat me like a prisoner. They never even give me a single pound. I’m starting work around 4.30 in the morning, until 1 o’clock in the morning”—
the following day—
“I’m sleeping only in the kitchen. I’m crying the whole time that I’m sleeping on the floor”.
The Government rejected the advice of two Joint Select Committees on this subject. They only defeated the relevant amendment in the other place by the casting vote of the committee chairman. They have since had time to think again and to digest not only the parliamentary problem in both Houses but also an ITV documentary and Radio 4 and other press coverage. I urge them to accept this amendment or to improve it for Third Reading. If they do not like that course, they have the option to change the Immigration Rules, as was done in 1988 and again in 2012. If they prefer the second option, we must have a cast-iron guarantee today that this will be done. This is a modest amendment, because it does not revoke the original concession, it just helps to prevent its worst consequences. In particular, it will prevent domestic workers who escape from going underground in complete illegality. I commend the amendment to your Lordships and beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I support Amendment 90, which would end the unacceptable situation regarding the current visa system for overseas domestic workers. In Committee we heard many passionate speeches. Since then, the Minister has announced a review and a package of other changes that the Government will be bringing forward to ameliorate the situation. As helpful as these may be, they do not tackle head-on the current desperate plight of many domestic workers who are subject to exploitation, slavery and forced labour.
The Government have had nearly a year since the pre-legislative scrutiny committee published its report in April 2014 to look into this and review the visa system for ODWs. So I have to ask why they have left it so late to commission a review. I have no doubt that James Ewins, who will undertake the review, will do a splendid job: he is superbly qualified. However, the review is both too late and, I believe, unnecessary. Time and again we have been told by the Government that there is insufficient evidence and that the numbers do not show that the 2012 visa changes have had any effect on the abuse that some overseas domestic workers have had to endure. I beg to differ. Indeed, I have had no contact with any organisation or any individual who shares the Government’s view. Kalayaan, which has been leading the way in advocating and representing these workers, has first-hand experience and the case studies of numerous workers whom it has helped to escape. Human Rights Watch has carried out an independent review which took over a year to complete. One therefore has to wonder how the Government’s review can be completed by the end of July this year. As the noble Lord himself said, by that time this piece of legislation, excellent though it is, will be done and dusted.
The Joint Committee on the draft Bill said that since the tied visa was introduced there have been high levels of abuse among migrant domestic workers entering the UK. They said that the current bondage arrangement has,
“unintentionally strengthened the hand of the slave master against the victim of slavery”.
The committee, together with the Joint Committee on Human Rights and numerous NGOs, has called on the UK Government to reverse the relevant changes to the Immigration Rules and to reinstate the pre-2012 protections in the Bill. They all base their views on evidence. How much more evidence do we need? How many more cases do we need to uncover to reach the threshold where a change will happen? Clearly, getting more evidence will be particularly hard if workers are imprisoned and then driven underground.
In his letter of 9 February, the Minister outlined some actions that the Government have committed to taking immediately. Some of these are welcome but, frankly, they are woefully inadequate and do not remedy the root of the problem—that is, untying the visas. The pilot visa interview programme in Africa might sound superficially attractive, but realistically these overseas domestic workers are not going to admit that their employer does not treat them well. Indeed, they might not even be aware of the real horrors that await them until they start work in this country. Their employer is hardly going to tell them beforehand that they are going to work 19 hours a day, sleep on a floor, have little food, no pay and no access to their passport. In any case, workers are already meant to be interviewed separately from their employers, so this is not a new measure. Likewise, an employer is hardly going to provide a contract giving the truthful details. Indeed, contracts are required currently, yet Kalayaan frequently finds cases where domestic workers’ terms and conditions of employment, including salary, are not in accordance with their contract. To be effective, contracts of employment must be easily enforceable in the UK; but as the noble Lord himself has said, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said so forcefully in Committee, this is way out of the bounds of reality.
I welcome the reintegration plan with the FCO which will support overseas domestic workers who wish to return to their home country and rebuild their lives, but it does not help those who are currently enslaved. In the case of domestic workers employed by diplomats, diplomatic immunity makes it particularly hard for them to access justice. Earlier this month the Court of Appeal found that diplomatic immunity trumped trafficking when it refused the claim of two domestic workers found by the UK’s national referral mechanism to have been conclusively trafficked by their diplomatic employers.
We are now on the last day of Report on this landmark Bill. In this amendment we are not talking about huge numbers of people; we are talking about a few miserable, poor, abused people—usually women—who often have dependants relying on their support, who have been lured to employment here by ruthless and exploitative employers. These workers need a change in the law, and Peers today have an opportunity to make that a reality. As Kalayaan said in one of its excellent briefings, we need to protect, not to review. Today we have an opportunity to do that by passing this amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, several of the amendments to this important Bill have been introduced as filling a gap in the legislation. That is especially true of Amendment 90. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, have said, it will assist all private and diplomatic domestic workers by providing a measure of protection and flexibility otherwise lacking in the Bill. It will also enable those who have been victims of modern slavery to remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period while seeking alternative employment. That is why I am glad to have my name attached to the amendment.
On Monday my noble friend Lord Judd, when speaking about the global dimension of modern slavery, referred to a crisis of values suggested by the recent bishops’ pastoral letter entitled Who is My Neighbour? In this amendment we have one interesting example of a relatively small number of people who are our neighbours—namely, overseas domestic workers—as well as one means of taking a principled and value-based stand by offering them this modest help. The humane and sensible rationale for this amendment has already been so well argued that I have no need to detain your Lordships further, except to say that I am happy to be associated with it and to offer it my enthusiastic support.
Baroness Hanham (Con)
My Lords, my name is also attached to this amendment and since the start of the Bill it is one of the areas of this legislation that I have been most concerned about. Nobody could have failed to be moved by the television programmes that we have seen, the reports that we have heard, and the work done by Kalayaan, which has been very much hampered by the fact that the changes to the visa system took place in 2012.
In this 21st century it is absolutely unacceptable that people are coming in to this country tied to an employer, unable to do anything for themselves and absolutely under the instruction of the person for whom they are working and who has brought them into the country. We would not stand for this for a second if things were otherwise. It is time that we stopped standing for it. We desperately need to make the changes that will enable people who come here to feel reasonably free, reasonably able to live in this country and reasonably able to know that if things go horribly wrong with their employer—as so many of these cases clearly do—there is some redress to somebody who can help them and there is some way out.
When talking to Kalayaan, which deals with the forefront of the work that goes on, it is clear that under the current situation it feels completely helpless to ensure, first, that people can get to it and secondly that if people do come, it can do anything to help them. In Committee, I pointed out that one of the systems in place to help domestic workers know what to do if they run into trouble is a card that is delivered to them if they are lucky—if it does not go into the pocket of their employer—at London airports. It gives them the telephone number of ACAS and a couple of other telephone numbers that they can ring up if they are in trouble. Most of these people have their telephones taken away from them. They do not have access to a telephone. They do not know people in this country. They cannot get out of the premises or the property in order to find other people.
The Minister has a reputation for having responded sympathetically, pragmatically and sensibly to all the issues that have been brought up. The number of government amendments that have come through over the past few weeks has been amazing. I pay tribute to him for the fact that he and the Minister in the other place have listened. I say now, please, will the Minister do this one further thing and listen to this particular problem? It is absolutely germane to modern slavery. It is one of the elements of modern slavery that we cannot overlook. I think this House will really not have shown itself at its best if we do not manage to pass this amendment, which will help—it will not do the trick but it will help other organisations help those who need it.
The mischief, of course, was the change to the visa system in 2012. I understand why—I understand the need to control immigration—but I do not think that we are going to break the bounds of numbers if we help and look after these people. We are not asking that they should stay in the country for ever. What we are asking is for the Government to say that this country does mind about what happens to people who come into it, particularly when they have no means of helping themselves. I very much hope that in his response to what has been put forward today, the Minister will be able to reassure us that the Government will take this amendment on board.
Finally, I think a review is splendid. It is one of the ways of shifting responsibility off to another day. I can see that it would be very nice to have a perfect review of all the implications but there are at least two, if not three, very well thought-out reports already. The Joint Committee on the Bill, on which I sat, went into this in great detail. I do not think we will miss very much if the Minister says that the review could take place but in the mean time agrees to the amendment, which I support.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the amendment. Rereading our debate in Committee, I was struck first by the unanimity of your Lordships’ House in support of the amendment but also by the tone of the debate, which was very different from the very positive tone there has been throughout the rest of the debates on the Bill. There was an air of exasperation, expressed particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who is not able to be here today, and my noble friend Lady Royall.
I think the frustration was partly because the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, claimed to share our concerns—and I am sure she does—yet responded with a series of totally unconvincing arguments. In particular, she seemed to be making the case on the basis of a hypothetical possible increase in abuse as a result of the amendment while seeming to discount the actual evidence of what, according to Kalayaan, happened after 1998 when similar rights were first introduced, which was a clear decrease in abuse reported to it, and then what happened post-April 2012 when those rights were rescinded, which was a significant increase in abuse reported. The Minister twice invited Members of your Lordships’ House to offer suggestions as to what we could do to prevent the abuse. The unanimous suggestion from all over the House, as well as from the Joint Committee on the draft Bill and the Joint Committee on Human Rights, was that we should restore the status quo ante—pre-2012—or something like it.
As has already been argued, there is no need for a review. We have no guarantee of what will happen as a result of that review after the election. How many more women will be subjected to forced labour and exploitation and the kind of suffering so movingly expressed in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, before we are prepared to act? We have the opportunity to act today to remove an injustice that is totally against the principles underlying the Bill. I hope we will seize that opportunity.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I fear that I am going to be speaking against the very powerful speeches that have already been made. Of course, I share the concerns of those who know about the abuse of overseas domestic servants by those who employ them and treat them as slaves. As a member of the Joint Committee on the pre-legislative scrutiny, I shared the concerns of the other members and of course put my name to the recommendation.
However, I have had the opportunity to discuss this at considerable length with the commissioner-designate who, in his former position as head of the anti-trafficking agency within the Metropolitan Police, had actual experience of what had gone wrong under the previous visa set-up. What he told me, and I share with the Committee, is that some women were actually being trafficked from one employer to another. When the first employer had had sufficient use of that person, she was taken on to another employer under the opportunity to do so under that visa, and he said he had several examples of it. We know that there have been other abuses under that former visa situation.
The commissioner-designate then told me about some of the work that he is doing, particularly with the Filipina women who are coming over. He has been working with Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Cardinal Tagle of the Philippines and the Philippine ambassador to see what they can do in the Philippines to stop these women coming over to these sorts of slave owners. A centre has also been set up in London which will house women who manage to escape from their slave-owner employer. As the Minister told us on the previous occasion, the woman will not be automatically deported if she is identified as a potential victim. She can—and should—be treated like any other victim of slavery. Obviously, the problem for these women is getting from the abusing employer to someone who will help. That is a matter which the commissioner-designate is passionate about trying to deal with. I think Nigeria is another area, but he is particularly concentrating on the Philippines at the moment.
Therefore, far from thinking that a review is a waste of time, too late and just trying to push the matter into the long grass, I actually believe, along with James Ewins of the Centre for Social Justice, who has already been responsible for an excellent report on slavery at an early stage of our deliberations, that the commissioner will be tenacious in looking at how the previous visa worked and how the present visa is working, or not, and will be giving, I have no doubt, robust advice to the Government—whichever Government. Since everybody in this House supports the Bill and the concept of trying to help those who are enslaved—it does not matter what the colour of the next Government is—each Government, whoever it may be, will have an equal obligation, as Members of this House will certainly remind them, to do something practical about slaves under the domestic workers visa. It does not require—I will be corrected by the Minister if I am wrong; I do not think I am—primary legislation. What it requires is changes to the Immigration Rules and the immigration visa. I urge the House to reflect whether it would not be better to let James Ewins use his tenacious ability to get at what is actually happening. I have now been on two committees: the one chaired by Frank Field for the Home Secretary and then the pre-legislative Select Committee. We heard basically only one point of view. We need to know how the previous visa worked and whether there is another way of providing a visa, together with proper help—which those poor women are not getting—before we pass this primary legislation, which is not in my view appropriate at this moment.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, when the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, was speaking, I began to feel a little sympathy for the Minister and could not think how he would be able to respond. He has now had some comfort from my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss, but it does not take away from the necessity for the amendment.
The Minister will remember that I spoke with some passion at Second Reading and in Committee, and then more recently when he kindly agree to speak to us with his officials. He will already know the strength of feeling among the NGOs, which my noble friend Lord Hylton mentioned—notably Kalayaan and Human Rights Watch. I pay tribute again to my noble friend for the long time that he has been working on this amendment. It is more than 20 years and I have been there for most of that time. I have long advocated this cause during successive Bills. I of course recognise the asylum concerns that face every Government, but this is not a relevant factor. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, pointed out, it is a different situation, a special situation, that does not concern very many people.
The Home Office aggravated the problem by introducing the single employer visa, which in some cases at least ensures that slavery becomes a permanent affliction. That means that it is moving in the opposite direction from this Bill, which it has itself introduced. Two Select Committees have deplored it, yet here we are again, unconvinced that anything has changed. Of course, we have to welcome the Minister’s commitment and the Government’s latest offer of the review—I hope that my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss is right that the review will produce some more truths—but we have a lot of evidence already from the NGOs and from a Joint Committee, so I fail to see why we should wait for that.
The only really new item on the agenda is my noble friend’s amendment, which I hope as many noble Lords as possible will support. Does the Minister feel that this country is fulfilling all its obligations under the European convention? We would be grateful for some update on that.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger
My Lords, it is clear that protection from slavery for overseas workers is an enormously important issue, and I am sure that we all mind very much about what happens to them.
However, it would appear that opinions differ on how to tackle this. While some claim that tying the employee to the employer who brings them into the country leads to abuse, I understand that others who have looked into this matter are not necessarily of that opinion. It is important that, before putting anything into legislation, we try to understand the best way to deal with this.
As we have heard, the Home Secretary has announced an independent review, which will examine all the facts around this issue carefully. In particular, it is important that it looks at the effects of the terms of the visa. I understand that the review will look also at how effective are the protection and support for overseas workers who are victims and, as we have heard, that it will report by the end of July this year. I therefore support the views expressed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
Meanwhile, I understand that steps are being taken that will help with the protection of workers, including a package of support. Therefore, this issue will definitely not be forgotten and will be given the attention that it rightfully deserves after the review has reported. However, I think that it will be much better dealt with when we have all the information to hand and should not be put into this legislation. While I have enormous sympathy with the reasons behind the tabling of the amendment, I cannot support it.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment. I think that anybody who heard the recent Radio 4 programme and listened to the first-person testimony of people who are in this situation could not fail to be moved by it. A question was raised during the programme where the Government were invited to answer why they had not signed convention 189 on decent work for domestic workers. Not every country has signed it—I would not attempt to mislead the House on that—but it is interesting that countries such as Finland, Ireland and Germany have done so. I fail to understand why we should not be in that progressive group. I share the view of those who have said that there is a lacuna in the legislation which the amendment fills. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I support much of what has been said on all sides. It is clear that this is a matter which will not go away and which the House wishes to be resolved. I came across it repeatedly during my 18 years as a London MP—I probably had similar experiences to those of my noble friend Lady Hanham. It is clear that situations which are simply appalling are happening today in London and they have to be dealt with as soon as possible.
I am afraid that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, put her finger on it: I found that the problem was not the law; the problem was making the law effective. The problem was, as she said, how one got a person out of the hands of an abusive employer into some sort of help. They had no information; they had no knowledge of their rights; they came here in total ignorance of the situation. Practical enforcement is what we have to concentrate on. I am afraid that the law will not help here; it is the reality of the situation on the ground floor. Therefore, I want to ask my noble friend what is really being done about a new contract which goes out with the visa. If a contract goes out with the visa all the time, you are beginning to tackle the problem. If you also have a commissioner who concentrates on those areas—the Philippines, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and so forth—where the problem mainly originates, you are beginning to tackle it. Unless you do that, all the law in the world will not avail you.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, at the previous stage, I commented on the irony that the history of the arrangements for overseas domestic workers was a concession introduced for humanitarian reasons, so that the worker could accompany the family with whom they had been working and would not lose their job. In hearing the experiences that have been related to us, I found it particularly distressing and concerning to learn that a number of workers were informed that, if they were to escape and start work for someone else, they would be working illegally or would be here illegally if they did not approach the authorities. Virginia Mantouvalou in the work that she did in conjunction with Kalayaan reported in her conclusion that the single fear that interviewees who participated unanimously voiced, now that they were undocumented, was a fear of the authorities, of imprisonment and of deportation.
I agree that this is a matter for the rules but what is available to us is primary legislation because noble Lords do not take part in constructing immigration rules. I also agree that a review will not be a waste of time. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said, this amendment will not be a complete solution but it is an interim step and it may give workers who are abused the confidence to get away and seek the help which the noble and learned Baroness has told the House is available. I do not say this lightly, but if I were not to support this amendment, I would feel complicit in slavery and servitude.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)
My Lords, it is no coincidence that I should be following my noble friend Lady Hanham in so far as she was in office in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for the whole of the period in which I was the Member of Parliament next door for the Cities of London and Westminster. The experiences that she had in the Royal Borough were totally matched by the experiences I had as the local Member. The frequency with which cases came up is something which I remember vividly from that period and I have seen my fair share of television films about this issue and listened to radio programmes, such as those cited a moment ago.
I do not propose to go over the ground which has been gone over by others. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in his place, not least because of his notable speeches on this subject in Committee. It was he who drew attention to the fact that the issue was settled in the Commons committee by the chairman of the committee taking a vote to leave the Bill as it was. A more significant confession appeared in a speech made in Committee on 10 December by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who sadly cannot be here tonight. She referred to the fact that the vote was tied in the Public Bill Committee, losing only to the chair, and then the Conservative Member of Parliament and former Deputy Chief Whip John Randall explained at Report why he would vote for a Labour amendment to protect domestic workers. He said that there had been too many victims for him to be able to say that it was a matter for another day. I say that simply to indicate that in another place the issue was very closely divided on and therefore that the Government have only a narrow margin to defend their position.
I realise that Her Majesty’s Government are pressed for time. However, on the basis of my experience, I find it difficult to believe that any Government could have expected to take this Bill through Parliament without this issue coming up. The fact that we are now out of time reflects backwards on to how much preparation there was in terms of time for this to occur. I am sorry that the Minister has been saddled with the task of defending the Government’s position at this stage in the Bill.
I was patently impressed by the speech of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, but this does not protect the Government from the need to produce a more decisive defence for the period before the promised review is completed. I very much hope that my noble friend can be convincing in explaining the validity of the Government’s interim posture on this issue. So far as my own vote is concerned, much hangs on what he says in his speech to wind up this debate.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I would like to comment very briefly on the speeches of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson. I do so cautiously. Anybody who questions the argument advanced by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, should proceed cautiously like Agag. I also admit that I have no particular expertise in the area of domestic slavery—except that I am married.
The argument that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, made seems to me to be a very encouraging one. Developments are taking place. I was particularly encouraged to hear about the work being done with and for the Filipino community. That seems to me very good news. It may reduce the scale of the problem we are talking about; it may partially mitigate the problem; but it will not eliminate the problem. The review that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, talked about is obviously very important, and nobody who supports the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, will be against the review. They are not alternatives. It seems to me that this amendment cannot do harm; it must do good. I do not know how much good it will do and the noble Lord, Lord Horam, may be completely correct that it will do very little good, because so many of these poor people will be unaware of their rights and, unless there is a path of enforcement, not much will change—but no harm will have been done and some good must, by definition, be done. So I very much hope that the amendment will be pressed to a vote.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee and a member of the council of the campaigning organisation Liberty. I rise to speak in support of Amendment 90 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. As I mentioned in Committee, victims should be at the heart of this Bill. We cannot waste the opportunity we have here to improve protection for these victims of modern slavery. As has already been mentioned, migrant domestic workers who are tied to their employers are particularly vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. The inability of overseas domestic workers to change their employer leaves them powerless to escape their abusive situation and to bring a case against their perpetrators. Instead of protecting victims, we have a current visa system that facilitates trafficking, undermining the very purpose of this Bill.
I regularly come into contact with families and individuals who have been victims of crime and injustice. My first piece of advice is that they must speak out and seek help. The Minister for Modern Slavery and Organised Crime in the other place agrees. In a Radio 4 programme the Minister said:
“I want them to come forward. I want them to come into the system. I want to give them the help and support they need and I want to catch that perpetrator”.
But how do the Government expect workers to come forward in a system that ultimately criminalises them rather than recognising them as victims? That is exactly what is happening. Many domestic workers will not come forward for help or escape because they are aware that they would be breaking the law if they did. Therefore, numbers on the system are low and workers are driven underground and remain hidden. Those who do come forward are usually unaware of the visa rule. Many charitable organisations encounter clients who, after hearing that they have broken the conditions of their visa and are at risk of deportation, never return to them or consent to official help.
Kalayaan, the migrant domestic workers charity, provided me with some telling statistics. In 2014, it identified 54 clients as trafficked victims, but only 25 referrals were made to the national referral mechanism, so less than half of those identified as trafficked consented to being transferred to the NRM or the UK authorities.
The questions we must ask are: why was that and what can we do to ensure that victims are not afraid to come forward? Expert organisations such as Kalayaan and Anti-Slavery International, and numerous parliamentary inquiries into this issue, have all concluded that this visa rule is one of the biggest barriers to support and justice. This is a huge problem and we should address it in this Bill. Employment tribunals are not an effective route to justice, either. How can we expect a domestic worker to stay with their abusive employer while they are bringing a case against them? How can we expect a domestic worker, who is usually paid very little, to afford the legal costs of a case—a situation which is made all the worse with cuts to legal aid?
In his letter of 16 February to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the Minister spoke of the Home Office’s independent review and listed further arrangements to strengthen protections. While measures to increase awareness of domestic workers’ rights and to assess their situation upon entering the UK are welcome, I fear that they will have a limited effect as it not clear how the Home Office will ensure that those rights are upheld when the worker actually begins work in the UK. Will the Minister say what was lacking in the examination of this issue during pre-legislative scrutiny such that a further review is needed?
The Home Secretary is currently addressing the importance of protecting the rights of those who are most vulnerable to abuse of stop and search. She recently stated that if the stops-to-arrests ratio does not improve, a Conservative Government will not hesitate to bring in primary legislation to make it happen. Surely in the same way this Government can commit to protecting the rights of overseas domestic workers. I believe that Amendment 90, by reinstating the original migrant domestic worker visa, will empower these workers once again with the most basic rights and effectively protect them from abuse and exploitation.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I did not intend to take part in this debate. Having listened to the passionate speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and his examples and the various other aspects that were put before us, I was particularly moved by what the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said. I remember some of the issues that took place at different stages of the Bill. Of course we can wait if it means putting it off for four or five months or something like that—but God knows how many more wretched trafficked slaves will pass thorough in that time, so I share the view of my noble friend Lord Kerr. What harm can it do if we make the decision today? So let us make the decision today.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for moving his amendment. I appreciate wholeheartedly his commitment to the cause over many years. I thank him for his courtesy in the way he has raised this matter with me. He has been very persistent on the issue—and rightly so because it is an area where we need to be absolutely convinced that we are on the right side of the argument.
However, given that this has been a wide-ranging debate, I think there is possibly a slight conflation of issues here: the overseas domestic worker visa and the treatment of people in domestic servitude who have been trafficked here from overseas. They are two distinct issues.
The overseas domestic worker visa was introduced by the previous Government in 1998 essentially to facilitate particular groups of people who travelled to the UK frequently, brought their own household staff and did not wish to hire people in the UK for short visits. The average length envisaged then was a matter of a couple of weeks and today 15 days is the average time for which someone comes in. It may assist the House to know that about 80% of the people who come under the overseas domestic worker visa scheme come from a very small number of countries in the Middle East: 4,894 from the United Arab Emirates; 3,996 from Saudi Arabia; 2,581 from Qatar; 1,005 from Kuwait; and 257 from Oman. A particular group uses the overseas domestic worker visa. It was never intended that the overseas domestic worker visa should somehow translate itself into a visa to work for someone else. It is tailored for a visitor.
The amendment before us would open the opportunity for the visa potentially to be used as another way in which workers can enter the UK, repeat their application indefinitely and after a period of five years have the right to remain. The overseas domestic worker visa is a particular issue which we are seeking to address. In 2012, we felt there was some evidence that the visa was being abused and that people were coming here with one employer and were being moved on to other employers and other areas. Therefore, we said that if you come in on that visa to work for that employer, you ought to stay with that employer.
I have set out what the overseas domestic worker visa is and how the discussion and debate is very different from the broader issues of trafficking which this legislation addresses. We are dealing with about 15,000 applications per year. When Kalayaan, which I, like others, respect, undertook its review over a period of two years, there were some 32,000 overseas domestic worker visa applications. Kalayaan took a sample of 120 which had been drawn to its attention. By most estimations, and, I think, by its own admission, that is a small sample.
So what is the appropriate action to take? Is it simply to revert to the previous visa regime or is it to take some interim steps? The notion that the Government are not doing anything in the light of the evidence is simply not the case. We have introduced a new template contract. The contract must stipulate the sleeping arrangements, the minimum wage, the holiday pay and that the employer cannot withhold an individual’s passport. The clearance officer must be satisfied under a test of credibility that the employer will pay the national minimum wage. The person will now be interviewed by an officer directly and individually so that, should it be the case that when they were previously granted an overseas domestic worker visa to come to the UK they were not treated in accordance with their contract, then that could be made known and of course the visa would not be granted. We have that safeguard in. We also have the information card which is going to be made available to people who come to the UK advising them where to go for help.
This is where we get to the crucial element, which is this. If someone is on an overseas domestic worker visa and they feel their treatment by their employer is something amounting to servitude or abuse, they are able to come themselves to an organisation like Kalayaan or the police or the national referral mechanism. The national referral mechanism will take that issue very seriously. It will offer them protection and advice as to what to do. They will be granted, if there are reasonable grounds when they enter the referral mechanism, a 45-day period of reflection. If it is proved, or there is a reasonable belief, that they have been abused by their employer, then they could be allowed to remain in the UK for a period of one year and one day to assist with the inquiries being undertaken by the police.
So where someone is in an abusive relationship, I would hate your Lordships to go away with the impression that such people should somehow sit there and suffer because they have no option but to do so. If they are on an overseas domestic worker visa or any other visa—or even here illegally within the UK—and they are being mistreated, that is not tolerated. That is the whole point of the Modern Slavery Bill and that is what the national referral mechanism is for—to offer them that help. Overseas domestic workers generally have the protection of UK employment law. Anyone who believes they are mistreated by their employers has access to a number of organisations who can help, including the police, ACAS, the pay and work rights helpline as well as the employment tribunals where the tribunal or the court has jurisdiction in their circumstances.
Although the overseas domestic worker visa is a scheme that is quite distinct from the general issues to which we are referring, we considered what would be the best way forward, given the concerns which had been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others. We decided that the best route forward was not simply to say that we did not think that the evidence was sufficient—we are talking about the Kalayaan report which referred to a relatively small number of cases as a proportion of the total. We said that we needed to have better information, not just about the treatment of overseas domestic workers but about the visa scheme itself. In other words, is the visa scheme which was introduced in 1998 still fit for purpose? Is it something which should be retained? Should it actually be scrapped altogether if it is being abused in that way?
To do that, we need to have evidence. I have to say that this is another example of where the Government have tried to meet the genuine concerns which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and many others, including my noble friend Lady Hanham. We have tried to address their concerns by saying that James Ewins—the highly respected legal adviser to the pre-legislative scrutiny committee who is from the Centre for Social Justice, which in many ways was the architect of the present Bill—should be given the time to undertake a review. He does not necessarily, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, mentioned, need to undertake all the research again for himself. He can draw upon the considerable amount of data and information which is held by UK Visas and Immigration in the Home Office and we will co-operate fully with him. He can speak to the NGOs, he can look at the case studies being provided by different organisations and then, after a period of review and with his recommendations, that can be something which can then be acted upon.
The idea that somehow if we do not take action or include this amendment in the Bill today there is no option again for primary legislation to be brought forward is simply not true. The Immigration Rules can be changed at any time. In fact we are changing them tomorrow to reflect the changes to the overseas domestic worker arrangement which we have put in place—the new contracts, the requirement for an interview to take place and the testing and piloting of video links. Change can be done at any time. It does not need to wait for further primary legislation. It can be done, if that is what James Ewins decides needs to be done.
All the way through this process there has been some advantage—for example when discussing the provisions on the national referral mechanism—to be discussing the issues in the context of an exceptional review carried out by Jeremy Oppenheim. He was able to take a wide look at the issues and produce a considered report with a series of recommendations, which have been absolutely invaluable to us in making decisions on what amendments needed to be made. The Government have accepted all those recommendations which were made in that review. All we are saying in our response is to let us allow the same due process to continue. Let us allow James Ewins to get on and do his work—to undertake a thorough review, to consider all the arguments that have been presented and then to come forward with his recommendations.
That is really the argument between us. I know that there are many individual questions which were raised in the course of the debate, but essentially that is what it comes down to. It is a question of whether we seek to pre-empt with an amendment which does not deliver what many people have been arguing they actually want to see. It is whether we proceed with that amendment or whether we actually proceed in a more orderly way, recognising that we need to review the operation of this domestic workers visa arrangement and allow someone who is completely independent of government to undertake that review. It would come back by July—so it is not going to be in the long grass for ever—and then action can be taken in the next Parliament at any stage based on the recommendations which are made. I think, along with a number of other noble Lords, that that would be the more appropriate road to take. I ask the noble Lord to consider removing his amendment at this stage.
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I would like to thank most warmly all those who have taken part in this debate, which has been quite long and complex. As to the Government, I am sorry to say that we have heard really nothing new that was not already known in earlier stages of this Bill or in meetings that followed on from Committee.
The amendment is really a test of the Government’s intentions. Why should they take a massive effort to deal with trafficking—through prevention and risk orders and an anti-slavery commissioner—and supply chains and yet leave this loophole for abuse which has existed for so many years? What do the Government consider that the impact on the reputation of this country will be, following the comments on ITV and Radio 4 and in the press? Surely the knowledge that those abuses and exploitations continue to go on here cannot help our reputation in any way.
The Minister mentioned the Immigration Rules and some tiny changes which are about to be made. Why cannot the Government go the whole hog and, as I suggested earlier, put into the rules the equivalent of this amendment? However, he does not appear to be willing to do that. Further, the national referral mechanism was not designed to deal with this particular problem. Maybe it can be adapted, but that is not its main purpose. Therefore, in view of all those points, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
“Enforcement agencies
(1) The Secretary of State shall consult on ways to strengthen and improve the resources of enforcement agencies such as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate using confiscated assets and proceeds of crime recovered under the provisions of section 7.
(2) A consultation under subsection (1) shall end no later than 1 January 2016.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order amend section 3 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 to include other areas of work where the Secretary of State believes abuse and exploitation of workers or modern slavery or trafficking may be taking place.
(4) An order under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing it has been laid before each House of Parliament and been approved by a resolution in each House.”
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I thank my colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, for their support for this amendment. I also place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bates. With others, we have been extremely grateful for the patient and kind way he has listened to us, engaged with us and put on special meetings on various subjects. The point of this amendment is to highlight the fact that both the Government and many of us involved in this issue are learning a great deal as we go along. Therefore, there is a proper space for consultation, review and further learning to be done.
The point of this amendment is to seek authorisation for further consultation around two particular things. One is resources for some of the key agencies which will be in the forefront of putting this legislation into practice. There will be an enormous challenge and the resourcing issue, with tight budgets, will be enormous. We have discussed in previous debates the potential for using confiscated assets and the proceeds of crime to help resource the work of some of the agencies that will be putting this legislation into practice and can deliver what the Bill requires. This was discussed by the Select Committee and I hope the Minister will endorse further consultation about the potential for using confiscated assets and the proceeds of crime to help resource the implementation of the Bill.
The second area that the amendment explores is to help us ensure that the agencies which are in place at the moment can develop appropriately and be fit for purpose. I refer in particular to the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which needs to have a realistic remit. It has enormous expertise, but it will need resourcing, as I have said, for further engagement in the new context, including how it links with bodies such as the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate. We need to see how those bodies are going to work together: that needs exploring further if the Bill is going to be implemented effectively. The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate will, of course, have a key role in helping us reach out to those areas where slavery operates through small-scale operations, not just the large businesses we are looking at in those parts of the Bill covering the formal supply chain.
So the amendment covers those two simple things. It explores how best we can use confiscated assets and the proceeds of crime to give resources to key agencies such as the GLA and the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, and it looks at how those agencies might co-operate so that we can do educational, proactive work so that the requirements of the Bill get disseminated through those agencies into their constituencies, and so that they co-operate most fully between themselves and cover as many bases as possible. This very simple amendment will build on the work of the Joint Committee and ensure that the principles of the Bill are delivered most effectively. It is about resourcing the agencies and about how they can best work together. It asks for authorisation for that consultation to happen so that we can pursue those two objectives. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am a signatory to this amendment and am very happy to speak briefly in support of it this evening. I spoke on this issue at Second Reading and in Committee and I moved a separate amendment on the issue of the proceeds of crime. That was based on an amendment that I moved in your Lordships’ House nearly a decade ago and which was supported at that time by a retired Law Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who was a direct descendent, of course, of the great man who has featured so much in many of our debates. That amendment sought to provide a mechanism for the proceeds of crime committed by those who had abused workers, exploited people, put them into servitude or slavery—the very things that the Bill seeks to address—to be used to support and provide assistance for those who had been exploited and to support those organisations that are charged with the responsibility of apprehending those who are responsible for such crimes.
Crimes they are. I recalled in Committee that the Gangmasters Licensing Authority—which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who is in his seat this evening, did such distinguished work in helping to create—was established after the fatalities that occurred in Morecambe Bay when some 23 Chinese cockle pickers, men and women, died while they were being ruthlessly exploited by gangmasters. I made the point that this problem has not gone away. As recently as 2011, an almost identical incident occurred not very far away from Morecambe Bay, in the Ribble valley estuary. I quoted a local fisherman, Harold Benson, who said that what had happened at Morecambe Bay had been wholly avoidable, but it was likely to be repeated at places such as the Ribble valley and Morecambe Bay because of the failure to apprehend those who were responsible and because of the failure to provide adequate safety equipment and to provide support and assistance to those who were being exploited in these unacceptable ways.
As a result of raising these issues I was pleased to be able to attend a meeting with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who has been so helpful on this and so many other issues during the passage of the Bill. I reiterate what I said on Report on Monday, that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, have been quite exemplary in the way they have treated all of us who have participated in these proceedings. This is a marvellous piece of legislation and one that I am sure is going to do great good in the future. Although we may disagree on some details here and there, the general thrust of the legislation is to be commended and we must look for other ways to improve it here and there. That is what this amendment does.
The right reverend Prelate has told us that if this is passed, or if the principle is accepted, the Secretary of State will then consult on ways to strengthen and improve the resources of enforcement agencies such as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. Why do we need to do that? Well, I made the point at earlier stages that until recently only about 37 people were employed by that authority and that resources had been cut between 2011 and 2014. I would be grateful if the noble Lord would share with us some of the detail that he provided during the briefing sessions that we had with him and his officials as to how many people are now employed by that authority and how many convictions they have been able to bring about.
The amendment says that the consultation should,
“end no later than 1 January 2016”.
I think that that is a reasonable passage of time. It goes on in proposed new subsection (3) to say:
“The Secretary of State may by order amend section 3 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 to include other areas of work where the Secretary of State believes abuse and exploitation of workers or modern slavery or trafficking may be taking place”.
This is reasonable; it does not ask for immediate action to be taken, but it asks the Secretary of State and the department to take a more detailed look at some of the issues that have been raised. I look forward to hearing the response that the noble Lord gives in due course.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, rise to support Amendment 92 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, to which I have added my name. This amendment is about prevention and about stopping unscrupulous employers from exploiting workers for personal gain and increasing profits. Without compliance mechanisms and a licensing regime in place, there are no checks on the activities of the corrupt to protect the vulnerable. The Gangmasters Licensing Authority and the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate are that check. They give protection, prevent abuse from happening, and work hard to ensure compliance with employment rights. They want to do more and they know that they could do more—we know that they could do more—but they need reform and increased support.
As the organisation, Focus On Labour Exploitation, has pointed out to noble Lords in its recent letter, the GLA is the UK’s only proactive labour inspectorate working to prevent and identify incidences of trafficking for labour exploitation. Therefore, the GLA has a major role to play in tackling slavery and forced labour, and it should be a part of this Bill. That is a point well made, not just today by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, but made in the past by many other noble Lords. It is a point reiterated by the Government, as set out by the Minister in his letter on 18 February, where he recognised the essential role in fighting modern-day slavery that the GLA plays, and could play in future—words that I hope he will reiterate in his reply today.
Like many other noble Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to hold a public consultation on the role of the GLA as soon as possible in the next Parliament. So given that there is an emerging consensus around the need to consult on the GLA to review its remit and functions, and an acknowledgement that the GLA would need more resource to cope with an expanded remit, Amendment 92 should be completely acceptable to the Government, as it is ensuring exactly that—that labour inspection and enforcement authorities have sufficient resources and remit to prevent trafficking and slavery in the UK.
Amendment 92 confirms the commitment to consult and seeks to use the proceeds of crime to provide the extra funds that the GLA and EAS need. It also moves the Government’s pledge of a consultation in the next Parliament from “as soon as possible” to a definite date by the end of 1 January 2016, and it enables any recommendations from the consultation to be put in place quickly and easily. It therefore gives this House an increased level of confidence and clarity. I therefore hope that the Government will take the opportunity provided by this amendment, for this important enabling power to give the House the assurances that it needs.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to add my thanks to my noble friend the Minister for the spirit of openness and compromise with which he has engaged with this Bill, not least on this issue regarding the future role of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. The announcement in annexe 2 in my noble friend’s letter this week—that the Government intend to hold a public consultation on the role of the GLA—is particularly welcome and in some ways diminishes the need for many of the elements contained in this Amendment 92.
I think that we are all in agreement in this House that the GLA has and will continue to play an extremely important role in combating exploitation, but there are very powerful arguments that its remit should be widened to include the construction, hospitality, cleaning and care sectors, where migrant workers are particularly vulnerable to exploitation, modern slavery or human trafficking. There has, however, been understandable concern expressed about placing additional demands and burdens on the GLA, given its finite resources. Can the Minister confirm that the provision of resources will form part of the consultation process on the GLA that he has announced?
Although I support much of the sentiment behind Amendment 92, I note that my noble friend the Minister sets out in annexe 2 that he does not believe that an enabling power is the best way to proceed, and that indeed primary legislation would still be required to extend the remit of the GLA. Perhaps he can expand a little on this point during his response to the amendment.
Finally, I press my noble friend a little more on the timetabling of this public consultation on the GLA. He states in annexe 2 that the,
“work will start immediately and it will be published early in the next Parliament”.
Given the cross-party support for this Bill, as so many other noble Lords have just said, will my noble friend indicate whether he would consider setting down a more precise timetable for the consultation on the face of the Bill?
Lord Judd (Lab)
I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on having introduced the amendment so well, in his characteristic way. Several points occurred to me as particularly important. First, in effect, whatever the intention, to introduce legislation in sensitive and important areas like this and not to properly resource it can be perceived as cynical. It can be seen as a greater desire among legislators to polish their consciences in public without really facing up to what needs to be done. Facing the issue of properly resourcing enlightened legislation is crucial. Far too often, this has not happened.
The second point, which is very important, is education, which the right reverend Prelate picked up and linked rather well into his proposal. I am not a lawyer but, in my perception, law works best when it is in the context of public understanding about why it is necessary—not theoretically but practically available—for those whom it is intended to protect. Facing up to that issue in the amendment is also vital. I hope that the Minister, who has been a model across the House of how a Minister can handle a Bill of this kind, will listen to the arguments and find some way in which to meet them.
Lord Rosser
I shall say a few words in support of the amendment that the right reverend Prelate has moved, as I think that he made a reference to the Joint Committee on the draft Bill. Of course, it said in its report that the:
“Gangmasters Licensing Authority (GLA) has been much praised as an internationally-respected model of good practice. The weight of evidence we received suggested that expanding the GLA’s powers and industrial remit would yield positive results”.
Those views reflect a widely held view: that the authority is an example of an effective body that UK industry helped to establish to manage and mitigate risks of slavery in the food and agriculture sector. What has been pointed out about the amendment is that it has the provision for consultation but also, within it, the power given to the Secretary of State—if the Secretary of State wants to use it; it is “may” not “must”—to amend by order the Act to sectors outside its current limited remit where evidence demonstrates that,
“abuse and exploitation of workers or modern slavery or trafficking may be taking place”.
The amendment does not require the Secretary of State to do that; it gives them the power to do it if they come to the conclusion that it is necessary and desirable to do so.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby for having moved the amendment. He has been an integral part of the cross-party team that has been working so constructively on the Bill and taken us to where we are now. I particularly note, and offer my respect for, the work that he has done in the diocese of Derby in tackling the issues of modern-day slavery. It is an example of what could be done elsewhere as well.
Let me put on record the two difficulties that we have with the amendment. I do not think that, on the general principle, we are a million miles apart. What we had was a Gangmasters Licensing Authority, after the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, introduced legislation in this House in the wake of the awful tragedy that we saw—and it was working rather well. It was targeted at a particular group, where there was a real problem in the food processing industries and that sector of agriculture and fisheries. About 1,200 businesses a year are regulated, and there is a cost to that. They have to get their licence and pay between £1,000 and £2,000 a year, and when they are regularly inspected they also have to pay a fee for the inspection.
There is a discussion about this. I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was introducing the Gangmasters Licensing Authority legislation, he was thinking that we did not want to impose this on everyone unless it were strongly proven that it was absolutely necessary to cover everyone, because there are some serious burdens placed on small and micro-businesses. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made about resources. Resources are scarce at present: there is a big debate, which I am sure my predecessors had when they were trying to secure the necessary resources for the changes being made in the national referral mechanism. That would account for a significant amount, and resources also have to follow the child trafficking advocates, the extension of legal aid and the office of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner-designate. I accept that.
Let me explain the difficulties to the right reverend Prelate. There are two difficulties with an enabling power on the GLA remit. First, such a power assumes that the main issue is with the GLA’s remit, and may not consider the broader landscape in terms of how we tackle abuse of workers. Secondly, even if we concluded that the answer to the problem was an extension of the remit, the enabling power would almost certainly not achieve its aim of avoiding the need for further primary legislation.
As has been mentioned, it has also been enormously helpful that we have been able to have discussions outside the Chamber, and build our mutual understanding of these issues. It is important that we look at the GLA’s role in the context of our overall approach to tackling abuse in the labour market.
The House will note that sectors not covered by the GLA are already regulated. Last year more than 53,000 callers were helped by the pay and work rights helpline, and more than 23,000 workers were helped to recover wage arrears by the national minimum wage enforcement team. In addition, employment agencies not covered by the GLA are regulated by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, which between 31 March and 1 April 2014 brought seven prosecutions in the magistrates’ courts and in five cases secured convictions. The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate also has a unique power to apply to ban those who have shown themselves to be unfit to run any employment agency, and there are currently 16 people on the list of people banned from running an employment agency. We need to make sure, through consultation, that we come to a coherent position and that these bodies work in a co-ordinated way to prevent and stop abuse.
I understand why an enabling power might appear attractive as a way of potentially avoiding the need for future primary legislation after a consultation, but such a power simply would not achieve the objective of avoiding the need for primary legislation. Any significant change to the GLA would be likely to require both reform of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 and substantive changes to wider primary legislation related to how the labour market is regulated, such as the Employment Agencies Act 1973.
The enabling power would be limited to changes in the remit. I accept that it would be hard to justify a delegated power wide enough to allow for the types of enforcement powers the GLA might need in future. But a truly open and evidence-based consultation might well highlight the need for changes in the powers of the GLA that do not relate to the remit.
The amendment also focuses on the use by the GLA and others of the Proceeds of Crime Act. I should point out that the GLA already uses that legislation to identify proceeds of crime—a subject raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Indeed, since 2010 the GLA has identified over £1.5 million in criminal assets through that route. I am sure that, like me, noble Lords will all applaud the GLA for its achievements in this regard. The GLA already receives a share of the assets recovered under the asset recovery incentivisation scheme: it has received £118,000 since 2010.
I acknowledge the points that have been made. When we prepare the consultation document we will reflect on today’s debate and see whether there are ways in which we can make greater use of the Proceeds of Crime Act, alongside increasing and making better use of our existing resources devoted to worker protection.
I shall now deal with one or two of the points raised in the debate. I have highlighted the problems we have with the amendment, which are technical rather than substantive in terms of the issue that the right reverend Prelate has raised. If he felt able to withdraw his amendment now, I would certainly give an undertaking to reflect further on it and consider whether we should look at this subject again before Third Reading. There are some drafting issues. What the amendment proposes is a review of one area under one Act, whereas we would like to see a wider consultation covering many areas and many Acts. To do that we need an approach different from that taken in the amendment. If the right reverend Prelate will take that into account, we shall be happy to come back to the subject.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
I thank the Minister for what I take to be an encouraging response. I do not know a lot of the details about delegated powers and primary legislation, and, as he said, there are possible technical issues with our proposals. However, I take heart from the fact that we are in the same direction of travel. We want to increase the resource potential for this work and to look carefully at how agencies such as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority can best perform. On that basis, and in the hope of further thought being given to this matter before the next stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mental Health Services
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Listowel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve mental health services for infants, children and young people, for care leavers, and for adults with care experience.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss the mental health needs of children and young people in care.
I am grateful to the people I have worked with—the young people who are in care and leaving care who have shared their experiences with the parliamentary group; the clinicians, academics and practitioners who have made time to talk to me; and all those who have equipped me to speak to noble Lords today. I am grateful, too, for the lessons I have learnt from MPs who have chaired the parliamentary group for young people in care or who have campaigned in the area. They include former MP Hilton Dawson, Timothy Loughton MP, Edward Timpson MP, Craig Whittaker MP, Ann Coffey MP and the late lamented former MP Paul Goggins.
I have learnt that a cornerstone for mental health is to be able to make and keep relationships, and that family breakdown can destroy or impair that ability. Much of our job in repairing the mental health of abused or neglected children is to provide them with an opportunity of at least one enduring, consistent and benign relationship. Ten years ago, the charity Voice consulted young people on a blueprint for the care system. The children told us that they wanted one adult who would consistently follow them through their experience of care. They called him the Big Friendly Giant, after a character by Roald Dahl.
I hope that many of your Lordships present may attend future meetings of the all-party parliamentary group for children and young people in care. I know that it would mean a lot for the 60 or so young people who visit us each couple of months to see your Lordships there. There you will hear how young people have valued their relationships with foster carers, social workers and teachers. You will also hear children speaking of having more than 20 placements of fostering or more than five different social workers in a year and a half. From the care-experienced adults, you may hear from successful broadcasters who still see their social worker for tea today, or family men who now visit their children’s home to celebrate the manager’s birthday.
I am always pleased to hear the Minister say that he recognises the importance of an infant’s attachment to his mother. When key relationships fail, young people need to find someone else to be that reliable parental figure. A clinical psychologist, Sylvia Duncan, recently described the process of trauma in a seminar for the Institute of Recovery from Childhood Trauma. Many of us experienced trauma as a child—the loss of someone we love, a serious illness, even perhaps sexual harm. In the context of a loving family, where the trauma is not repeated, where one has not been betrayed by someone one trusts, where one can speak immediately about the trauma, recovery may be quick and leave no scars. Where the harm has been undertaken by one who one trusts, where that harm is repeated over years, where there is no one to discuss the harm with, serious trauma of the kind most young people entering care have experienced results.
Therefore, the finding of the Office for National Statistics survey of the mental health of looked-after children from 2003 should not have been a surprise. Mental disorders in children among the general population stand at 10%, half of which are conduct disorders. In the care population overall, 45% have a mental disorder and 37% of those are conduct disorders. In residential care, 72% have mental disorders and 60% of those are conduct disorders.
What does this mean for the experience of those working in children’s homes and foster care, and for adoptive parents? I will try to describe it. One may be caring for a strong, tall and beefy 15 year-old boy. Yet, for weeks or months, he may behave like an infant. He may not be prepared to leave his bed, may never show any gratitude for help given, may never clean up in the kitchen, and may not wash himself or cut his fingernails. Over time he may move towards his chronological age. Then one may be faced with rages from nowhere, with the fear that he may throw himself under a train when he next leaves the house, or that he may attack oneself or another child. One may be worried that he could set fire to the building.
Should the child be a girl, one may be worried about her sexual exploitation by men—although that might also be a concern for a boy. All this may leave one feeling bitterly resentful against the child; after all, he is 15 years of age. How can any trauma justify such selfish behaviour? One might say: “Next time he misbehaves, I will call the police, exclude him from the home, shout at him and see how he likes it, give him a slap in the mouth, the little wretch”.
This is where clinical group supervision is so important. Residential workers and foster carers need a space where they can vent the frustration, anger, fear and despair they feel about the children they work with. They need a clinician who can remind them that the child has regressed to an earlier stage of development, remind them how lonely and bereft that child is, and remind them that the most important thing that they can do for that child is to be reliable and tolerant, and continue to care. Without such support, carers are likely to burn out, quit, emotionally withdraw, or possibly even—we know this happens—attack the child. The most important thing for the recovery of that child is that there is nothing he can do to break the relationship with his carer.
It is therefore vital that the Minister is involved in ensuring that staff in children’s homes receive regular supervision or consultation from an appropriate mental health practitioner. I am very disappointed that in neither the guidance nor the new quality standards does there seem to be a stipulation on this. The psychiatrists who gave evidence to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for his report on children’s homes in the mid-1990s advised that such an ongoing relationship with a mental health professional was the norm on the continent. Yet I am advised that this multidisciplinary approach may be applied in only about half our homes, even today. Does the Minister agree that such supervision or consultation is necessary? If so, what means will he use to see that it is implemented uniformly? I suggest that some of the payment for this—perhaps 50%—should come from the Department of Health.
A great deal of good work has been undertaken by this Government on reforming residential care. Serious consideration has been given to staff qualifications and staff are now better qualified. I commend the education Minister Edward Timpson MP, his predecessor Timothy Loughton and their officials on what has been achieved in a very difficult financial climate. However, I would urge whoever is responsible in the next Government to push further on qualifications as soon as possible.
If one of your Lordships’ children was deeply troubled and you were seriously troubled about their health and whether they would self-harm, would you wish to put them in the care of staff required to have only one A-level qualification? Would it satisfy you that the managers of these homes are required to have only a foundation degree—one year of higher education? The contrast with the continent is stark. There the status and qualification of staff is higher, yet they care for less challenging children.
Professor Berridge’s research on staff training is oft quoted by those who prefer the status quo. Yet in his recent blog for the NSPCC he emphasises the challenges of residential care, particularly in the light of the Rotherham experience, and the need by the next Government to raise the professional status of these people by raising the required qualifications.
Much of what I have said applies equally to foster care and adoption. While their children might be less trouble if they are with them 24/7, excellent social work support for foster carers and adoptive parents is vital, and I am grateful for the Government’s additional funding to support work with fosterers and adopters; and to my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss for her committee’s work in achieving this. Much training is offered to foster carers; consultation to groups of foster carers is rarer, but should be the bread and butter of specialist looked-after CAMHS. Access to individual therapies, including child psychotherapy, is important. I much look forward to the report of the taskforce that the Government have set up, due in March; I hope that it might refer to these therapies.
The last meeting of the parliamentary group discussed access to CAMHS for young people who are care leavers. We heard from one young woman who faced long delays in beginning therapy, and met her therapist once and only once because she was about to turn 18. A group of about 50 young people from all parts of England voted on the move from a 15 to a 25 year-old CAMHS service. All but one supported it. The Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust currently provides such a service to all young people. How is the Minister addressing the transition from child to adult mental health service for care leavers?
Finally, the Royal College of Psychiatrists points out that we can prevent so many children being taken into care each year by investing in parenting programmes. Does the Minister recognise the value of such programmes in keeping children out of care? So much good work has been undertaken by this and the previous Government on the education of looked-after children. I very much hope that in future, Governments will give as much attention to the mental health of looked-after children as to their education. I look forward to the Minister’s reply and to the contributions of your Lordships.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for securing this debate; I am especially pleased that he has specifically referred to young people with experience of being in the care system. I declare an interest in that I am the chief executive of Tomorrow’s People and a fellow of the Centre for Social Justice.
I want to start by saying more generally that broken relationships lie at the heart of so many people’s mental health difficulties. Research suggests family breakdown and early separation are risk factors for the onset of severe mental illness, including psychosis, in populations where there is a greater prevalence of these factors. Moreover, even in seemingly intact families, inadequate and neglectful parenting often contributes greatly to various emotional and behavioural problems, such as panic disorders, ADHD, post-traumatic stress disorder and reactive attachment disorder. With around two-thirds of children coming into care having done so due to abuse or neglect, looked-after children have often been at the sharpest end of these adversities. Unsurprisingly, the emotional and behavioural health of half of looked-after children is borderline or a cause for concern.
What is perhaps even more troubling is that, according to a recent survey carried out by the Centre for Social Justice for its report Finding their Feet, half of care leavers still found coping with mental health problems “difficult” or “very difficult” at the point of exiting the care system. Things also seem to worsen during early adulthood: one study found that self-reported mental health problems doubled in the 12 to 15 months after leaving care and three-quarters struggled with loneliness. Social isolation is a well known risk factor for mental illness, including depression. This points to something seriously wrong with transitions from care. The Centre for Social Justice concluded that the care system very often fails to help young people build the relationships they need; the social isolation that often ensues can serve to compound the trauma of difficult early life experiences.
This need not be the case. For instance, much more could be done to ensure that children do not lose touch with siblings in care, which often means that a potentially valuable, lifelong relationship is lost; they lose what little bit of family they had. A shocking 71% of looked-after children with a sibling in care are separated from a brother or sister. Social workers say that they feel their training does not adequately prepare them for deciding when to place siblings together in care, but also that their options are narrowed by a lack of available foster placements for sibling groups.
Ensuring that broader networks of support are built up and maintained as young people are in the process of leaving care is vital. I particularly point to the recommendation of the Centre for Social Justice, supported by the British Association of Adoption and Fostering, to introduce the practice developed in the USA of “family finding and engagement”. In this model, professionals seek at least 40 individuals with some kind of connection to a young person. Casting the net so wide means there are almost always some reliable adults—perhaps a great aunt, or a former teacher or youth worker—able to make unconditional commitments to support children in care into the future.
The model that we have adopted of giving young people a coach in school to make sure that they do not leave school without a job or a training place could easily be adapted for young people in care. Having a coach—somebody personal to them helping them make the journey from care and the transition to adulthood—would really help young people. Moving into their lives in years 8 and 9, the coaches could help them become work-ready and able to fulfil their potential by instilling them with confidence, self-belief and self-discipline. Some 89% of children in care in the Orange County Family Finding Project made lifelong connections; both President Bush and President Obama ordered this approach to be a nationwide requirement. Let us do the same.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for introducing this timely debate, and for his sustained interest in some of our most vulnerable children and young people. As we await the findings and recommendations of the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services taskforce, I welcome this opportunity to consider the disturbing statistics that have prompted its work.
We know that childhood and the teenage years are where patterns are set for the future. A child with good mental health is more likely to develop healthy relationships, to do well at school, and to become an adult with good mental health, able to take on adult responsibilities and fulfil their potential. Yet the pressures of today’s society can be overwhelming. Family breakdown, violence in many communities and the fear of crime can be a real source of distress for young people. Social media and social networking keep up a constant pressure to have the right lifestyle, the right friends or the right possessions. Inequalities in childhood also have a bearing on mental health: young people in the poorest households are three times more likely to have poor mental health than those in wealthier homes.
It is nevertheless a shock to hear that 45% of children in care are suffering from a diagnosable mental health disorder, and that these particularly vulnerable children also have a greatly increased risk of “conduct disorders”, the most common childhood psychiatric disorders. Yet the stigma around mental health means that young people often do not get the right help: disruptive, difficult, withdrawn and disturbed children need to be supported, not ignored or punished. My aim in speaking today is therefore quite simple. Will the Minister reassure us that the CAMHS taskforce will have teeth and that its recommendations for improving access to services more responsive to children’s and young people’s needs—particularly to those for care leavers and those in local authority care—will be given real, urgent consideration?
The importance of early intervention in relation to vulnerable children is something I have spoken about before. The task force’s most urgent priority must be to focus on how to bring about a shift in resources to invest in early intervention, so that no child or young person has to wait two years to be seen, by which time the situation is so dire that they need intensive support. The recent announcement of £8.5 million for schemes to provide families with mental health support and early intervention services is therefore welcome, but we need to know how local authorities, schools, GPs, the NHS and clinical commissioning groups are going to be enabled to work together to target the right, cost-effective actions.
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to parenting programmes. The College of Psychiatrists says that up to 60% of the cost of these programmes is recovered within two years, and all costs recovered within about five years. Given that the lifetime cost to society per child with a severe behaviour disorder is about £260,000, that is pretty effective. Will the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to ensure that a cross-departmental strategy is in place to improve the provision and accessibility of parenting programmes? I ask the question in the knowledge that two-thirds of local authorities in England have been shown to have reduced their CAMHS budget since 2010. The stark reality is that funding has been cut by both local authorities and clinical commissioning groups, with the catastrophic effects that we have heard outlined today already.
I was shocked last week to learn that during 2013-14 there were 17,000 visits to hospital emergency departments by young people in mental health crisis. That is almost double the figure for 2010-11. How can the Minister ensure that effective children’s mental health services are not compromised by cuts to local government?
We need to be able to provide support to children, young people and their families when they start to struggle. Only then will we avoid the costly and intense suffering that entrenched mental illness can cause.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, in a rapidly changing world, children and young people face a wide range of risk factors for mental health problems, both now and later in life. It is salutary to note that in an average classroom, 10 children will have witnessed their parents separate, eight will have experienced physical violence, sexual abuse or neglect, and seven will have been bullied.
Those in the particularly vulnerable group, children in care, are typically in care precisely because they have experienced neglect or abuse, and these traumatic experiences can affect them for the rest of their lives. The recent Barnardo’s report, The Costs of Not Caring, showed that children in care are five times more likely to develop childhood mental health problems and, shockingly, are five times more likely to commit suicide later in life.
Despite the widespread concern about the current state of mental health services for children and young people, it is important to acknowledge what the Government have done to improve things, including investing £54 million into the children and young people’s IAPT programme and the recent announcement by the Deputy Prime Minister that £150 million will be invested over the next five years to improve treatment for eating disorders. It is welcome, of course, but nothing like enough.
We are all aware of the impact of budget cuts on CAMHS services. As a consequence, children have too often been transferred far from home or placed in adult wards that are ill equipped to take care of them. Services provided by the voluntary sector have picked up some of the slack, but there is often a lack of awareness about these services and they may be ill equipped to deal with serious mental health problems.
In reality, the help that is available can be hard to find. A 2013 YoungMinds study found that one in three young people does not know where to turn for mental health support; and, as the National Children’s Bureau pointed out, only a quarter of five to 15 year- olds with anxiety or diagnosable depression are in contact with CAMHS. By the time young people do get support it can be too late. More than 80% of parents said that children and young people were at crisis point before they managed to get support.
What is to be done? I greatly look forward to the findings and recommendations of the Government’s Children and Young People’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Taskforce. What is on my wish list? First is far more joined-up commissioning for CAMHS, with young people’s voice at the heart of service design. Secondly, counselling in schools can provide an alternative and valuable route for young people to get therapeutic help. Schools in Wales and Northern Ireland are already required to provide counselling. In my view, children in England should have the same opportunity. Can the Minister say what practical steps the Government are taking to ensure that all children have access to school counselling?
Thirdly, as already stated, children in care are not only more likely to experience mental health problems in childhood, they are also more likely to experience the sorts of problems—emotional instability, substance abuse, self-harm—that lead to worse outcomes later in life. That is why I think that CAMHS, IAPT and school counselling should explicitly prioritise the needs of children in care as part of the corporate parenting role that government plays.
When we think about children’s mental health we should think not only about the 10% who already have a diagnosable condition. Relatively minor problems in childhood often snowball and develop into fully fledged mental health disorders in adulthood. There are good examples of effective early intervention, such as specialist support to help parents develop a healthy connection with their young babies, and parenting programmes, as we have already heard.
I believe that schools should have a responsibility to prepare children not only for exams but for the difficulties they may face in later life. That is why I would like to see PSHE programmes to address issues such as bullying, drugs and alcohol, and mental health being compulsory for all primary and secondary schools.
Finally, preventive mental health support should be offered to all children in care and care leavers so that they can access the support they need to overcome past trauma and achieve stability later in life. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for having secured this debate.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the terrible reality of the effects of mental health could not have been more powerfully illustrated than by the story reported in the press last week of 18 year-old Edward Mallen. He was not one of “those unfortunates”—he had 12 A* GCSEs and was predicted to achieve three A* A-levels; he had got grade 8 piano and a place at Girton to read geography—but he rapidly descended, over quite a short time, into depression and died under a train. Not only is it an affront to think of that young life, with all its potential and opportunities, suddenly being lost with his death, but the scars will stay with all the members of his family for the rest of their lives.
Recently published ONS figures show a worrying rise in the number of suicides in the UK, particularly among men. There were 6,233 suicides of over-15 year-olds registered in 2013, 252 more than in 2012, with the male suicide rate three times that for women. In the UK, suicide is the main cause of death of young people under the age of 35—more than 1,600 every year. Hundreds more attempt suicide and thousands more self-harm.
Much more needs to be done, perhaps drawing on research such as that provided by the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness. In last year’s annual report, it identified various key points at which there was much greater risk. For example, the first three months after a patient’s discharge remain a time of particularly high suicide risk, especially in the first two weeks. Between 2002 and 2012 there were 3,225 suicides in the UK by mental health patients in the post-discharge period, 18% of all suicides. The report also pointed to suicide by patients receiving care under crisis resolution or home treatment teams. Such people are much more likely to commit suicide than those in in-patient care. It also pointed to living alone as a common antecedent of suicide by patients receiving care under crisis resolution and home treatment teams.
I welcome the Government’s initiatives in the area of suicide prevention. Indeed, I applaud the Government’s ambition to achieve zero suicides through the NHS adopting the approach pioneered by the Henry Ford Medical Group in Detroit. The dramatic improvements in Detroit will give hope that those who feel such desperation and so little hope in our society can also be reached. They point to the need for rapid and thorough expert assessment of patients who are having suicidal thoughts; for improvement in the care of those who present with self-harm injuries at A&E units; for better education for the families of people deemed to be at risk; and for improvement of data collection on patients to get a better understanding of how and where patients are most at risk of suicide and then to target resources at them.
The charity PAPYRUS has highlighted the need to ensure that children, young people and vulnerable adults receive due attention under this new strategy. It is imperative that the provision of resources is sustainable and adequate to facilitate a wider understanding of people with mental health problems as well as to enable the necessary preventive training and aftercare. I therefore applaud the good work that is going on, not least in organisations such as the Samaritans and the churches. I also ask the Minister whether the Government will respond to the campaign by Mind to guarantee referrals to talking strategies, which have clear benefits for those who receive them, within 28 days.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the commitment to ensuring equity between mental and physical health services is in disarray. The NHS has undoubtedly hit mental health provision hardest, according to a BBC report, with as many as 1,700 beds being cut and patients having to travel huge distances to access care, putting patients and families through significant distress and displacement. Despite the promise of guarantees of parity in funding, the overall proportion of funding going to mental health has been falling, compounding the long-standing underfunding of mental health services which is so costly to human lives and our society at large.
The impact of these cuts on children and adolescents has often been lost in the furore about mental health. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for highlighting this issue, not only through this debate but also through his involvement in Young Minds, which has campaigned so effectively to highlight cuts and freezes to mental health services across most local authorities.
Only yesterday, I and colleagues in this and the other place, heard Sally Burke describe her family’s plight when her daughter Maisie, now aged 13, went into crisis. Suicidal and distressed at the age of 12, Maisie had to be taken by the police—because no GP was available to tend to her—and was eventually hospitalised in Stafford, 130 miles from her home in Hull. Sally Burke has had to fight tooth and nail for her daughter to get appropriate care, including getting her MP, Alan Johnson, to intervene with Norman Lamb and the health commissioner in order to get Maisie moved closer to home. However, she still remained 60 miles away in Sheffield due to the removal of mental health beds for children in Hull.
One of the many distressing features of Maisie Shaw’s case is that she was only aged 13, after being hospitalised, when she was diagnosed with autism. As a high-functioning autistic child, at no point had the health or education practitioners she had come into contact with pushed her towards a diagnosis. Instead, Sally Burke says that she was made to feel responsible for Maisie’s irregular behaviour as a small child. She has had to develop huge resilience to withstand battle after battle with atomised public services. She describes the experience as fundamentally “cruel”. This is one example among many that has come to our attention, particularly from carers struggling to manage their loved ones with mental health and autism as an added dimension.
The figures are stark. NHS England reports that as many as 70% of children and young people with autism have at least one mental health disorder. Some 40% have two or more mental health disorders. The Minister will acknowledge that the condition of autism is associated with significant mental health needs. At present, however, specialist child and adolescent mental health services—CAMHS—for autism are few and far between. As NHS England has acknowledged,
“there is a scarcity of professionals with the necessary levels of expertise to provide this highly specialist service across the country”.
Professionals working within CAMHS say that children are not adequately supported while waiting for psychological therapies and that support for parents and carers is negligible.
Can the Minister assure the House that, to address these challenges, the Government will address autism specifically in their work on mental health, for example through the task force on children and young people’s mental health and via the mental health system board and the ministerial advisory group? Given the complexity of autism, will he agree that this group requires specialised attention?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those debates where we find ourselves addressing the ground very close to the subject we are covering tonight, because we have been there before.
The primary thread through this is the fact that those who have stressful lives are going to experience a slightly higher occurrence of mental health problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, and I have taken part in several debates where we talked about people with disabilities and how they are going to have a slightly higher occurrence of mental health problems because their lives are more stressful. Every time that occurs, we are going to find more mental health problems. The problem is the fact that we have not, until very recently, acknowledged that this is what is going on. We have a historical problem which we are now starting to address. I do not know if we are coming up with more solutions with this Government, but at least we are acknowledging the problem and taking the first step.
Will the Minister give us some assurances about where we are improving training in recognising this problem? We have identified the fact that where people are under greater stress, anxiety and depression are going to be more common. What are we doing to make sure that those who are dealing with this recognise the underlying problems and intervene early? Every time we delay dealing with these problems, behaviour gets entrenched and educational problems become more pronounced.
The problem with the education system is that children and young people are on a conveyor belt. If they slip at any stage, they have to run very fast to catch up. Mental health will account for some of that slippage. When mental health issues occur with a special educational need, a situation is created where the child is under even more stress and dropping out is only the short-term survival mechanism. What are we doing to address this?
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, addressed the point that care workers are undertrained to recognise this problem. They do not know what is going on. I think the Government have recognised that GPs do not have enough training to spot the problem early enough to push clients towards services. It may be the case that, as in many of these things, if you are going to have a problem, choose your parents well, and they will battle through for you. But, without that backing, children do not get that thrust to intervention and we end up with this point of crisis intervention and it tends to be papering over the cracks. Will my noble friend give the House some idea about the general strategy of making sure that there is greater awareness of the importance of early intervention? Without that we will carry on papering over cracks.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Listowel on securing this important debate and once again demonstrating to this House his intense and continuous focus on improving all kinds of services for children and young people.
A number of noble Lords have already mentioned the very welcome development by the National Health Service of the Children and Young People’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Taskforce. I want to build my contribution on a meeting held with the children’s group which is currently considering the mental health of children and young people. I was very struck by the fact that members of the group said that one of the problems they were finding as they were going round the country was a complete lack of co-ordination between what was going on in various ministries. They illustrated this by demonstrating to us that they were conducting eight pilots.
One of the pilots listed was a bid from the Black Country to,
“map and analyse commissioning of CAMHS … and other health funded out of area placements, with the aim of preventing the large numbers of children from the Black Country being placed ‘out of area’. … It will include commissioning urgent care … to include the focus upon delivering a Black Country wide solution to children and young people requiring admission to a place of safety (under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act.”
I thought that at the same time that the Ministry of Justice is developing this appalling idea of building the biggest children’s prison in the western world—called the secure college—which will contain a cohort of these very children from the Black Country, for whom the Black Country services are seeking to find a place of safety. To me, that is an absolute illustration of the lack of co-ordination which is inhibiting the development of satisfactory mental health services for this particular cohort.
I happen to chair three all-party interest groups at the moment: one on speech, language and communication difficulties; one on criminal justice, drugs and alcohol; and the Criminal Justice and Acquired Brain Injury Interest Group. I have had meetings with all three to discuss the agenda that they would like to put to the next Government and to ask them what problems were inhibiting them in achieving what they want to achieve. We have had a fascinating agenda. We are drawing it up with some care. Interestingly, time and again—and this very afternoon with the speech and language people—I was told that at a meeting NICE was not prepared to accept educational research in respect of improving the lot of people with SLCN.
I know the Minister understands this—he is someone whom the whole House respects greatly for the way he looks at things. Will the Government follow this line of looking and seeing how cross-government working can improve the services for this group because, sure enough, out in the field are all the people who want to do the work and are being inhibited in one way or another in a preventable way?
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on securing this very important and timely debate on mental health services, particularly for children in care. As we have heard, it has produced many important speeches. I believe that we are at a time when mental health has never been higher on the political and, more importantly, the public agenda. As such, we must all seize the moment. In my brief contribution, I want to remind the House of some key facts that are behind the barriers that may be stopping improvement in mental health services for children, care leavers and, in particular, adolescents.
As we know, mental health problems affect 23% of the population at any one time, and the economic and social cost of mental ill health was estimated in 2009-10 to be £105 billion. As has been pointed out, that is the entire annual National Health Service budget. Furthermore, three-quarters of people with depression receive no treatment at all. That includes children, and 10% of five to 15 year-olds have a mental health problem. This is especially true of children in the care system, who have a poorer level of physical and mental health than their peers and whose long-term outcomes remain worse. Two-thirds of looked-after children have at least one physical health complaint and nearly half have a mental health disorder.
Although the ambition for parity of esteem between mental and physical health is clearly welcome—nothing could be more important in this ambition than children in care—there are concerns that there are major problems in actually achieving it. For example, a recent survey by the Royal College of Nursing revealed that there are now 3,300 fewer posts in mental health nursing and 1,500 fewer beds than in 2010. These problems were further exposed by the Health Select Committee in October 2014, in its report on child and adolescent mental health services. It concludes:
“There are serious and deeply ingrained problems with the commissioning and provision of Children’s and adolescents’ mental health services. These run through the whole system from prevention and early intervention through to inpatient services for the most vulnerable young people”.
That is not surprising given that we know that only 6% of the mental health budget is spent on children and young people in the mental health system and, as has been pointed out, this has been exacerbated by recent cuts in CAMHS services.
Against this backdrop, what needs to be done to improve mental health services, particularly for children in care? First, we need to ensure that there is an adequate number and proper geographical distribution of in-patient beds for all age groups, but particularly for children, when they are required. This should resolve the problem of children being taken hundreds of miles away from home or ending up in adult psychiatric beds, which is totally unacceptable, as the whole House will agree. I know the task force is undertaking this work, and I would be grateful if the Minister could advise us what progress has been made on this issue.
We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about the use of police cells and the inaccessibility of proper places of safety. Linked to that, we must ensure that the liaison and diversion programme is completed by 2017. We heard about the expansion of therapy, particularly the IAPT programme, and therapy services for children, which I support, but we must look in particular at transitional arrangements and the ages at which people have access, in a timely way, to those programmes. It is crucial that we recognise the value of early intervention and the dramatic effect on people’s lives, particularly for young people and their families, if that intervention does not take place.
We need a real focus on schools, with all staff, especially teachers, having some level of training in mental health so that they can identity possible issues and passport children to specialist services. We need to look at the Mentally Healthy Society report that was published today, which recognises the need within schools to have a named CAMHS worker for proper link and access. It also recommends training health workers—we have heard a lot about training today—on mental health issues, because, again, they can be crucial in early intervention.
I recently visited a liaison project in Sunderland and met with parents of children who had a mental health problem. The scheme is excellent and the parents are wonderful, but they need tailored, timely and continuous support. Parenting programmes, which are supported by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, need to be expanded and must be funded and developed. Finally, we need a clear strategic commissioning framework to ensure that all relevant agencies—health, criminal justice and others, as well as local authorities, particularly for children in care—work effectively together so that we do far better for all children who have mental health problems.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for securing this important debate and for speaking to his Question so powerfully and with such authority.
Improving the mental health of children and young people is a key priority for the Government. It is part of our commitments to achieving parity of esteem between mental and physical health and to improving the lives of children and young people. Since 2010, we have raised the profile of mental health to unprecedented levels. We have produced the mental health and suicide prevention strategies and worked, through Time to Change, to reduce the stigma attached to mental health issues.
Although there has been much progress, the Government have been open about the scale of the challenge and acknowledge that there is still much to do. This includes action to improve outcomes for looked- after children and care leavers. Around 68,000 children are looked after by a local authority. For nearly two-thirds of these, the primary reason for being looked after is abuse or neglect. Although looked-after children have many of the same health risks and problems as their peers, they tend to have poorer outcomes. Almost half have a diagnosable mental health disorder and two-thirds have special educational needs. I can reassure my noble friend Lady Tyler, in particular, that it is the responsibility of the local authority, as corporate parent, to assess each looked-after child’s needs and draw up a care plan that sets out the services which will be provided to meet those needs. It must make arrangements to ensure that the child has his or her health needs fully assessed, and a health plan developed and reviewed.
At the end of last year, we consulted on revised statutory guidance on promoting the health and well-being of looked-after children. In that guidance, which will be published in its final form shortly, we emphasise the need for parity of esteem between mental and physical health. My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott spoke about the social isolation felt by those leaving care. The guidance stresses the importance of ensuring continuing support for those leaving care, and that suitable transition arrangements are in place so that the young person’s health needs continue to be met.
That leads me to the concern expressed by the noble Earl about the problems that can arise during transition from children’s to adults’ services, a point touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. Indeed, ending the unacceptable cliff edge that some young people—not just those in or leaving care—face of support being lost as they reach the age of 18 is a key priority for action. I am delighted that NHS England has now published new service specifications for child and adolescent mental health that give guidance to local commissioners on how to improve transition practice. The Children and Young People’s Mental Health and Wellbeing Taskforce, to which I shall return in a moment, is also considering how to deliver more seamless transition built around the needs of young people. Our statutory guidance on promoting the health and well-being of looked-after children stresses the importance of ensuring continuing support for those leaving care and that suitable transition arrangements are in place, so that the young person’s health needs continue to be met.
The noble Earl asked how specialist mental health services for looked-after children, including psychotherapy, can be protected and, indeed, expanded. Rather than mandating mental health services targeted at specific groups such as care leavers, our aim is to ensure that everyone has timely access to evidence-based services when they need them. That is why—as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate—we have invested £54 million over the last five years in the Children and Young People’s Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Programme. This has transformed children’s mental health services throughout the country through the use of evidence-based therapies alongside session-by-session outcome monitoring, so that both therapist and patient know how well therapy is working toward a goal. We are strengthening the statutory guidance to make it clear that service commissioners must make sure that services provide targeted and dedicated mental health support to looked-after children, according to need. How they do that is for local determination, but it could include a dedicated team or seconding a CAMHS professional into a looked-after children multi-agency team.
The Government are clear that lack of investment in children and young people’s mental health services is not acceptable. Last November, we provided £7 million of additional funding to NHS England, allowing more in-patient tier 4 CAMHS beds to open. So far 53 new beds have been commissioned, taking the total to over 1,400 beds, more than ever before. We are well aware that there is variation across the country in investment in services provided by local authorities, schools and clinical commissioning groups. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, and other noble Lords have mentioned funding. We have legislated for mental health to get its fair share of local funding and this year’s NHS planning guidance is clear that spending on mental health services must increase. It is not enough simply to provide more and more beds. In order to ensure that improvements are sustainable, we need to focus on preventing issues arising, or taking action before hospital treatment is required. The task force is considering how best we strike this balance.
In addition, I can tell my noble friend Lord Addington that we have produced MindEd, which is an online platform designed to give those who work with children and young people every day the skills and knowledge to recognise the earliest signs of mental health problems. Health Education England is working with the Royal College of General Practitioners and others to improve training on CAMHS and the task force is also looking at the capacity and capability of the workforce. The Department of Health is commissioning a new prevalence survey of child and adolescent mental health, giving us something that we have needed for years: an accurate picture of mental ill health in youth.
I shall now try to cover as many points as I can that have been raised in the debate. I will of course write to noble Lords whose questions I have not been able to address in the time available. The noble Earl spoke very eloquently about the need for proper supervision of staff. All staff working in a children’s home should receive supervision of their practice from an appropriately qualified and experienced professional. In the majority of homes the supervisor will have experience or qualifications in the mental health field. The national minimum standards for fostering services expect them to ensure that foster carers receive the support and supervision they need. Programmes such as Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care can provide support, both to the child and to its foster carers. We expect to lay before Parliament next week new quality standards regulations for children’s homes in England, to come into force on 1 April. The regulations will require all staff in a home to receive practice-related supervision by a person with appropriate experience.
The noble Earl also referred to the qualifications of managers and staff. The Department for Education introduced new mandatory qualifications for children’s home managers and staff from this January. These include requirements to be able to support the well-being and resilience of children and young people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, referred to the reported drop in investment in CAMHS. As she knows, we have taken difficult economic decisions to protect the NHS budget and there have been no central government funding cuts to children and young people’s mental health services. We have been clear that a lack of investment in mental health services for children and young people is not acceptable, as I have said, and the child and adolescent mental health task force was commissioned to identify how to improve the quality of and access to children and young people’s mental health services.
My noble friend Lady Tyler asked what practical steps the Government are taking to ensure access to school counselling. The Department for Education is producing new guidance on good school counselling. We anticipate that this will be published in March. She also asked what we are doing to promote PSHE in schools. The Department for Education has funded the PSHE Association to produce new guidance for schools on teaching about mental health.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans spoke very powerfully about young people who self-harm and who commit suicide. Indeed, in January this year we issued a call to every part of the NHS to commit to a zero suicide ambition. In addition, the Government announced £150 million over the next five years to improve services for eating disorders and self-harm. He will know, I am sure, that preventing suicide in children and young people is a central part of the cross-government suicide prevention strategy published in 2012. That is backed by £1.5 billion of funding for research on suicide and self-harm.
As regards Mind’s call for talking therapies to be available within 28 days, the five-year plan for mental health sets out the ambition to have new waiting time standards across all mental health services by 2020. The Department of Health and NHS England are working to do this, and I think that introducing those waiting time standards is a landmark for mental health services that we have not seen hitherto.
The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, spoke about the need for CAMHS for autistic children in particular. The new statutory framework for children and young people with special educational needs and disability is designed to greatly improve integrated working across health, education and social care, to deliver improved outcomes for the child and their family. CCGs and local authorities have joint arrangements for assessing, planning and commissioning services for children and young people with special educational needs.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, asked how best we should address the lack of co-ordination across CAMHS. On 11 December last year, eight pilot projects were announced that will look to accelerate new collaborative commissioning approaches for children and young people’s mental health. These new pilots will be in various parts of the country—I will not read them out—and have each been awarded up to £75,000 to develop their plans. They have until April to get their new approaches up and running.
Time prevents me from covering the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, in particular. I undertake to write to him and other noble Lords, as I said. But I would just like to touch on the subject of parenting, which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. The CYP IAPT programme includes a focus on parenting for three to 10 year-olds with conduct disorder. It currently works with services covering 68% of the population and the ambition is for nationwide coverage in 2018.
The task force is a crucial element of our plans. It brings together experts from across health, social care and education to look at how to improve the way children and young people’s mental health services are organised. It has a particular focus on the needs of the most vulnerable children and young people, including looked-after children. We will publish the Government’s report of the task force’s findings shortly. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured that there is much going on in this area. The Government are very focused on the subjects that we have heard about this evening. I very much hope that the progress we have seen over recent years will be continued under the next Government.
Modern Slavery Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Young of Hornsey
Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)
My Lords, we have made some good progress in the area of reporting and transparency. Like other noble Lords, I pay tribute to the Minister for holding meetings outside the Chamber and getting us to talk through with him some of the issues that we have with this part of the Bill. I am pleased to say that I support government Amendment 97, which gives quite a bit more clarity than we had previously on what should be included in the slavery and human trafficking statement.
However, there are still some areas around the subject where we could do with a little more improvement, hence a number of amendments to Clause 52 have been proposed, most of which I broadly support. Although it is not specifically addressed in any of the amendments tabled today, I still struggle with the prospect of a company deciding to face down criticism and continually submitting a statement declaring that it has decided not to examine its supply chain for trafficking and/or slavery. I wish I could say that it is unlikely that any company would do that and that all will swept along by the strong support that so many companies and organisations have demonstrated with regard to Clause 52, but I am afraid that time and again, recently and over a period of time, we have read in the press and seen on our screens too much evidence to the contrary.
I shall make my remarks fairly brief, because the amendments that I am speaking to, Amendments 93 and 94, are largely self-explanatory. Amendment 93 would ensure that government departments and agencies were subject to the same laws as commercial organisations with regard to declaring their actions to support transparency in their supply chains. The amendment is supported both by the British Retail Consortium and by the British Medical Association.
Just to give your Lordships a glimpse of the scale of procurement that is under discussion here, the Government spent a total of £238 billion on the procurement of goods and services in 2013-14. This sum represents approximately one-third of all public spending. Even breaking that down into departments produces substantial figures. For example, if we look at the Ministry of Defence, we see that the Defence Clothing Team, which is part of Defence Equipment and Support spent a total of £64.7 million on uniform and clothing in the financial year 2013-14, which would have put it well within the scope of the £60 million which was one of the figures that have been bandied around as a suggestion for a threshold figure that companies might need to meet to be covered by this clause. That is just spending on clothing.
There is no doubt that the Government have huge buying power and thus are implicated in any number of supply chains which extend around the world. For several years, various campaigners have argued that government should set an example when it comes to good practice in ethical and sustainable sourcing, and we now have an excellent opportunity to make considerable progress.
The social impact of decisions taken by government departments and agencies is no less than that of commercial organisations. Surely it would be difficult to argue that government should be exempt from the laws that it seeks to impose on other organisations similarly involved in the provision of goods and services. It is estimated that the NHS spends in excess of £40 billion per annum on the procurement of goods and services. I mention that specifically because I was struck by the British Medical Association’s briefing, which pointed to,
“an uncomfortable paradox in providing healthcare in the NHS at the expense of workers’ health in its supply chains. There is a risk to the reputation of the NHS through inaction, but conversely the importance and spending power of the NHS presents a real opportunity for it to take a lead in ethical procurement”.
As in other commercial organisations, the supply chains that provide commodities and services to government departments and agencies are global and employ hundreds of thousands of people world wide. If major suppliers of healthcare goods, for example—of uniforms and so on—strove to ensure fair and ethical practices in the manufacture of their products, the potential impact on global supply chains could be substantial.
I would be interested to know from the Minister whether there has been any discussion about government procurement in the context of transparency in supply chains. Or perhaps the Government are so confident that they implement sufficiently robust ethical procurement frameworks that they feel they should not be subject to reporting on their supply chains. While giving overall support to transparency in the supply chain legislation, particularly as it applies to supply chains in UK medical goods and imports, the British Medical Association believes that more can be done to ensure that public sector organisations and the small and medium-sized enterprises that supply them take adequate measures to ensure fair and ethical practice in supply chains.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Young of Hornsey. I strongly support her Amendments 93 and 94 and the government amendments in this group.
Like my noble friend, I thank the Minister for meeting me and other noble Lords and a number of civil society stakeholders earlier this month to discuss transparency in supply chains. Noble Lords will recall that I and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of Cradley and Lady Mobarik, raised this issue in Committee. I also spoke about it at Second Reading. The Minister kindly said that, unusually following the Committee stage, not only would he have a meeting with colleagues in the House but that he would invite all the interested groups involved in this issue to meet him and the Peers who were able to be there. With the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others, we were able to have an extremely helpful and useful discussion.
I welcome the amendments that the Government have tabled for Report, and I believe that they could take us a step closer to delivering effective transparency and accountability on action to eradicate modern slavery from the supply chain. Of course, I hope that this evening the Minister can be enticed to take a few more steps down the road that we have been travelling.
While I welcome and am most grateful for the progress that we have made, there are three areas on which I want to speak and on which I am hopeful we can agree some way forward. My Amendments 97A, 98A and 99A each raise an important outstanding issue that we ought to address before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage if we are to ensure that the supply chain clause works effectively in practice as we all want. It might be helpful to the House if I mentioned that the groups that support these amendments include Amnesty International UK, Anti-Slavery International, CAFOD, the CORE coalition, Dalit Freedom Network UK, the Evangelical Alliance, Focus on Labour Exploitation, the Law Society, Quakers in Britain, Traidcraft, Unseen and War on Want. While I pay tribute to them for the support they have given, I link with them Ruth Chambers, who has done an extraordinary amount of work on this. Sometimes the real heroes and heroines behind legislation are the people who do the hard slog.
I heard today from the Equality and Human Rights Commission and had a chance to have a brief conversation with one of its representatives. It subsequently sent me a statement about this group of amendments and, in particular, Amendment 99A. The commission’s recommendation is to:
“Support Amendment 99A … insofar as it would give the Anti-slavery Commissioner power and sufficient resource to take enforcement action”.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, raised the issue of resources in earlier debates, and they will be the make or break for this Bill. If resources are not provided, it will not be worth the paper on which it is written, but I am pretty confident that the Government are going to back up the rhetoric in this legislation with the necessary resources. I hope we will hear more about that when Minister comes to reply. The commission also says:
“In our analysis, extending this enforcement power to the Anti-slavery Commissioner would be desirable as it would strengthen his/her role and ensure that enforcement of the duty to prepare a slavery and human trafficking statement could be carried out independently of government. We consider that the Commissioner should be given a range of further powers, including the ability to require the disclosure of data and information, to conduct investigations and inquiries and to hold agencies to account for non-compliance with laws and policies”.
I am sure the Minister will have seen this statement. It was issued only today, and I am glad to be able to draw it to the attention of the House.
Government Amendment 97, as I have mentioned, is welcome as it sets out a number of areas on which slavery and human trafficking statements may include information, but I stress “may” in this context. The amendment does not go so far as to introduce minimum disclosure measures, which are really necessary if we are going to create a sort of equality of arms. As it stands, government Amendment 97 would still leave it entirely optional as to what companies put in their statements.
I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in Committee on this matter and recognise that different types of businesses will face different challenges in relation to their supply chains. It is a perfectly fair point that he has made, but he also indicated that the Government want a level playing field for industry. This is also something that businesses have called for. Sir Richard Branson, for example, has been supportive, as has Associated British Foods, the parent company of Primark, which I was able to meet in January with my noble friend Lord Patel. I was particularly appreciative of their support. My noble friend Lady Young referred a few moments ago to the tragedy in Bangladesh, and it was partly arising out of what happened there that I felt it would be helpful to have a discussion with Primark. I believe that the wording I have suggested in Amendment 97A strikes an appropriate balance that will allow for some flexibility while ensuring a level playing field between businesses on what they must disclose information about. This will also enable comparison across industry sectors as we will then be able to compare like with like.
One area about which I am particularly disappointed that the Government have not changed their position is the need for a central place in which the slavery and human trafficking statements can be uploaded and scrutinised. This is a very reasonable proposition. My Amendment 98A would introduce a requirement to upload the statements on to a central website maintained by the office of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner. Significantly the designate commissioner, Kevin Hyland, is supportive of this idea and I am grateful to him for meeting Ruth Chambers last week to discuss this.
Ensuring that each company uploads its own statement is a light-touch, practical way of spreading the administrative costs so it is onerous neither for business nor for government, but I am aware that the commissioner will have limited resources, so if this amendment is accepted then his budget will need to reflect this new responsibility. Why is this central repository needed? Quite frankly, without it the role that the Minister has described on many occasions for civil society, investors and the media to hold businesses to account for their supply chains—as he wants them to do—will be nigh on impossible to achieve. This is because of the time and the effort which would be needed to be spent just working out website by website which companies had reported and which had not. Then of course there are the difficulties that such stakeholders face in accessing the annual turnover information that would indicate which companies fall within the compliance threshold.
Amendment 98A would also require companies to include within the director’s report a fair summary of the statement and the web address of the full statement. This link to the director’s duties in the Companies Act 2006 would ensure that company directors took this provision seriously, and will help to propel responsibility for tackling slavery and supply chains into the boardroom. It would not be burdensome or costly to have this additional reporting and it reinforces a point that my noble friend Lady Young made in her remarks a few moments ago. It will also draw the slavery and human trafficking statement to the attention of mainstream investors who might otherwise not be aware of it and empower them to ask questions of the company. Making directors responsible for reporting on what the company is doing to eradicate modern slavery will ensure that it is part of core business. Boardroom responsibility will also change the culture of businesses and create an environment of a race to the top, thereby increasing the pace at which slavery is tackled within supply chains. I think this would also be good for UK plc, if I can put it that way, as it would promote better business practices which would in turn lead to better profitability and enable UK businesses to play a more leading and competitive role on the global stage.
On Monday the almost ethereal presence of William Wilberforce was regularly drawn to your Lordships’ attention and he was cited on a number of occasions. It is significant that when William Wilberforce was campaigning for an end, first, to the transatlantic slave trade in 1807, and later to all slavery, some argued that to abandon slavery would be ruinous for UK business interests. Of course, that did not turn out to be the case at all. Indeed, our reputation worldwide was enhanced by the results that the Clapham group was able to bring about as a result of its concerted actions in both our Houses of Parliament.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 95 and 98. I will take Amendment 95 first, because that is a separate matter.
It seems rather odd that the legislation deals exclusively with commercial organisations when one area of business across the UK is within the hands of government departments. The procurement by government departments and government department agencies ought to have the same degree of transparency in their supply chain as commercial organisations do. Otherwise, there might be an advantageous position for government which is not shared by commercial organisations. I was on the pre-legislative scrutiny committee and big businesses such as Sainsbury’s and Primark came to talk to us about wanting a level playing field. We did not discuss government procurement, but if you are to have a level playing field, it should include government. I can understand that it might be difficult to put that into the Bill at this stage, but I would like an assurance from the Government that this is a serious matter that will be reviewed as a matter of some urgency so that, certainly before the end of this year, we can know that all parts of organisations that employ and buy are treated, right down the chain, in exactly the same way.
My second amendment is a very much simpler version of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. In principle, I agree with him that we should go some way on this. One of the problems—and I again think of the appalling phrase “level playing field—is that there is no accountability. Amendment 97, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, is great as far as it goes. However, there is nothing to do if a company chooses to do nothing. As for the Californian legislation, I was told that one of the major American companies put up on its website the splendid phrase: “We propose to do nothing”. Apparently that complied with the Californian requirement. I will not mention the name of the firm because I might get into trouble. The fact is that we do not have any way of requiring some companies to put anything on their website. There may be those around them who would criticise them, but there is nothing to do. At the very least, copies of the statements proposed by the Government should be sent to someone.
I saw the commissioner this week. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, saw him last week. He was a bit apprehensive, I have to say, about the office of the commissioner receiving all these statements. He said that it might be better if somebody else receives them, but he entirely agrees that they should be on somebody’s website. Someone —I shall not mention who—suggested the Home Office website. That is a real possibility, if it were efficiently run. It may be that the commissioner could, in consultation with the Home Office and with commercial organisations, discover some other organisation prepared to create a website to which a statement, under Amendment 97, could be sent, but it needs to be sent somewhere.
We may have to take this in stages. If we can find a website upon which all these statements can be placed, it may be that the next stage—how they are monitored and what happens to those who do not, in fact, comply—will be further legislation. I do not believe that the Bill should go to ping-pong over whether there is effective monitoring and enforcement, but it is essential that the Government look at this as a matter of some urgency, because we need the statements and we need them to be sent somewhere, so that people can read them. Not only do those statements need to be read—no doubt by rivals—and commented on if they are not effective, but, at some time in the future, failure to comply with these government requirements should be capable of being dealt with in a way which is adverse to the company that does not comply. The best way to do that is a matter for the future.
I am making two points. First, the Government must do what commercial organisations do. Secondly, simply to have the statement is not enough: sending it somewhere outside the company’s own website has to be the next step.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendments in this group. I shall speak particularly to Amendments 97A and 98A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. First, as other noble Lords have said, we must give credit where credit is due. The Government have engaged with the issue of transparency in supply chains and have come a long way on this issue since the Bill was first published. Part 6, on transparency in supply chains, was a welcome addition, as is government Amendment 97. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for his positive engagement with this issue.
Having minimum criteria in the Bill will not only help business, it will help consumers and civil society. It will also help the Government as, with minimum criteria, there will be clarity about what businesses have to provide, thereby creating the level playing field that good businesses need and deserve. Comparisons between companies will be easier to make, helping consumers and civil society to make choices and to apply the pressure needed to make real change happen—to be catalysts for change. Having minimum criteria in the Bill will help give the Government the transparency and the world-leading legislation that they say they want to achieve, but the word “may” in line 2 of Amendment 97 has to become “must”. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, sets out in his Amendment 97A, without this change, the amendment setting out the minimum criteria that we all now agree needs to be in the Bill is made less effective. The element of uncertainty remains and the level playing field is gone.
I understand the argument that these are minimums, that we should give flexibility to allow more information to be given, not less, and that we want businesses to be able to report appropriately for their business and circumstances, but the lesson from the application of the Californian legislation is clear. While hundreds of organisations issued statements in line with the Act in California, some did not. Some businesses disclosed meaningless information, some disclosed misleading information and, worst of all, some disclosed that they do nothing, as my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss said. Some have even ignored the legislation and been completely silent. We do not want that to happen.
Part 6 is not a paper exercise for businesses; it is a serious measure that good businesses will want to engage positively with and on an equal footing with each other. It is not fair that the good businesses that are doing excellent work are being undercut and undermined by the bad. Clauses that allow uncaring businesses to write down in less than 200 words, “We don’t do any of this work, and we don’t intend to start”, like the submission—and I will name the company—from the multinational Krispy Kreme doughnuts in California, have to be tightened. That is why I support Amendment 97A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and why I have added my name to Amendment 98A.
As monitoring and enforcement of this part of the Bill is crucial, it is not adequate enough to leave monitoring and enforcement to be fulfilled by consumers and civil society alone. It is the job of government to ensure compliance with its legislation. Therefore, I support the proposition put forward in both Amendment 98A and Amendment 98, in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I was convinced by her argument in Committee that the part of government that should monitor and be responsible for this part of the Bill is the commissioner.
Amendment 98A introduces a requirement for a central government portal where all the annual statements are aggregated online, maintained and overseen by the new commissioner, a role that I understand the commissioner is supportive of. But even if this current commissioner is not supportive of it, we are clearly making legislation for the future, and it should be a role of such a commissioner. Leadership on this issue has to come from government, so the legislation needs to allow for the monitoring, enforcement and review. A government portal will also allow consumers and civil society more easily to fulfil their role of community enforcers. Having one central place that we can all go to to compare businesses, research best practice and analyse reports is simple and practical and an important initiative in our shared fight against slavery and forced labour in supply chains.
Finally, I refer to the last part of Amendment 98A, which will mean the issue of slavery and forced labour will be put on the desk of multinational CEOs around the UK and the world. Many noble Lords in this House have emphasised the need for supply chain transparency to be a corporate responsibility, as it is in the boardrooms of multinationals where real change can be made to happen. Multinational corporations have the power to insist on decent wages and formal contracts for all their workers here and across the world. They have the power to insist on inspection regimes and the power to improve the working conditions of those enslaved by exploitative suppliers. Amendment 98A helps them realise more acutely that they have this power and also encourages them to use it. I support the amendment and hope that the Government will, too.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, again, I welcome the changes that the Government have made on this issue. Changes is the wrong word because we started with nothing, and with the introduction of the new clause the Government have built on that, which is very welcome. I agree very much with what has been said about public procurement; for us to say, “Do as we say”, when we should be saying, “Do as we do”, is probably all that I have to say on that issue.
I agree, too, about the appropriateness of co-ordination involving in some way the commissioner. I have added my name to the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Baroness on that matter. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for raising the issue of enforcement, without which one has nothing. I was struck by the following from a report undertaken by four students at King’s College London, comparing this Bill with the Californian Act and a US federal Bill not yet in effect. The American legislation is far more precise and detailed as to what is required from the organisations that are covered. The students said that,
“the ‘incentivising’ enforcement methods are questionable as to impact and efficiency. Parliament makes companies follow many other rules—why is this one particularly troublesome?”.
Because I would like to thank them properly, I shall repeat their names—but I reassure Hansard that I shall send the spellings. They are Olivia Rosenstrom, Elizabeth Komives, Tim Segessemann and Helin Laufer. They also commented that,
“a clear structure among all companies makes review and comparison a lot easier for both experts and the public”.
Again, that is very insightful. Those young people go straight to the heart of the matter—rather better than I, many times their age, can do.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I support this group of amendments. I, too, welcome government Amendment 97, because we need a framework that people can inhabit flexibly and that sets out the framework very clearly but gives room for manoeuvre.
As for Amendment 98A, the modern tool for transparency is the website. A website is accessible to everybody in a very equal way. The Bill needs to balance two kinds of transparency. We are looking for transparency where there is bad practice—we want to shine a light on the oppression and abuse of people. We are also looking for transparency where there is good practice, especially good business practice in terms of employment and working conditions. We have to get both sides of the transparency issue up and running.
There is a serious point about resourcing the website. If it is located in the office of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, that will give a clear message about what it is for. With a website, we can imagine that if people do not find what they want, or do not think that something has happened after it has gone up, they will send in their requests or their complaints, and that will be a big resourcing task to monitor, to respond to and to manage. Therefore, if it is to be run by the anti-slavery commissioner—I can see the value of that—it will, as others have said, need proper targeted resourcing, having measured the task. There may be other models for providing such a website. Whether one can have some equivalent of the Salvation Army and find someone to designate and manage it, there must be a public space that is accessible to everyone, which looks at what is going on and being achieved, shares good practice and exposes those who are falling short.
Finally, I again endorse use of the Companies Act 2006 because that gets into the DNA of how we expect companies to operate good practice.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I rise in support of Amendment 98A of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. If the requirement for those companies in the category whereby they are obliged to prepare and submit a slavery and human trafficking statement for each financial year of the organisation is to be meaningful and effective, a central repository for statements makes infinite sense. The office of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner—the commissioner-designate, Kevin Hyland—is fully supportive of this proposal. A central repository for companies to be able to upload a human trafficking and slavery statement would be an effective way in which to assist with monitoring compliance and public accountability, and it is to be welcomed.
In order for leadership in companies to take this seriously, this amendment is important. It would require companies to include a fair summary of the statement and the web address of the full statement to be included within the directors’ report. This would not be unduly onerous for companies. The upside for companies is that such a duty would prove their due diligence and that it is a matter of real ethical concern to them. That makes for a more attractive proposition to investors and encourages a healthy competition to eradicate the blight of modern-day slavery, which can only be a good thing.
I hope that the Minister, my noble friend Lord Bates, who we all know has been working tirelessly on the Bill for many weeks, will be able to accept this amendment. It enjoys cross-party support as well as support from wider civil society and the commissioner-designate.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I know that the hour is late but I want to add a minute or two of support for my noble friend’s amendments. I, like many others, spoke of the evils of some supply chains and companies’ responsibilities, but on Report it is not necessary to go into case studies again, as we are now talking about minor amendments.
My noble friends are right: proper reporting is an essential element in the legislative response and should satisfy retailers and consumers at the same time. I am a firm believer in corporate social responsibility, although it is going out of fashion, and greater transparency. Generally, I have been impressed by the extent to which businesses have been ready to accept minimum requirements. Of course there is a balance to be struck, and these amendments respect that balance. Who could quarrel with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young? Companies will differ in their relationships with the supply chains, but Amendment 97A goes a little further than the Government’s amendment by requiring a statement while retaining some flexibility.
Amendment 98A, to which the right reverend Prelate just spoke confidently, simply requires the statement to be entered on the website. My noble and learned friend disagrees over whether the commissioner-designate is going to want to do all this for himself, but we must include a provision in the Bill that companies have to provide such a statement; we can work out later where the central website will be. The commissioner-designate has already indicated his agreement in principle, and I hope that the Minister will do so, too.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I should like to speak in particular to Amendments 97A and 98A, but that certainly should not be taken as diminishing the importance of the other amendments in this group.
One value of transparency over the actions taken to tackle modern slavery in the supply chain is that it creates a level playing field. I suggest that government Amendment 97, welcome though it obviously is, would still leave it optional as to what companies put in their statement and thus not necessarily achieve the level playing field that is surely required. Ensuring a level playing field between businesses on what kind of information they must disclose will also allow for easier comparisons between businesses, even if they are in different industry sectors.
However, to achieve really effective comparisons, we need the terms of Amendment 98A. This would introduce a requirement to put slavery and human trafficking statements on to a central website maintained by the office of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner in order both to facilitate those effective comparisons across companies and sectors and to assist with the monitoring of compliance and public accountability.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said that the commissioner-designate is supportive of this, but the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said he might have lost a degree of enthusiasm, because he might have to do it himself as opposed to somebody else doing it. I am afraid that I have not had a personal meeting with Mr Hyland, so I am unable to add a third version of what his views might be on this particular issue, but it seems as though he is supportive, even though there might be a difference of view as to who should be carrying it out. Without a central site for statements, holding organisations to account will be very difficult, if not impossible, to fulfil. It is surely clear that having that central site where those statements would be is actually quite crucial. That is really one of the things that Amendment 98A is seeking to address.
Amendment 98A would also help ensure boardroom responsibility for the eradication of slavery and human trafficking from corporate supply chains. It would also draw the slavery and human trafficking statement to the attention of mainstream investors who might otherwise not have been aware of it, and enable them to ask questions of the company, which is another form of accountability and another pressure point to take the appropriate action.
Once again, I hope that the Minister will feel able to give a helpful response. Perhaps he might feel able to reflect further before Third Reading on the points that have been made tonight from all around the House, particularly in relation to the two amendments to which I have specifically spoken. In the spirit in which the Minister has been operating up till now—which has, indeed, been highly successful—with the amendments that he has put forward and made, which have been much appreciated around the House, I hope that he might be able to agree to reflect further on this issue before Third Reading.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me to go further and I am grateful to him for doing that. I can promise him a full response: whether it is a helpful response will be something that noble Lords will be able to judge at the end. It is quite a large group and there are some new developments and new amendments there about which I want to put some remarks on the record.
I am conscious that on this area, we have had a long journey. I remember a debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, on supply chains last year. At that time, when I was answering, we did not even have the politics of the Bill in place, so that was an addition. Of course, as is always the case, one goes back and says to colleagues in government, “If you can just do this, I am sure that that will meet the concerns”, and then, after huffing and puffing, we came forward with Part 6. I totally understand that people want to start making amendments and expounding on that. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is saying that these are relatively small elements but we will consider that as we move through.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I am grateful to the Minister for the response he has given to my amendments. He will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, ask him whether, between now and Third Reading, he would look at the matter again. Let us forget some of the fringe or side issues as to where the website should be based and so on, but surely between now and Third Reading the principle of there being a central repository where this information is gathered, which the noble Lord has just accepted during his remarks—for which I was grateful and I appreciated what he said—could easily be clarified. I think that would meet a lot of the anxieties that have been expressed in your Lordships’ House this evening.
The reality is that the caravan moves on and as soon as this legislation has been enacted—and we will all cheer when that happens because it is profoundly important, worthwhile legislation—the pressure will be off to put some of these other things into place. Welcome though reviews, consultations, tech sessions and the rest are, the reality is that we should put in a requirement that there should be a central repository—and I personally wish we could go as far as requiring directors to have a summary of it in their annual reports as well—the principle of which has been accepted by the Minister. Surely we could have an assurance that that could be considered between now and next week.
Lord Bates
The only hesitation that I have—normally I like to agree with the noble Lord as far as possible—is on whether we can do it by Third Reading. I really do not know. I will reflect on it and talk. I think it is more important to get the principle there—that we are saying, with all these statements coming together, that clearly they need to be in one place. Whether that is civil society, an NGO, a commissioner or a government body is something that can be sorted out. But the principle is that we want to see these statements in one place so that people can monitor and evaluate them to ensure that the intended action takes place.
Baroness Young of Hornsey
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response to the amendments we have just been considering. I will make three quick points.
I think that we will return to the issue of enforcement. We expect businesses to comply with money-laundering laws, bribery laws and a whole heap of other potentially criminal activities. To me, this is another criminal activity in which a company might be complicit and therefore the statements that they make need to be meaningful, and there will eventually need to be some sort of sanction, I am sure, in the future. But we will see what happens once we come to post-legislative scrutiny and we see how well the Bill actually works.
With regard to turnover and thresholds, it will be interesting to see what comes out of the consultation with business. As to whether or not there will be any consensus, that will be something we will see when that is published. That will be an interesting point because obviously different organisations will have different views on that.
With regard to government procurement, which is probably the thing I feel most strongly about in the two amendments to which I have been speaking, I will have a look at the Modern Slavery Strategy, as the Minister suggests. But statements of intent that are in that kind of paper are not the same as having something in a Bill that makes a very clear statement about what government agencies and the Government themselves should be doing in relation to that.
I will have a think about that, along with others—and I hope the Minister will as well—and in that context, I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bates
“( ) An organisation’s slavery and human trafficking statement may include information about—
(a) the organisation’s structure, its business and its supply chains;(b) its policies in relation to slavery and human trafficking; (c) its due diligence processes in relation to slavery and human trafficking in its business and supply chains;(d) the parts of its business and supply chains where there is a risk of slavery and human trafficking taking place, and the steps it has taken to assess and manage that risk;(e) its effectiveness in ensuring that slavery and human trafficking is not taking place in its business or supply chains, measured against such performance indicators as it considers appropriate;(f) the training about slavery and human trafficking available to its staff.( ) A slavery and human trafficking statement—
(a) if the organisation is a body corporate other than a limited liability partnership, must be approved by the board of directors (or equivalent management body) and signed by a director (or equivalent);(b) if the organisation is a limited liability partnership, must be approved by the members and signed by a designated member;(c) if the organisation is a limited partnership registered under the Limited Partnerships Act 1907, must be signed by a general partner;(d) if the organisation is any other kind of partnership, must be signed by a partner.”
Lord Bates
Lord Bates
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, prevention is critical to tackling modern slavery. That is why the Bill will introduce slavery and trafficking prevention orders which restrict the activity of individuals who have been convicted of modern slavery offences. The slavery and trafficking risk order and the slavery and trafficking prevention order will complement the existing serious crime prevention order regime. We want to ensure that law enforcement has all the tools required to prevent and disrupt organised criminals from committing modern slavery offences.
In a limited number of cases, it will be appropriate for the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office to seek a serious crime prevention order; for example, where positive requirements are needed to stop a modern slavery offender from causing further harm.
Currently under this Bill, it would not be possible to apply for a serious crime prevention order against those with convictions for the existing trafficking offences. Government Amendment 102 will remedy this and ensure that law enforcement has the flexibility it needs to tackle this abhorrent crime.
Continuing to give law enforcement agencies this flexibility in relation to offences committed before this Bill is passed will help them prevent the horrific abuse and suffering caused by modern slavery offences. I therefore hope that noble Lords will support the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Bates
“15A In section 19(8) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (no order made: reconsideration of case), at the end insert “in relation to it”.
15B In section 20(12) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (no order made: reconsideration of benefit), at the end insert “in relation to it”.”
Lord Bates
“( ) regulations under section 43(8) which remove a public authority from Schedule (Public authorities under a duty to co-operate with the Commissioner) (public authorities under a duty to co-operate with the Commissioner), other than in consequence of the authority having ceased to exist;”
“( ) regulations under section (Regulations about identifying and supporting victims) (identifying and supporting victims);”
“( ) regulations under section 51(6) which remove a public authority from section 51(5), other than in consequence of the authority having ceased to exist;”
“( ) the first regulations under section 52(3) (definition of turnover for purposes of section 52);”
(a) are subject to the affirmative procedure if they contain provision removing a public authority from Schedule (Public authorities under a duty to co-operate with the Commissioner) (public authorities under a duty to co-operate with the Commissioner), other than in consequence of the authority having ceased to exist;(b) otherwise, are subject to the negative procedure.”
(7A) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may not make regulations to which subsection (7B) applies unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(7B) This subsection applies to regulations under section 43(7) which contain provision removing a public authority from Schedule (Public authorities under a duty to co-operate with the Commissioner) (public authorities under a duty to co-operate with the Commissioner), other than in consequence of the authority having ceased to exist.”
Lord Bates
Lord Bates
My Lords, at the end of a very long session, I rise briefly to move Amendment 114. As the Modern Slavery Strategy makes clear, the Government’s response to modern slavery has victims at its heart. The Bill is an integral part of that response and also has the interests of victims at its heart. That should be reflected in the Title of the Bill, which is the purpose of the amendment.
In proposing this small change to the Title of the Bill, emphasising the importance of victims, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this Report stage. I do not think that any of us is retreating from Report entirely unbruised or a little disappointed, but perhaps that is the way of things. The reality is that on the vast majority of issues we are in absolute agreement, and paramount is the necessity of tackling this abhorrent crime and eradicating it from our society, protecting the victims while prosecuting the criminals. I commend the amendment to the House.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, before I begin, I should declare my interest as a trustee and member of the campaigning organisation Liberty. I support government Amendment 114. As some of your Lordships may remember, I spoke to an amendment proposed in Committee by my noble friend Lord Rosser which put victims at the heart of the Modern Slavery Bill. I remarked then that it was for the humanity of the victims that we should act. Therefore, I am pleased that the Government have seen the necessity of an amendment to the Long Title of the Bill to reflect the fact that the new Act will make provision for the protection of victims.
For far too long, the criminal justice system has failed victims. In the pursuit of other objectives, victims have been seen as afterthought or, worse still, ignored altogether.
It is high time that we put victims at the heart of our justice system and this amendment highlights this by stating that the Modern Slavery Bill is intent on providing the protection and support that victims of trafficking deserve.
Lord Bates
I am very grateful for the noble Baroness’s support for this amendment and for her words, which I totally agree with. I pay tribute as well to her work on behalf of victims. I am delighted that we have secured her support for this.
Pension Schemes Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text