House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)
1. What assessment he has made of trends in labour market statistics in Wales since 2010.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
I would like to take this opportunity, in the last Welsh Question Time before the general election, to pay tribute to the Welsh Members who have announced their intention to stand down. All eight right hon. and hon. Members have served their constituencies with distinction and played a vital role in making the case for Wales, as I know they will continue to do outside this House. We wish them all the very best.
Across the UK there have never been more people in work. In Wales there are 41,000 more people in work since the election, but we recognise that the job is not yet done, which is why we must stick to our long-term economic plan, which is starting to bear fruit for Wales.
Guto Bebb
May I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s comments on the departing Members?
In my constituency unemployment has fallen by 27% year on year, and it has fallen by over 40% since the height of the recession, a situation that is replicated across Wales. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the small businesses the length and breadth of Wales that have contributed to the jobs-based recovery, and will he assure me that the policies put in place by this Government will continue if he remains in post after 7 May?
Stephen Crabb
I absolutely agree that it is businesses across Wales, and particularly in north Wales, that are leading the economic recovery, creating the jobs that are making such a difference to the lives of families up and down Wales. What puts that at greatest risk is the prospect of a Labour Government with no vision or plan for the Welsh economy.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
The unemployment figures in my constituency have been coming down for the past 15 years, with the exception of the recession years between 2008 and 2012, but many of those jobs are zero hours, part time and for agency workers. I have written to the Secretary of State about the prospect of between 200 and 300 jobs being lost at 2 Sisters. Will he meet me and a delegation from the company, because it is important to the Welsh and UK food industries?
Stephen Crabb
I absolutely will meet the hon. Gentleman, who knows that I take a great interest in job prospects in Ynys Môn, and we will look into the situation in more detail. I caution him against peddling a gross caricature of the Welsh economy, because less than 3% of Welsh workers are on contracts that could be described as zero hours. Opposition Members are quite wrong to peddle this gross caricature of what is a business-led recovery that is bearing fruit.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Welsh Government have nationalised Cardiff airport. What discussions has he had with the Welsh Government to ensure that they do all they can to keep employment rates high?
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend makes an important point. He knows that I meet Welsh Government Ministers frequently to discuss how we can secure the economic recovery for Wales, because it is a shared enterprise across the two Administrations: they know the efforts that we have made to create a strong foundation for a business-led recovery in Wales, and we need them to play their part in helping to bring unemployment down across Wales.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
May I begin by wishing you a belated happy St David’s day, Mr Speaker, and all Members of the House and by adding my thanks to all the Welsh Members of all parties who are retiring, but particularly my right hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) and for Neath (Mr Hain), both distinguished former Secretaries of State who have served Wales extremely well?
We have heard an impressive array of statistics from the Secretary of State this morning, but will he set aside the spin for one moment and tell us what has really happened to the jobs market in Wales on his watch? How many of those new Tory jobs in Wales are on zero-hours contracts and pay a pittance in wages?
Stephen Crabb
Let us remind ourselves of what we inherited in 2010. Under the previous Labour Government, unemployment across Wales had increased by 80%, youth unemployment had increased by 75% and, worst of all, long-term unemployment had increased by more than 150%. That is a scandalous record on jobs in Wales. I am proud to be part of a coalition Government who have created the right foundations for a business-led recovery to turn that around.
Owen Smith
I think workers in Wales are heartily sick of this Tory propaganda. The truth is that of the 100,000 new jobs in Wales, as the Office for National Statistics said last week, 90,000 are zero-hours contracts paying, on average, £300 less per week than full-time jobs. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said this morning, the average family incomes of workers in Wales have declined under this Government. Why does the Secretary of State not say the one thing he can to workers from Pwllheli to Pembrokeshire that would give them hope: vote Labour?
Stephen Crabb
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that is any kind of boon for the Welsh economy, I point him to the opinion poll conducted by BBC Wales which this morning shows that a majority of voters across Wales, even in the Labour heartlands—from Rhondda to Cynon Valley, from Caerphilly to Pontypridd—prefer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to remain as leader rather than the Leader of the Opposition.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
2. What recent discussions he has had with business representatives in Wales on the importance of membership of the EU to the Welsh economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
Membership of the European Union’s single market is good for businesses in Wales. However, businesses tell me that the burdens and costs imposed by the European Union are making it harder for them to grow. This Government are determined to renegotiate our membership with the European Union to get a better deal for Wales and for UK businesses, and to put that to the people.
Alun Cairns
A renegotiated European Union provides greater opportunities for businesses in Wales. I know that the hon. Gentleman shows great interest in Airbus, which says:
“Regardless of which decision the UK will make, we are strongly committed to our operations in the UK”.
The British Chambers of Commerce also supports that position. I am absolutely confident that the growth in Wales will contribute to more jobs and provide more of the certainty that people want.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue of British membership of the EU is indeed of concern to the people of Wales, who have not had their say on the issue for 40 years? Does he further agree that the only way they will get that say is with the return of a Conservative Government, because Labour will not give it to them?
Alun Cairns
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot pretend that this debate is not happening. We need to make the arguments for what the CBI wants—a reformed European Union of which the UK is a part.
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I am intrigued. The Minister said earlier that businesses had told him various anti-EU things. Can he name a single business across the length and breadth of Wales—north, south, east or west—that has told him it would like Wales to leave the EU?
Alun Cairns
I am happy to point to the survey by the British Chambers of Commerce which showed that 77% of businesses support a referendum on EU membership, and said:
“British businesses remain determined to see a recalibrated relationship between the UK and the rest of the European Union, with more powers exercised from Westminster rather than Brussels.”
I hope that the hon. Lady supports that comment from the British Chambers of Commerce.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that businesses do not always speak with one voice on this issue? While big businesses are often the most able to cope with the bureaucracy sent to us from Brussels and might want to stay within the European Union, very often small businesses do not?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Many of the people who are scaremongering now are the same people who wanted to join the euro all those years ago. It is this party that stands up for the British economy and stands up for businesses, exactly as the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI and Airbus say in the quotes I have given.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
13. [907780] In 1998, I was successful in persuading my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) to accept Denbighshire and Conwy into the bid for objective 1 European funding. In that time, Denbighshire has had a quarter of a billion pounds of private sector and public sector funding from Europe. If Britain pulls out of the EU, my constituency and my county will lose £100 million over the next seven years. What does the Minister feel about that?
Alun Cairns
May I remind the hon. Gentleman that European structural funds are aimed at the poorest parts of Europe? It is no mark of celebration to say that his constituency succeeded in winning that money. This Government have a long-term economic plan to turn the economy around for the longer term rather than depending on the grants and handouts for which he makes the case. He also needs to be reminded that that is our money coming back with conditions attached.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the reforms that the CBI and others are recommending for the single market, and for the European Union in general, are absolutely right for Wales and absolutely right for Britain, and that that should be a consideration for the referendum?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Opposition Members talk about some sort of so-called uncertainty, but that so-called uncertainty has given us the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and has made Wales the fastest-growing part of the United Kingdom, which we should be celebrating and marking.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
3. When he last met representatives of the tourism sector in Wales; and if he will make a statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
Wales Office Ministers regularly meet representatives of the tourism industry in Wales. Wales is a fantastic holiday destination, and this Government will continue to do all they can to promote Wales at home and abroad.
Mr Llwyd
We are indeed fortunate in that people the world over want to visit the wonderful country of Wales—I and, I am sure, the Minister are very proud of the country—but more should be done in terms of tourism and the Welsh economy. What discussions has he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had with colleagues to implement a 5% VAT rate for the tourism sector, which would bring 5,500 extra jobs to Wales?
Alun Cairns
With permission, Mr Speaker, a gaf i dalu teyrnged i’r Aelod gwir anrhydeddus? I would like to pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his service in this House over many years, and for the way in which he has led his party here.
VAT levels for business are of course set by the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman rightly points to the importance to the Welsh economy of tourism, which makes up almost 15% of the work force. That is why I am delighted that the number of international visits last year increased by 7.5%, or 26,000 visits.
Mr Llwyd
Diolch i’r Gweinidog am ei eiriau caeredig. I will help Hansard with the spelling later.
In terms of competitive disadvantage, 24 EU states already have a reduced rate of VAT on tourism. In addition, the economic study by Professor Adam Blake, using the Treasury’s own modelling technique, showed that a cut in tourism VAT would increase GDP by £4 billion per annum.
Alun Cairns
A strong tourism sector needs a strong economy. Wales is the fastest-growing part of the United Kingdom, which creates a greater opportunity to attract tourists from not only the UK but beyond. VisitBritain is launching the Countryside is Great campaign, from which I know the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is set to benefit.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)
The Minister is right to highlight the successes of the Welsh tourism industry. Will he reflect on the benefits of a cut in VAT for rural economies, particularly those in west Wales—the constituency of the Secretary of State and Ceredigion, Powys and Dwyfor Meirionnydd? They would really benefit because they are incredibly fragile economies.
Alun Cairns
VAT rates are a matter for the Treasury, but the hon. Gentleman will be able to make such points in the forthcoming Treasury debate. We need to ensure that Wales gets its fair share of VisitBritain, and the Countryside is Great campaign provides a great opportunity for his constituency and large parts of Wales to ensure that Wales is promoted internationally as well as within the United Kingdom.
Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)
4. What assessment he has made of the potential benefits to south Wales of the Severn barrage.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
We have made it clear that we remain open to considering any well developed and privately funded proposals that come forward for harnessing the tidal range resource in the Severn estuary. The right hon. Gentleman’s tenacity on this and a great number of other subjects will of course be greatly missed when he leaves this place. I look forward to meeting him next week to talk further about the Severn barrage project.
Mr Hain
I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Is he aware that the company now taking forward the Severn barrage—exclusively for any form of renewable energy—requires no consumer subsidy through a contract for difference? That could be a game changer for the Government.
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, may I thank my Welsh Labour colleagues for their comradeship, especially during my two years as a Welsh Minister and seven years as Secretary of State for Wales? We can be proud that we established a Welsh Assembly, and it has been a privilege to serve.
Stephen Crabb
I thank the former Secretary of State for his question. As I said, I look forward to talking to him in more detail about the project, and to understanding how the proposal might have changed since he and his associates last presented the ideas to various Committees. Let me add that I am proud to be part of a Government who believe in major infrastructure investment, and who are delivering strategic infrastructure investment in Wales the likes of which we have never seen before.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
As a lifelong advocate of the Severn barrage, I think that we must now reluctantly admit that the time for the barrage has gone and that there is a better alternative in the form of lagoons at Newport, Cardiff and Swansea. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree?
Stephen Crabb
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. He is aware of my enthusiasm for the lagoons project. That is why the Wales Office worked hard to secure the inclusion of the lagoon proposal for Swansea bay in the national infrastructure plan. There is a planning process in place and we need to respect that, but I am proud to be part of a Government who are working constructively and positively with the developers to take the project forward.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
5. What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Government on the role of Jobs Growth Wales in tackling youth unemployment in Wales.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
8. What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Government on the role of Jobs Growth Wales in tackling youth unemployment in Wales.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
I am proud of the efforts of this Government that have seen youth unemployment in Wales fall by 46% over the course of this Parliament. I have discussed with the Welsh Government the support that is available to help people into work to ensure that there is a coherent and joined-up approach in Wales.
Chris Evans
Jobs Growth Wales has created 12,000 job opportunities for young people across Wales. Why will the UK Government not replicate it?
Stephen Crabb
The Jobs Growth Wales scheme has been popular with employers—it is a wage subsidy, so of course employers like it. It is important to recognise that Jobs Growth Wales is for people who are so-called job-ready. An independent evaluation by Ipsos MORI, which was commissioned by the Welsh Government, found that 73% of people who found work through Jobs Growth Wales would have found work anyway. That raises questions about whether it is a good use of taxpayers’ money.
Nick Smith
Jobs Growth Wales has created more than 400 jobs for young people in Blaenau Gwent. However, people need to be able to get to the jobs market on the coast in Cardiff and Newport. Given that the funding is now agreed, when will the valley lines electrification be completed?
Stephen Crabb
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has referred to the valleys electrification project. It was a great achievement of this Government, along with the Welsh Government, to secure a deal to deliver electrification not just of the great western line to Swansea but, crucially, through to the valleys communities as well. We look forward to work starting on that project, subject to the Welsh Government agreeing the details, in 2018-19.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just Jobs Growth Wales but the coalition Government’s long-term economic plan that has delivered the unprecedented falls in youth unemployment, and that the binary choice that will be presented to the people of Wales on 7 May is between jobs, growth and prosperity and debt, deficit and dole queues?
Stephen Crabb
As ever, the Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee is exactly right. He expresses the situation perfectly. What puts at risk all the great progress we have made in cutting long-term and youth unemployment across Wales is the prospect of a Labour Government who have no plan and no vision for the Welsh economy.
Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)
11. Will my right hon. Friend note that in my constituency unemployment has fallen by more than 30% since my election? Will he take every opportunity to remind the electorate and the House of something that has been true throughout the 23 years since I was first elected to the House, which is that every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when they came to office?
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend should take pride in his record. On his watch, the falls in unemployment in Cardiff North have been truly impressive over the past five years. I know that Craig Williams, our excellent Conservative candidate in Cardiff North, will carry on the good work through all the excellent contacts he has with businesses across the city.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Given the 80% success rate of the Labour Welsh Government’s Jobs Growth Wales programme and the Secretary of State’s new-found enthusiasm for devolution, why did he not include in his St David’s day announcement the devolution of the Work programme, which, under his Government, gets only a miserable 10% of clients into work in Wales and is clearly failing people in Wales?
Stephen Crabb
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. The crucial point is that the Work programme was brought forward by the coalition Government—the UK Government—and has helped more than 17,000 people in Wales who had been unemployed for the longest periods. Let us not forget how complacent the previous Labour Government were about long-term unemployment in Wales: the rate of long-term unemployment increased by more than 160% on their watch.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
6. What discussions he has had with the Welsh Minister for Health on cross-border health care provision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
Wales Office Ministers hold regular discussions with Ministers in the Welsh Government on a range of issues, including the provision of health care services along the England and Wales border. We will continue to review current arrangements to ensure that they meet patients’ needs on both sides of the border.
Glyn Davies
A major problem facing rural Wales is difficulty in attracting GPs to come to work in Wales, and one reason for that is the bureaucracy involved in GPs having to go through a process of specific Welsh registration. Will the Minister work with the Welsh Government and the Department of Health to bring forward a common registration programme for Wales and England?
Alun Cairns
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want the greatest flexibility in the NHS work force across the whole United Kingdom. The regulatory burden and bureaucracy involved is unacceptable, and the Department of Health and Welsh Government are working together with the support of the Wales Office to put that right.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Many health services for my constituents are delivered from England by specialist hospitals. Why do the Secretary of State and the Minister want to take away the voice of MPs from Wales to speak up on behalf of their constituents and look after their interests?
Alun Cairns
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s premise. Welsh MPs will still be here fighting for their constituents and ensuring the best care for them, be it on the Welsh or English side of the border. That is what we will be elected for.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
Rural GP practices are at particular risk, as shown by the proposed closure of the Llanwrtyd GP surgery, and patients will have nowhere to go. Will the Minister make representations not only to the Royal College of General Practitioners but to the Wales Deanery, to encourage more GPs?
Alun Cairns
That is a matter for the Welsh Government, but I will happily raise that point. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) underlines the fact that flexibility would create greater opportunity to try to fill those gaps.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Will the Minister concede that one of the main problems with the health service in Wales is underfunding, on which the new announcement on further devolution has signally failed to deliver?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about funding, and there have been many debates in the Chamber about the funding of the NHS in England and in Wales. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) once said, Aneurin Bevan would turn in his grave if he thought that a Welsh Labour Government were cutting the NHS budget while a Conservative Government in Westminster were growing the NHS budget.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
7. What discussions he has had with the National Police Air Service on the provision of helicopter services within Dyfed Powys police force area.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Alun Cairns)
As a police-led initiative, it is for the National Police Air Service Strategic Board to develop the operating and financial models to meet the needs of all forces throughout Wales and England.
Jonathan Edwards
The Dyfed Powys helicopter base at Pembrey is a state-of-the-art facility that opened only in 2010, at a cost of £2 million to the residents of the force area. Last month the newly created National Police Air Service reneged on an agreement made only last November to preserve that base. Dedicated helicopter capacity is vital to policing in the Dyfed Powys area. On Monday, for example, the helicopter saved the life of an injured man at the LNG facility in Pembrokeshire, transporting him to Heath in Cardiff. Will the Minister raise that issue with the Home Secretary and NPAS, and will he meet me to discuss the concerns of the people of west Wales?
Alun Cairns
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I pay tribute to the police and crime commissioner, Chris Salmon, for his work on that. He has an agreement in place that extends access to the helicopter service from 12 to 24 hours, with an 85% priority recall within 20 minutes. That is delivering more for less money. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. Let us have some order for the Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the House of Commons, Mr Graham Allen.
Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)
9. What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister on income tax assignment to Wales being carried out on the same basis as applies in Scotland.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)
I have regular discussions with the First Minister on holding a referendum on the devolution of income tax to the National Assembly for Wales, as provided for in the Wales Act 2014. Following our commitment to a funding floor for Wales there is no reason for the First Minister not to call a referendum in the next Parliament.
Mr Allen
Does the Minister accept that Scotland has now set a precedent on income tax assignment that can meet the base load of its expenditure? Will he continue his work to ensure that Wales also has income tax assigned? Will he talk to his colleagues in England to ensure that they understand that the basis of devolution in England must be financial independence by income tax assignment, too?
Stephen Crabb
I am a bit surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s question, because the Government have worked really hard to deliver a devolution package for Wales that strengthens and clarifies, and makes devolution fairer for Wales. The negative response from Welsh Labour in Cardiff in recent days speaks more about the divisions between Labour in Westminster and in Cardiff. He really should speak to his own colleagues.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 4 March.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Mahmood
The Chancellor was asked six times this morning whether he had had conversations with Lord Green about tax avoidance. He refused to answer. Will the Prime Minister now clarify whether he or the Chancellor had conversations with Lord Green when he was a trade Minister about tax avoidance at HSBC?
The Prime Minister
We dealt with all this a fortnight ago. All the proper checks were made. This is the same Lord Green, the same Stephen Green, that Labour gave a job to just before the election. That is the truth and they cannot get away from it.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Q2. A centre for excellence is to be created on the Isle of Wight for composites, advanced manufacturing and marine technology. This project, led by GKN Aerospace and the Isle of Wight College, will benefit new and existing island businesses. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is an excellent example of the Government supporting the local economy and ensuring that young people on the island have the skills that the industries of the future will need?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right: this is an excellent development. Solent local enterprise partnership has received nearly £11 million in funding through the growth deal to build the centre of excellence for composites on the Isle of Wight. This will provide 550 students with workshop and learning facilities, and will include more than 250 apprentices. This is all part of our long-term plan to build up Britain’s skills, build up Britain’s manufacturing, build up our apprenticeships and make sure more people get the security and stability of work.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
Before the last election, the Prime Minister made a no ifs, no buts promise on immigration. Can he remind the House exactly what that promise was?
The Prime Minister
We promised to cut net migration. We have cut it from outside the European Union, but it has increased from inside the European Union, not least because we have created more jobs than the rest of the European Union put together.
Edward Miliband
The Prime Minister was rather coy about his precise promise. It was in his contract with the British people: net migration cut to the tens of thousands. But now it is at 298,000—higher than when he took office. Here is what he said in the contract:
“If we don’t deliver our side of the bargain, vote us out in five years’ time.”
When he said that, did he mean it?
The Prime Minister
There are two reasons for high migration. One is the growth of our economy, and the other is that our benefit system allows people to access that benefit system straight away. I say: let’s keep the strong economy; let’s change the benefit system. The right hon. Gentleman wants to keep the benefit system and trash the economy.
Edward Miliband
I have to say to the Prime Minister that his promise on immigration makes the Deputy Prime Minister’s promise on tuition fees look like the model of integrity. If he can break so spectacularly a solemn promise on a fundamentally important issue, why on earth should anyone believe any of his election promises this time?
The Prime Minister
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman mentions the document, because I have brought it with me. I have, as you say, procured a copy for the interests of the House, and I would like to run through the commitments we made. We said:
“We will protect pensions”,
and we have protected pensions. We said we would train 4,000 Sure Start health visitors, and we have trained 4,000 Sure Start health visitors. We said we would
“protect free TV licences for over 75s and keep free eye tests… for pensioners”,
and we kept that promise. [Interruption.] There is plenty more. I’ve got all day, Mr Speaker. I think these are very important. The contract says:
“We will keep the winter fuel allowance”,
and we kept the winter fuel allowance.
It said we would
“ensure that cancer patients get the…treatment they need”,
and we made sure that happened. There is lots more, so let us keep going. There is plenty of time. [Hon. Members: “More!”] We said we would increase health spending every year, and we have increased health spending every year. We said we would introduce the married couples tax allowance, and we have introduced a married couples tax allowance. We said we would increase the basic state pension, and we have increased the basic state pension. There is plenty more. These are commitments made, and commitments kept. What a contrast—
Edward Miliband
So now we know: we cannot believe the promise on immigration from the leader of the Conservative party. It is not worth the paper it is written on. [Laughter.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I ask the House to have some regard to the views of the public about our behaviour, given that we will be seeking their support in the weeks ahead. It is quite straightforward really.
Edward Miliband
They are laughing about the Prime Minister’s broken promise on immigration. I will ask again. He promised net migration in the tens of thousands. Will he now admit that he has broken that promise—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear: we have cut migration from outside the EU, but we have seen it rise inside the EU. We have a plan to deal with that. The right hon. Gentleman talks about commitments, but I have a few more. The contract said we would cut wasteful spending, and we have cut wasteful spending. We said we would reduce carbon emissions, and we reduced carbon emissions. We said we would have 400,000 apprentices—we have broken that promise, because we have had 2 million apprentices. It is election time, and we are all getting to think about leaflets, so I have a little question. Apparently, someone can go around to his office, and he stands on a soapbox to make himself look a little taller. How many people will put the Leader of the Opposition on their leaflets? Come on! Hands up! [Laughter.] I think that is enough about leaflets for now.
Edward Miliband
So it is all about leadership. [Hon. Members: “Yes.”] Excellent. Great. We have a good chance to discuss these issues. The broadcasters have proposed a live, head-to-head debate between the Prime Minister and me on 30 April—a week before polling day. I will be at that debate—will he?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it is all about leadership, but we have seen none from the Labour party. What is interesting is that we are having a debate now, and the Opposition cannot talk about the economy—they cannot talk about jobs, because more jobs are being created; they cannot talk about growth, because growth is going up; and they cannot even talk about living standards, because of today’s breakthrough report showing that living standards are back at their pre-crisis peak. I say let us have these debates, and let us get on with them before the election.
Edward Miliband
Okay, if the Prime Minister wants an additional debate between me and him before the election, I am happy to agree to it, but the broadcasters have set a date. He says the election is all about me and him, but the one thing he wants to avoid is a televised debate between me and him. I will give him another chance: I will be there on 30 April for a debate between me and him. Will he be there—yes or no?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has now given up on the seven-cornered debates; he does not want to debate with the Greens any more. He watched the press conference: we all thought it was a car crash; he probably thought it was a master-class. We are having a debate now, and he cannot talk about the economy; he cannot talk about jobs; he cannot talk about living standards; he cannot talk about what we have done for our economy. The reason for that is that he has no leadership whatsoever. The truth is that we have a recovering economy, and we must not let Labour wreck it.
Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Next Monday, a seemingly minor amendment to the Road Traffic Acts—[Interruption.]
Mr Burley
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Next Monday, a seemingly minor amendment to the Road Traffic Acts will allow 70,000 severely disabled wheelchair-using children legally to use a heavier class of wheelchair that better meets their complex needs. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the excellent Newlife Foundation for Disabled Children in my constituency, which has been campaigning for this change in the law for over five years, and can now continue to make a real difference to the quality of life of some of the most severely disabled children in our country?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy, with my hon. Friend, to praise that business and to pay tribute to all those who give disabled young people the chance of having more choice over wheelchairs. Anyone who has had a child in a wheelchair knows that choice is important so that their child can have a better quality of life. I am delighted that this change in the law will help make that possible.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Q3. My father died of cancer; my mother died of cancer; and my sister died of cancer. A year ago, the Prime Minister set a target for those on urgent cancer referrals to receive their first treatment within two months. Last year, 20,000 people did not have that target met for them. Does the Prime Minister understand that, even if the national health service can survive another five years of a Conservative Government, 100,000 cancer patients cannot?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman, probably like everyone in this House and most people in our country, knows someone who has been affected by, or died of, cancer. We all know that, and we know it is one of the biggest killers that we must get to grips with in our country. What we have seen over the last five years, partly because we have protected health spending, is a 50% increase of referrals into cancer treatments, so about half a million extra people have been treated. When it comes to cancer, what we need is earlier diagnosis by the GP. That is why the information campaigns matter so much. When people go into treatment, it does matter that the waiting targets are met. Two out of the three key cancer targets are being met, and we need to make sure that all of them are met. We also need to keep on with the cancer drugs fund, which has given many cancer sufferers access to drugs and a longer life as a result.
Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)
Q4. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, too often, some of NATO’s leaders confuse announcements with action? Will he ensure that NATO does what it said it would do at Cardiff last year, so that those who, for their own domestic reasons, want to undermine the political and territorial integrity of the alliance realise that when we say we will defend it, we mean it, that we have the means to do so and that we will do so?
The Prime Minister
My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. That is why the Cardiff conference was so important. We said we would stick to article 5—and we will stick to article 5. We said we would draw up an action plan to help countries in eastern Europe, including the Baltic states—and we are doing so. For Britain’s part, we have the Typhoons taking part in the Baltic air patrol and we have 4,000 British troops taking part in operations in eastern Europe. It is very important that we are clear to those Baltic allies that when we sign up to article 5, we mean it. They want to hear our support—when they face not only a conventional threat, but threats of cyber-attack as well. We need to show that we are standing with them at this time.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Q5. Without wishing to be personal, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that many people consider him to be a Prime Minister who simply does not understand the lives of millions of people of this country who try to live on modest incomes? The Tory party has been, and remains, the party of the rich and the privileged.
The Prime Minister
I would say to the hon. Gentleman that a Government should be judged according to what happens to the people living in the country. We are now seeing 1.85 million more people with a job. That means that 1,000 people are getting a job for every day that the Government have been in office, and it means the security of a pay packet and the chance to provide for a family. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but that is the reality of Britain today: more apprentices, more jobs, and more people able to provide for their families. I should have thought that the Labour party would welcome that.
Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)
The Department for Education has overruled Norfolk county council’s proposal for an interim executive board to resolve the future of The Hewett school in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister seek to establish why the DFE considers its own centrally imposed proposal to be preferable, given that it seems to go against the spirit of localism?
The Prime Minister
What we have done is ensure that when schools are not succeeding and when they are coasting, they are taken over and turned around, and I think it very important that we intervene on behalf of local parents to make sure that that happens. However, I will look into the specific case that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Q6. At a time when the Government are losing millions through tax avoidance, how does it make sense to close North Ayrshire tax office, given that every officer there brings in taxes amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds that would otherwise be lost to the Exchequer?
The Prime Minister
We have made at least 40 changes to ensure that people pay their taxes. We inherited circumstances in which foreigners were not paying stamp duty, hedge fund managers were paying less tax than their cleaners, and a number of people were avoiding tax on an industrial scale. [Interruption.] Opposition Members sit there now, but they were the friends of the tax avoiders. They had 13 years in which to act, but they did nothing, and it took a Conservative Government to sort it out.
Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)
Q7. Does the Prime Minister believe that his own behaviour and that of the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister’s Question Time enhances or damages the image of the Houses of Parliament and, indeed, that of politicians in the eyes of members of the public?
The Prime Minister
Prime Minister’s Question Time is, inevitably, a robust exchange. I am sure that there are always ways in which we can improve it, but it has an important function in ensuring that we have accountable government in our country, and that people can ask the Prime Minister anything they want.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Q8. Yesterday the Prime Minister rightly designated child sexual exploitation as a national threat. Sadly, the police are receiving more reports of abuse than ever before, but there are fewer investigations and prosecutions than there were in 2010-11. Since then, 16,000 police jobs have been cut. How can it be right to cut a further 1,100 next year?
The Prime Minister
Let me begin by thanking the hon. Lady for mentioning the fact that we have made child sexual exploitation an issue of national importance. That will trigger work not just by local police forces, but by the National Crime Agency. That means that more resources will be put into investigations of this kind, which will employ all the tools that modern police are able to bring to their investigations. Rather than seeing priority being given to other issues, the hon. Lady will see priority being given to this issue. Yes, police budgets have been reduced, but the percentage of police on the front line has risen, and crime has fallen all over the country.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
In a dangerous world, experience as a statesman is one of the many advantages that my right hon. Friend has over any alternative Prime Minister. Does he agree that, in such a dangerous world, the ultimate guarantee of our security is our nuclear deterrent, and will he confirm that he would never be involved in any shabby deal to give away our nuclear deterrent as part of a wider deal with a unilateralist party, simply to get the keys to No. 10?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The ultimate guarantor of Britain’s security is our independent nuclear deterrent. That is why we support it, and will ensure that it is properly renewed during the next Parliament. I think it important for everyone in the House to make that clear pledge.
It is concerning that nearly three quarters of Labour candidates oppose the renewal of Trident. I think that now is the time for Labour to rule out any agreement with the Scottish National party, because no one wants to see some grubby deal between the people who want to break up the United Kingdom and the people who want to bankrupt the United Kingdom.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Q9. To have the accountable Government the Prime Minister just talked about, he needs to answer the questions asked of him. A two-way debate is planned by broadcasters for 30 April. For the third time today, I ask him: will he be there?
The Prime Minister
I have been very clear. I have said, “Get on with the debates before the election campaign,” and I think we should start now.
Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
I bring the House good news. For the first time in 10 years British beer sales are up. The Campaign for Real Ale said the Chancellor’s scrapping of Labour’s hated beer duty escalator and two cuts in beer duty have saved 1,050 pubs. The Sun newspaper, which champions Britain’s beer drinkers, says today that the Chancellor is poised to repeat the cuts. Will the Prime Minister join me in assuring beer drinkers that this Government are on the side of publicans and on the side of British brewers, and will he urge the Chancellor to have a third cut?
The Prime Minister
I praise my hon. Friend for the work he has done to support the beer industry, to support Britain’s pubs and to stand up for our local communities where the pub is so often the hub of the village and the community. This Government have been a good friend of Britain’s pubs and the beer industry. I am delighted with the figures my hon. Friend read out. It always goes to show that life’s better under the Conservatives.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Q10. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills who says that prosecuting people who do not pay the minimum wage is the politics of envy?
The Prime Minister
Prosecuting people for not paying the minimum wage is absolutely the right thing to do, and what we have done is made sure that the resources are there for that to happen, and let me give the hon. Lady the figures: 3,200 penalties have been issued for non-payment of the minimum wage, amounting to nearly £3 million in fines. What we have seen is the maximum penalty being increased, we are naming and shaming non-compliant businesses, and we are getting that sort of action under a Government led by me.
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
Q11. Our long-term economic recovery plan for the north-east has seen wages up, apprenticeships doubled and exports up, and unemployment in every constituency in the north-east has fallen in the last year, and by 37% in Hexham. We are fixing the mess left behind by the Labour Government. Can the Prime Minister set out the future plan for the north-east?
The Prime Minister
We are setting out our long-term economic plan for the north-east. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the figures in his own constituency: the claimant count in Hexham is down by 53%. But what is really fascinating about what is happening today is what is happening to youth employment, and I can tell the House a new figure: in the last year the UK saw a bigger rise in employment levels for under-25s than the whole of the rest of the European Union combined. That is what is happening with our economy recovering. The biggest risk to that economic recovery is the wrecking ball of the Labour party.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
My constituent Mr Irfon Williams of Bangor has been refused the drug treatment for his cancer. He has moved to England and I understand he will begin treatment next Wednesday. What would the Prime Minister say to Mr Williams and others who have had to fight on a case-by-case basis for the treatment prescribed? Mr Williams himself is a senior health care professional.
The Prime Minister
What I would say to Mr Williams is, first, that he has my sympathy and understanding for the condition that he has. I hope he will get the treatment he needs in England, where we are investing £60 million in this Parliament to introduce bowel scope screening in the NHS, which I think will be absolutely vital. On the question of identifying this cancer, which is a major killer, much earlier, the English NHS is performing 850,000 more operations each year compared with 2010, but the problem is that in Wales the Labour party has made the wrong decision and cut NHS spending. It did not have to make that decision, because of course the increase in NHS spending in England triggers Barnett money being available in Wales, so even at this late stage I would plead with the Labour Government in Wales: make the right decision on health, increase the spending, increase the cancer treatments, and give people like the hon. Gentleman’s constituent the treatment they deserve.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Q12. On a recent visit to my constituency to announce the growth fund allocation for the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership, my right hon. Friend learned how, as part of the city deal, the marine industrial campus on unwanted Ministry of Defence land in Devonport’s South Yard could create 1,000 new skilled jobs. As he knows, however, that opportunity could be lost if the land is not transferred to the city council before purdah. Can he confirm when that transfer is going to happen?
The Prime Minister
I visited my hon. Friend’s constituency in January to see at first hand the plans for the maritime industrial campus, which is a very exciting development. As he knows, discussions are under way between Plymouth city council and the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. I do not think there is any reason why they cannot be completed by the end of the month, and I am pressing the Ministry of Defence to do everything it can to make that happen. I can also confirm that funding is there, should the case be approved; that funding was secured as part of the city deal. This is very important for Plymouth and I want to see it happen.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Q13. We all know that the Prime Minister trebled tuition fees. Will he today rule out increasing them again?
The Prime Minister
I will tell the hon. Lady what we have done. We have created a system in which the universities are now better funded than others in Europe, the number of students going to university has increased and the number of people from poor backgrounds has gone up as well. The party opposite has taken four years to work out its policy, and it is a policy that hits universities, helps rich students rather than poor ones and does nothing to expand university education in our country. It is going to be paid for by additional pension taxes on senior nurses, military figures and firefighters. It has taken the Opposition four years to come up with a completely useless policy. It is, if you like, a monument to the chaos we would get under a Labour Government.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Unemployment in my constituency and across northern Lincolnshire has plummeted since 2010, and that is in large part due to infrastructure investment by this Government, including investment in the Humber bridge and in the A160 in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). May I urge the Prime Minister to look closely at the possibility of a feasibility study for the electrification of the southern TransPennine line in northern and north-eastern Lincolnshire?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly have a look at my hon. Friend’s proposal. As he knows, we have made real progress on the electrification of railway lines as part of our infrastructure investment. I was in his constituency recently with representatives of the Homes and Communities Agency to look at a vital road development that is opening up economic development there, but I would be happy to look at the electrification project as well.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
Schools with outstanding academic results can go for years and years with no inspection of their child protection procedures. Is it not time to make child protection much more central to the Ofsted process, and to ensure that every school’s child protection arrangements are inspected regularly?
The Prime Minister
I will look carefully at the hon. Lady’s point. For many years, inspections were seen as almost too routine in outstanding schools that were delivering good results. We needed to focus more on the failing schools and those requiring improvement. She makes an important point, however. Child sexual exploitation is an issue that we need to address in this Parliament and beyond, as are the issues of forced marriage and female genital mutilation, and it is important to know that the right safeguarding policies are in place. Of course, these things can also be triggered by boards of governors or by concerned parents, rather than having to have a routine inspection, but I will have a look at her proposal.
Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD)
Two years ago, a toddler in my constituency, Millie Thompson, tragically died following a choking incident at a local nursery. Her parents set up Millie’s Trust to campaign for a change in the law to require all relevant nursery staff to have paediatric first aid qualifications. An e-petition with more than 100,000 signatures and a Back-Bench business debate led to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) promising a review, which is currently being undertaken. Does the Prime Minister support the campaign, and if so, will he respectfully ask the Minister to get a move on?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly talk to my hon. Friend the Minister about the review. Obviously, it makes sense for as many people as possible to have that sort of training, because where we can prevent accidents and needless loss of life, we should do so. So let me talk to the Minister and get back to my hon. Friend.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
Let us try the Prime Minister on another one of his promises: to make energy companies put their customers on the lowest possible tariff. Too many of my constituents are still paying many hundreds of pounds more per year for energy. Will he again make that promise or is he content to wait until an incoming Labour Government in May fix this energy market?
The Prime Minister
What we promised was to get energy companies to cut their bills by taking some of the charges off them, and that has been delivered. What the Labour party is promising is a price freeze even when prices are coming down. So even before the election Labour has started to inflict real damage on consumers in our country by helping to keep prices higher than they otherwise would be.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
Worcestershire is one of the three fastest growing county economies in the UK, and in Worcester youth unemployment is now down by two thirds since it peaked under Labour. Businesses are investing in our world-class county, but one factor holding back that investment is the long journey time it takes to reach us by rail from the capital. Will the Prime Minister, whose constituency is on the same line, join me in the Fast Track Worcester campaign to deliver us a two-hour service?
The Prime Minister
I am very keen to join my hon. Friend in this campaign because it would benefit my constituency too. We have seen a dualling of more parts of the Cotswold railway line in recent years and an improvement in car parks, which is all to the good. This is a vital railway service—[Interruption.] We are hearing a lot from the shadow Chancellor today. He told us that he was a “long slow burn”, but I have to say that the only thing lying in ashes is Labour’s economic credibility.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Recent figures produced by the TUC have shown that 40% of workers in my constituency earn less than the living wage, with women particularly badly affected—53% of women workers earn less than £16,000 a year. What is the Prime Minister going to do to ensure that workers in my constituency start to feel the recovery?
The Prime Minister
First, I support the living wage and I think that those employers who can pay it should pay it. But what we do to help all people in this situation is to make sure that the minimum wage is properly enforced, to see it increased over time and then, of course, to lift people out of tax. We have lifted 3 million people out of tax by raising to £10,600 the amount of money that someone can earn before they start paying tax. That has benefited low-paid people and has benefited women, and if we get a Conservative Government after the next election, we will raise that threshold to £12,500 so that someone can work 30 hours on the minimum wage and pay no income tax whatsoever.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
As we approach the general election, may I urge my right hon. Friend to abandon his natural reticence and remind the British people that the last Labour Prime Minister destroyed the public finances, ran up a massive £156 billion budget deficit, plundered the pension funds and sold off the gold at a ridiculously low price, whereas under my right hon. Friend’s stewardship and five years of hard graft the United Kingdom now has the fastest-growing economy in the G7, with average wages rising in real terms for the first time since 2007? What we need is, as my right hon. Friend said, a Conservative Government.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that. I have not felt particularly reticent today, but what I would say is that the economy is recovering. We see that in jobs, we now see that in living standards and we see it in the lowest rate of inflation that we have had for many years in our country. The economy has turned around, we have turned that corner, things are getting better and we must not let Labour wreck it.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The suffering of constituents of mine such as Liza Brady, Simon Davey and James Titcombe, who lost their babies at Furness general hospital, is hard to imagine. They have had years of struggle to get to the point yesterday where the Kirkup report put through a host of recommendations, both for our local hospital and for the wider NHS. Will the Prime Minister honour their struggle today by saying that the Government will implement those recommendations in full?
The Prime Minister
It is a very important report, which is why the Health Secretary made the statement that he did. We want to see many of these changes put in place. Where we have problems in our NHS—we saw them in Mid Staffs and in the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions—it is important that we do not sweep them under the carpet; we need to be open and honest about them. We should send in the inspectors with the newly beefed-up Care Quality Commission. We have this new post of chief inspector of hospitals, which brings focus to the whole organisation, and we need to work out how to turn a hospital around; how to put it into special measures; and how to get things fixed so that these tragedies do not happen again. My heart goes out to all those people who have lost their children as a result of things that should never have happened in our country.
Development of Middleton St George
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
This petition is on behalf of 1,109 residents of the village of Middleton St George in my constituency who are concerned about the unsustainable housing developments potentially taking place in the village.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the Sedgefield constituency,
Declares that the Petitioners object to the over-development of the village of Middleton St George and further declares that the Petitioners believe that the current planning applications are not sustainable and will have a catastrophic impact on the infrastructure of the village.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reassess the planning applications for the development of Middleton St George.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001443]
Treatment for Morquio Syndrome
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the Alyn and Deeside constituency,
Declares that Morquio syndrome (also known as MPS IV) is a rare genetic disease; further that Elosulfase, a drug to treat the syndrome, has recently been approved by the European Medicines Agency following positive results in the final stages of clinical trials; further that the drug (in the form of weekly enzyme replacement treatment) improves sufferers’ energy levels and stamina and therefore increases their independence, further that the effects of the drug are hugely beneficial not only to the individuals who have Morquio syndrome but also to their families; further that funding for the newly licensed enzyme replacement therapy to treat Morquio syndrome is unlikely to be approved due to cost saving; and further that the Petitioners believe that the consequences of patients, including children, such as Gracie in Buckley, not receiving this drug are unbearable.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Health to ensure that individuals who have Morquio syndrome are given free access at home to enzyme replacement therapy for the treatment of the syndrome.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001444]
Extension of the Tyne and Wear Metro
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to present this petition asking the House to urge the Government to examine the feasibility of extending the Tyne and Wear metro to Washington and bringing the Leamside railway back into use. The petitioners and I believe that doing so would boost jobs and growth in Washington and, indeed, the wider region. The petition is along the same lines as the one that I submitted in May 2014. As of today, this new petition on my website has been signed by a further 1,736 people. The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the extension of the Tyne and Wear Metro to Washington is a vital, yet missing, part of the region’s transport system, and further that such an extension would make a significant contribution to the economic development of the town.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to seriously explore the feasibility of extending the Tyne and Wear Metro to the town of Washington, utilising the old Leamside railway line.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001445]
Closure of the Seven Stars public house in Sedgley
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition opposing the closure of the Seven Stars pub in Sedgley. It is a popular, profitable and well run pub at the heart of community life, but Morrisons want to buy it from Marston’s to turn it into a supermarket. Led by Jon Hurst, Neil and Kate Shorthouse, Sid and Joy Bills, Zoe Huddlestone and Donna Bremner, residents have established a brilliant campaign. It has already succeeded in getting the pub listed as an asset of community value, and it has gathered the names of more than 2,500 local people who do not wish it to close. We want the Government to consider the petition, and bring forward stronger measures to ensure that planning law and other regulations offer such community pubs more protection.
The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Marston’s PLC to reconsider the closure of the Seven Stars public house, Gospel End Road, Sedgley.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of the Dudley North constituency,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the proposal to close the Seven Stars public house on Gospel End Road in Sedgley and are opposed to the retail development plans for the site.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Marston’s PLC to reconsider the closure of the Seven Stars public house, Gospel End Road, Sedgley.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001446]
Point of Order
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suggest that to enhance the reputation of this House, we should send the Prime Minister and his Ministers on a seminar to teach them the precise meanings of the words “question” and “answer” and the need for a link between the two. Today’s spectacle was the worst ever, as the answers from the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition had no connection whatever with the questions. If we cannot improve Prime Minister’s questions, would it not be better to abolish them in the next Parliament, because they bring this House into further disrepute by providing a demeaning spectacle?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. He has made his point with his usual force and alacrity, and it will be reported in Hansard tomorrow. As he will appreciate, I will have to leave it there. We will come to the ten-minute rule motion when Mr Pound has toddled out of the way; we are grateful to him for doing so. Other Members who are engaging in earnest discussions will, I am sure, wish to give the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) whose ten-minute rule Bill it is the chance to speak to it.
Victims (Bill of Rights)
Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a framework for victims of crime; to provide for the training of criminal justice staff on the impact of crime on victims; and for connected purposes.
Over the past few years, it has been my privilege to play a part in realising changes to the law on stalking and domestic violence. During the course of the independent parliamentary inquiry into stalking law reform, which I was honoured to chair in 2011-12, our panel—many of whom are here today—took evidence from a number of victims of stalking whose experiences shaped a great deal of our report. Equally, in bringing in my ten-minute rule Bill on coercive control last February, I was indebted to victims of that abuse who came forward and shared their experiences with me. It is no coincidence that both campaigns resulted in changes to the law. Indeed, what those two campaigns had in common was that each was informed by the victims and their families. I have long harboured the view that victims of crime do not get the support they deserve from our justice system.
One victim, Tracey Morgan, gave evidence to our stalking inquiry. She said that it is not right that perpetrators get rights, while victims get only codes and charters. Complaints and appeal processes are lengthy and complex, and victims are put off engaging with the justice system at all.
Harry Fletcher of the Digital Trust who, alongside Claire Waxman, drafted the original Bill presented to the Clerks, identified numerous examples of victims being badly let down by unenforceable codes, which he recalls from his time with the National Association of Probation Officers. Those examples include a victim who was not told that their offender had been released from prison following a conviction for violence; a victim who went to court to find that the impact statement was not in the Crown Prosecution Service bundle, despite the perpetrator being tried for a serious imprisonable offence; a case where the Parole Board was not aware of a victim’s view that she wanted the perpetrator excluded from her postcode because of real fears of repeat attacks; a case that took 18 months to go to court, which resulted in serious stress for the victim, who was not given any reason for the delay or multiple adjournments; a case where a victim arrived at court to find that she had to share a room with a witness for the defence and felt intimidated; numerous cases where personal information about new victims’ whereabouts was disclosed in court when the abuser was present; and a case where a victim was told not to be openly emotional in court where her son’s murderer was facing trial. She faced removal from court, believe it or not.
All those examples are indicative of a wider culture of neglect, and I say neglect because that is what it is—a neglect of the justice system’s duty to protect and support victims of crime. The Bill aims to put that right by placing a responsibility on the Secretary of State to publish a victims Bill of Rights, which would be applicable to cases arising in criminal and civil courts.
The Bill would ensure that victims have the right to accurate and timely information from all relevant agencies; notice of all court and legal proceedings relating to the victim’s perpetrator; and direct contact details of all criminal justice agencies and individuals involved in the proceedings. Crucially, the Bill sets out that children and vulnerable adults should be able to give evidence from a location away from court—I realise that that does happen in part—and that victims should have access to discreet waiting areas during all court proceedings. There is also a provision to ensure that victims would have the right to a case companion who would update the victim on the progress of their case. Young witnesses would also have access to registered intermediaries to help them understand court procedures.
One of the factors that troubled us most during the stalking inquiry was how frequently perpetrators were able to use the family and civil courts to make vexatious claims against their victims and, in so doing, to continue their harassment of the victim. That is why this Bill would give the judiciary in family and civil proceedings the power to disallow claims that can be shown to be an abuse of process.
Claire Waxman was one of the brave survivors of stalking who gave evidence, very bravely and fully, to our inquiry in 2011. Since then, she has mounted a forthright campaign to secure a stronger voice for victims called Voice4Victims. Ms Waxman’s campaign has gained the support of numerous victims’ organisations and charities. A survey conducted by the campaign in 2014 highlights just how frequently victims are let down by our present system. I want to share some of the survey’s findings with the House.
More than 50% of the victims surveyed rated all agencies “extremely poorly” in communication, with the Parole Board scoring the highest with 67%. Furthermore, 55% of victims were never informed about criminal injuries compensation; 44% were never given the opportunity to make a victim personal statement; and 64% of victims never received any advice or support on writing their victim personal statement. The words of the campaign’s founder, Claire Waxman, sum up the situation powerfully:
“As a stalking victim, I experienced first-hand a torrent of abuse and re-victimisation at the hands of our Criminal Justice System. I naively believed the system was there to help victims, while instead it compounds their trauma. It placed the rights of my stalker above my rights to be protected.”
The Bill has received cross-party support, as evidenced by the names of the supporters to whom I shall refer shortly. I believe that, like the stalking and domestic violence campaigns, this is an issue on which this House is united rather than divided. We want to see change, because we owe it to victims of crime who have suffered wrong and they deserve just and fair treatment. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Sir Edward Garnier, Zac Goldsmith, Sandra Osborne, Mr Barry Sheerman, John McDonnell, Annette Brooke, Caroline Lucas, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Hywel Williams, Jeremy Corbyn and Dr Julian Huppert present the Bill.
Mr Elfyn Llwyd accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 March, and to be printed (Bill 181).
supply and appropriation (anticipation and adjustments) Bill
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 56), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
corporation tax (northern Ireland) bill (PROGRAMME (no. 2))
Ordered,
That the Order of 27 January 2015 (Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of that Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, at today’s sitting, two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion, at today’s sitting, three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this order.—(Mr Gauke.)
Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 64, line 30, after “by”, insert—
“(a) an insurance company (within the meaning given by section 65 of FA 2012),
(b) a building society as defined by the Building Societies Act 1986, or
(c) a credit union registered under the Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 or the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.”
It will not be lost on hon. Members when they see an amendment to clause 1 at page 64, line 30 just how long a clause 1 we are dealing with, as we found in Committee. The Bill is essentially all in clause 1 and the other clauses provide the trimmings.
In Committee, I and other hon. Members raised a number of issues through probing amendments and in clause stand part discussions. One issue that I raised was the position of credit unions in Northern Ireland. As we heard on Second Reading and as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stressed in Committee, the Government, with the agreement of the parties in Northern Ireland, have been at pains to make sure that any move to devolve to the Assembly powers in respect of corporation tax would not invite any large artificial or contrived shifts by large parts of the financial services sector. Nobody has been in the market for making sure that banks and other major financial services businesses could in any way benefit from surfing on to the devolved corporation tax rate that would be available to Northern Ireland under the Bill. Everybody is ad idem on that.
There is, however, a concern that the exclusion of the financial services sector at large could lead to inadvertent discrimination against credit unions or mutual building societies that are wholly and solely based in Northern Ireland.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to put on the record the very valuable contribution made by credit unions and mutual societies in Northern Ireland, which differs from that in the rest of the UK? In particular, can he give an idea of the number of savers and those who make use of credit unions and mutual societies?
Mark Durkan
Those are points that I shall touch on in my remarks, and I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members will do so as well. By way of response to the hon. Lady, I make the point that there have been efforts over a number of years. When I chaired the Assembly’s Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, we conducted an inquiry into credit unions in Northern Ireland, which have a very large membership base and a very strong savings base, far beyond those of credit unions here, which by comparison are merely developing.
The fact is that credit unions in Northern Ireland have been precluded from having as broad a range of services to offer their members, unlike credit unions here, and the key to broadening the range of services, of course, was to have credit unions in Northern Ireland regulated by the Financial Services Authority—subsequently the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority.
However, while credit unions in Northern Ireland will be regulated from London institutions for those financial services, they still come under a devolved legislative window. That goes back to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which deliberately ousted credit unions from the reserved power in relation to financial services through specific mention of the fact that devolution would include the Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Credit unions are therefore in a sort of dual-control legislative and regulatory environment; they are registered under devolved legislation but regulated under financial services legislation of this Parliament, and rightly so.
However, that leads to some quirks and bumps in interpretation. A credit union Bill that would address some of those issues seems to be held up somewhere in the Assembly processes. In those circumstances credit unions are particularly concerned that they might become unintended casualties of some of the restrictions and exceptions that are rightly being introduced with the devolution of corporate tax by the Government and with the agreement of the parties in the Assembly.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman—indeed my hon. Friend—accept that in addition to that being grossly unfair to credit unions, mutuals such as the Progressive building society, which employs almost 200 people and operates solely in Northern Ireland, in fact its back office applies only to Northern Ireland, could end up being penalised by this legislation?
Mark Durkan
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. I have to be honest that the slightly left-handed amendment I tabled in Committee could have introduced its own difficulties, as the Minister pointed out at the time. This less left-handed—I apologise to any cuiteogs in the House—amendment addresses the salient point in respect of credit unions and also takes in for the first time a point that I had overlooked in Committee: the position of a mutual building society based wholly and solely in Northern Ireland, such as the Progressive. This wider amendment, which thankfully has been seconded by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), is therefore designed to cater to both circumstances.
Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)
It is important to recognise—I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree—that the point of that exclusion was to prevent the kind of brass-plating whereby companies simply moved their headquarters to Northern Ireland without moving any economic activity or jobs. That is not the case with either credit unions or mutuals such as the Progressive, because they are based in Northern Ireland and work there, creating employment and investment.
Mark Durkan
I take that point fully. That is why I am so glad that the hon. Member has seconded the amendment and spoken so strongly to its main purpose.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and hon. Friends support his amendment, and I trust that the House will accept it.
Mark Durkan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that support and endorsement and hope that the House will today accept at least the spirit, logic and compelling sense of the amendment.
As I said in my opening remarks, there is no argument from these Benches, or indeed from any of the parties in Northern Ireland, whether or not they are in the Executive or the Assembly, that large-scale financial services should be able to shift profits or any of their activities simply to net benefit from devolved corporation tax provisions. However, we want to ensure that legitimate, bona fide, not-for-profit mutualised activity is not penalised as a result of the restrictions that are rightly being included.
Credit unions and mutual building societies such as the Progressive have long-standing histories, have done nothing speculative, did not need any Government bail-out and had no questions about their books, or about anything else, so there is nothing untoward, whiffy or sniffy about any of their activities, because they were solid, prudent and sensible. There is absolutely no question but that the parties would want to see such organisations penalised and unable to benefit from the same sort of devolved tax rate that would be available to small and medium-sized enterprises. When we look at the scale of the individual credit unions—remember that they are regulated individually, not as some sort of conglomerate activity—we see that the idea that they would find themselves caught, for corporation tax purposes, in the same category as a large bank, for instance, is absolute nonsense.
However, there is a bit of a rub in this. I know that the credit unions and others have listened carefully to our proceedings on the Bill. For instance, on Second Reading the point was made that the provisions on some classes of back offices, even those working for financial services companies, could qualify for the devolved tax rate, and there seemed to be an inference that some of those lines had been drawn with particular operations in mind. For instance, Citigroup was mentioned on Second Reading, and it was suggested that we should all be assured that its jobs are protected and that that work would be subject to the devolved tax rate. That leads to a situation in which companies such as credit unions and the Progressive building society are saying, “Well, if the back office operations in Northern Ireland can qualify for the devolved tax rate, which obviously we hope will be lower, why should the back office jobs of the Progressive Building Society not qualify?”
The Progressive building society is being advised by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs that only 5% of its activity might qualify for the devolved tax rate, and it has been given no reason for that, other than that it seems to be the multiplier figure in the Bill. For no reason that anyone can understand or source, it has been told that only 5% of its activity might qualify. The Government are telling other financial services that they want them to work as hard as possible to maintain a high street presence, which the Progressive building society has done, including new investment in my constituency. It just seems bizarre that it should be penalised without a thought. That is why so many hon. Members are here to support the amendment.
Ian Paisley
Does that not really take the biscuit when the Progressive is told by the Treasury that only 5% of its back office will apply for an exemption? Its staff are scratching their heads, wondering what part of their work does not apply to Northern Ireland and to activity solely related to Northern Ireland.
Mark Durkan
Exactly. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is no known rational basis for it. In circumstances in which we are talking about arrangements aimed at preventing any artifice on the part of companies, just coming up with such an arbitrary figure does not particularly help. In circumstances in which we see that larger firms can be advised and assured that their existing operations of large and hopefully growing scope will be covered by the new devolved tax rate and will not be caught in the exclusion of financial services, it seems strange that the financial services entities that are not for profit, which are not taking money out of Northern Ireland but recirculating it into the local economy, would be penalised.
Lady Hermon
I have been watching the Government Front Bench and I know that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Minister of State and the Financial Secretary have been listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, as they should. It would be helpful to us if any one of them intervened to explain how on earth only 5% of the back office work of the Progressive would qualify for an exemption under the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be delighted if they did so.
Mark Durkan
I would be absolutely delighted. I would gladly accommodate that intervention, and not just in one instalment—I am prepared to take it 5% at a time if the Minister is willing.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Such is the invitation, I cannot refuse. This is a somewhat complex matter. I can assure hon. Members that I will set out the thinking behind the Bill’s provisions on financial services in terms of its principles and, in particular, the application of the 5% test relating to back-office functions. Hon. Members are making perfectly reasonable points, but rather than attempt to summarise a complex issue that needs to be put into context, may I ask them to be a little patient, and I will be keen to give a proper answer towards the end of the debate?
Mark Durkan
We await with bated breath the Minister’s great revelations and technical epiphanies.
Whatever the Financial Secretary says about the complex dimensions of this, there is nothing complex about the simple logic and justice of the proposition that wholly and solely-owned mutuals and credit unions should be able to benefit from a devolved tax rate.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Assembly’s Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, which he used to chair, is also supportive of the stance that he and other Northern Ireland Members are taking? It believes that mutual societies and credit unions based in Northern Ireland should be included within the Bill and able to avail themselves of the same reduced rates of corporation tax as other Northern Ireland-based organisations.
Mark Durkan
It is indeed the case that the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, through its chair, our party colleague Patsy McGlone, made a written representation to the Secretary of State that has been circulated to all Northern Ireland MPs on behalf of the Committee and is supported by all the parties on it. During my time on the Committee, all the parties worked to help navigate through the complexities of how we could alter the regulatory footing for credit unions in Northern Ireland so that they could offer more services, without abandoning the rightful devolved interest in relation to credit unions. The Committee’s representations have been endorsed with backing vocals from the Committee on Finance and Personnel in the form of a letter from its chairman, Daithí McKay. Again, the letter is on behalf of the whole Committee and supported by all the parties on it.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman alluded to this at the outset, but it might be beneficial to remind the Minister of the deep penetration of credit unions within Northern Ireland. There is a quantum of difference in relation to England, Scotland and Wales. There are tens of thousands of members of credit unions across Northern Ireland; they are an integral part of society and have been for decades.
Mark Durkan
I fully take the hon. Gentleman’s point. That was recently made apparent within the precincts of this Parliament when a delegation from the Irish League of Credit Unions gave evidence to the all-party group on credit unions, chaired by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). The league pointed out that nearly 450,000 credit union members are accredited to it in Northern Ireland. The credit unions in Northern Ireland have total assets of over £1.2 billion.
Credit unions do not pay corporation tax on their lending activity—perhaps that was one of the misdirections in my original amendment in Committee—but they do pay it on their investments. There are issues about how the regulators have treated that in limiting some of the investments that they are able to make, although my conversations with regulators suggest that we may be turning a corner of understanding and a slightly more relaxed interpretation may be on the way. In 2012, credit unions in Northern Ireland paid £3.75 million in corporation tax on their investments. The three credit unions in my constituency alone pay between them over £0.5 million in corporation tax on their investments. That is a significant amount of money to them given that it purely goes back to their members in dividend payments. It is not going off to make profits by being speculatively invested in property or in any dubious market activities; it is staying very much within the traditional meat and drink of credit union activity, and rightly so. On that basis, it would be perverse to treat credit unions as being in the same category as a financial services corporation that may try to move in from London, Edinburgh or elsewhere in order to artificially avail itself of a devolved corporation tax rate.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
We await the Minister’s more detailed explanation and context setting, but he said in Committee, on credit unions paying corporation tax on investment income and capital gains:
“As credit unions do not have a trade of lending money for corporation tax purposes, they are therefore neither explicitly included nor excluded from the Northern Ireland rate and as such are in no worse a position because of it.”––[Official Report, Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Public Bill Committee, 5 February 2015; c. 51.]
Can the hon. Gentleman help the House in dealing with the Minister’s point?
Mark Durkan
It was a bit of an enigma to some of us on the Committee. Although we asked the Minister about it, not much light was cast on the limbo status of credit unions whereby they are neither included nor excluded. Subsequently, I asked him about the power in clause 1, page 66, to amend the definitions of “excluded trade” or “excluded activity” or to make provision about the meaning of “back office activities”. That gives the Treasury a fair degree of leeway in making subsequent adjustments. I asked him whether that implied that some accommodation could be made regarding the particular sensitivities around credit unions—and now I add Northern Ireland-based mutuals, as we are all joined in making that case. I hope that he will be able to shed some light on that. If he can assure us that we are all working under a misapprehension and that our concerns can be allayed, then so much the better, but people want to see it clearly in the Bill and do not know why it should not be there.
The Northern Ireland credit unions fall within the legislative remit of the Assembly in respect of their registration and some of their activities, so it would be bizarre if it was denied the specific power to set their corporation tax rate in the same way that it would for SMEs, for example.
As credit unions are well embedded into the communities in which they are based, it just does not seem fair that they should be subjected to a corporation tax rate that is very different from the rate for the businesses they work alongside in those communities and neighbourhoods.
As we identify in the amendment, we want to extend the same consideration to the Progressive building society, for instance. Ministers may suggest that designing the clause to suit the particular circumstances of the Progressive building society would create the danger that we might somehow admit all sorts of others to the benefits of doing such activities. However, just as the details of regulations specify a threshold of business for small and medium-sized enterprises, the amount of employment, and the percentage of work time and expenses in Northern Ireland as opposed to elsewhere in the UK, so other measures could easily be built in to protect building societies and mutuals that wholly, solely or at least very largely base or centre their activities in Northern Ireland, rather than organisations that operate more widely and might artificially skew some operations to the north of Ireland to benefit from the corporation tax rates. If that is a concern or issue for Ministers, it could easily be accommodated.
It is clear that there is broad support on this issue from the parties in this House and from the wider range of parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Nobody intended, assumed or understood that credit unions and legitimate, bona fide locally based mutuals, such as the Progressive, would be caught in the Bill’s preclusions. We are seeking targeted and focused exceptions with the aim of ensuring that credit unions in Northern Ireland do not unduly pay corporation tax.
The amendment is an attempt by the parties to recognise that, unlike credit unions in Great Britain, which have been able to benefit from Government finance in the form of growth, development and modernisation funds over the years, credit unions in Northern Ireland have not benefited from direct funding. Credit unions in Northern Ireland are adjusting to the new regulatory obligations under the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, which have created issues of corporate governance, training and IT standards, but none of that has been funded or supported in any way. One compensation that we might, with due diligence, seek to extend to them would be to make sure that they are at least exempted from the higher rate of corporation tax that is meant to apply to big corporates and businesses in financial services. That is the salient point of the amendment.
I hope that the Financial Secretary will acknowledge that amendment 1 would not trigger any of the difficulties that he said would have arisen from the original amendment in Committee. The scope of this amendment extends beyond credit unions to take in other legitimate mutual organisations, such as the Progressive building society—in fact, that is the only one I can distinctly identify—and that is included for a purpose. I hope that the Financial Secretary and the Secretary of State, who has received representations from Committees of the Assembly, will show some understanding. I look forward to hearing any explanation but also, more importantly, any assurances about how the Government intend to respond to such issues as the Bill is taken forward and as its various rule-making powers are operated in future.
Mr Gauke
As we have heard, the amendment tabled by the hon. Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Belfast East (Naomi Long) aims to bring otherwise excluded trading profits of building societies and credit unions within the scope of the Northern Ireland rate of corporation tax. As it covers two different areas, I will respond to each in turn.
It may be helpful to remind the House that the design of the Northern Ireland regime has been guided by a set of principles agreed between the Northern Ireland Executive and the UK Government. The principles were agreed in the joint ministerial working group process in 2012. Once again, I am grateful to colleagues in the Executive for their co-operation and their constructive approach in those discussions.
Lady Hermon
Many people save with credit unions in Northern Ireland and the credit unions are assisted valiantly by many teams of volunteers. Will the Financial Secretary kindly give a reassurance—a guarantee, in fact—that if the Bill goes through unamended and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), which we all support, not just the parties, but even Independent Members, is not agreed to, credit unions and the Progressive mutual society will not be adversely affected when it becomes legislation?
Mr Gauke
I can give that reassurance. They will not be affected by the legislation. Credit unions have two types of income on which corporation tax could be charged. There is no corporation tax charge on their trading income, as I have set out, and their investment income will fall outside the Northern Ireland regime, as does investment income for every other business. In that sense, credit unions will be unaffected. I hope that the hon. Lady is reassured. If building societies carry out excluded trades, they will be treated as they are currently and the Northern Ireland regime will not apply. That is based on the principles that were agreed with the Northern Ireland Executive. The Northern Ireland corporation tax regime is about trading profits. If something is not a trading profit, it will not fall within the Northern Ireland regime. We are applying that consistently. As it happens, credit unions do not pay corporation tax on their trading profits anyway, so they will not be adversely affected.
Lady Hermon
I am genuinely very grateful to the Financial Secretary. He has categorically assured the House and all those who will read the Hansard report of this debate that credit unions and the Progressive mutual society will not be adversely affected by the Bill if it goes through unamended. Will he sum up how they will benefit from the legislation? It is nice to know that they will not be negatively affected, but how will they benefit from the legislation? There is an unfairness. Northern Ireland is a very small jurisdiction. It is ridiculous that banks down the road will benefit from the Bill, but that credit unions that have served all sides of the community for years and years will not benefit from it. Let him stand up and assure credit unions that they will benefit. That would be very helpful.
Mr Gauke
The first point to make is that there are certain excluded activities. Lending and investment are excluded. Whether the entity concerned is a bank or a building society, if the activity is excluded, it is excluded. There is therefore a level playing field. Secondly, we are making provision for back-office services. It will be possible for a calculation to be made on the profit that is attributable to back-office functions by applying a 5% mark-up to the cost of those back-office functions. The lower corporation tax rate in Northern Ireland—assuming that it is lower—will apply to that. That will be of benefit to institutions, including building societies, in Northern Ireland.
I would also make the wider point, which has been made by the Northern Ireland Executive on many occasions, that the ability to set corporation tax rates will be good for the Northern Ireland economy. That is why the Northern Ireland Executive want the power. What is good for the Northern Ireland economy will presumably benefit institutions based in Northern Ireland, whether they be credit unions or building societies. That is the case that the Northern Ireland Executive have made to us.
When the Northern Ireland regime was designed, it was focused on trading income for very good reasons. Over the course of the debates in Committee, there has been a wide consensus that it is correct that it is focused on trading income. It would not be consistent with that approach for me to accept the amendment. I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it. If he presses it to the vote, I will advise Government Members to oppose it. I understand the widespread view, which has been articulated strongly this afternoon, on the importance of the credit union sector in Northern Ireland, but accepting the amendment would be a mistaken approach.
Mark Durkan
Will the Minister indicate whether the powers in proposed new sections 357XH and 357XI of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, which appear on page 66 of the Bill, might in any way address in practice some of the concerns that we have voiced, as he seemed to hint in Committee?
Mr Gauke
I return to the point that I have made about the fundamental structure or principles behind the devolution of corporation tax rate-setting powers to Northern Ireland. I have given a fairly lengthy response, because I thought that it was appropriate to put in context the 5% computation in respect of back-office functions. There is the ability to come back to that. As hon. Members are aware, the OECD is looking, as part of the base erosion and profit-shifting process, at how much profit can be attributed to back-office functions. If memory serves, it is looking at a range of 2% to 5%, so we are at the upper end of that. There is the ability to make adjustments if there is evidence that there should be a higher mark-up for back-office functions. There is flexibility on that point if the evidence is presented to us and a strong case is made. However, we believe that 5% is the right level.
With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman can be persuaded to withdraw his amendment. If not, we will oppose it and I will advise my colleagues to vote against it.
Mark Durkan
I am disappointed by the tone struck by the Minister, because Members present—from all parties and none—have made it clear that we are not here to beat up the Government about this issue but are here in a spirit of understanding from parties across the Executive and Assembly. The Minister has called the Executive in aid several times, and he said that negotiations between the Treasury and the Executive have been clear about focusing on trading activities. Nobody—officials or Ministers—who conducted those negotiations on the part of the Executive intended to characterise credit unions and the like of the Progressive building society as trading operations, because they do not trade for profit—they are not conventional commercial trading entities in that sense. One, as a mutual building society, is clearly putting all its money back into its operations, and it all goes into Northern Ireland—none of it is speculatively streamed elsewhere. None of it has been lost, and no cost has fallen on the Government purse in any way.
Similarly, credit unions are not in the business of trading as such, and there is no way that they would allow the provision in the Bill to be abused by anybody else to shift activities or profits. Under credit union legislation, credit unions in Northern Ireland must show a common bond that must be wholly within Northern Ireland. There will therefore be no question of abuse or of stuff being shifted or anything else. The argument that the Minister tried to make for building society considerations would not apply to credit unions—certainly not to those that operate under the Credit Unions (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 or any other Northern Ireland-specific legislation that might come through the Assembly in future.
The Minister made a number of points about definitional standards that have been used. He portrayed the Treasury’s understanding of those terms, but as I have indicated, I have no sense that that was the working understanding or definitive intent of the Executive. After all, letters that have come from two cross-party Assembly Committees do not seem to have met with any cautionary advice from their respective Departments, or by Ministers saying, “Oh no, don’t upset this; there is an understanding and you will upset a delicate arrangement. You’ll open the floodgates and there will be all sorts of unintended consequences.” Everybody seems to be on board with the spirit of the amendment, just as they are largely on board with the spirit of devolving corporation tax for certain businesses. Nobody has an issue with the concept that the Assembly will have control over the rates of corporation tax for qualifying businesses, and that the Treasury will remain in control over all the rules on that and other things such as allowances. People seem to broadly agree with that architecture.
Where parties are concerned about the detail it is because we want credit unions and Northern Ireland-based mutuals not to be treated in the same way as the corporate and possibly multinational financial services conglomerate that the Minister seems to have in mind—the kind of people he thinks might suspiciously or dubiously shift activities. That does not apply to wholly grown indigenous entities that are rooted in the community.
The investment activities of credit unions are not for any speculative purposes but are to ensure that credit unions—on the basis of the same thrift that they encourage for their members—are able to show thrift and due diligence at a corporate level, and ensure that they are in a strong position to assist their members. Credit unions in Northern Ireland do not assist their members just to save; they also have a good working track record in assisting people with problems such as debt. That is currently an issue, perhaps because regulators do not want credit unions to assist people with debt in the way they have sometimes done. Unlike advisers who perhaps assist people in debt by creating circumstances in which they walk away from the debt and get discharged under various agreements, credit unions help people to repay that debt. They are in a stronger position to do that when they rely not just on the savings of their members but on sound investments. Those sound investments go back into the workings of the credit unions, and ensure that they are able to meet the new obligations and regulatory standards for which they are not getting any financial support, unlike their counterparts in Great Britain. It seems only fair and sensible to allow them that consideration in terms of corporation tax.
The Minister talks about credit unions as trading activities, but let us compare them with activities of a similar size—with small and medium-sized enterprises—in Northern Ireland that operate in the same neighbourhoods and district centres. Why should credit unions be in a different category from neighbouring trading businesses? They do not regard themselves as trading in that conventional sense, so why should they be penalised and treated differently?
If the Minister does not want us to put the amendment to the vote, will he at least indicate that he is prepared to listen not just to what we are saying in the House, but to future conversations in the Executive? After this debate and discussions in Assembly Committees, I think the Executive will make it clear that they do not like being called in aid in the way the Minister did when he lined them up behind his arguments, which I do not believe Executive Ministers endorse.
Will the Minister look at the provision on powers on page 66 of the Bill? It states:
“The Treasury may by regulations amend this Chapter so as to alter the meaning of ‘excluded trade’ or ‘excluded activity’ for the purposes of this Part.
(2) Regulations under this section may only be made if a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the House of Commons.
(3) Regulations under this section—
(a )may make different provision for different purposes;—”
that is essentially what we are saying—
“(b) may make incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision and savings.”
New section 357XI continues:
“(1) The Treasury may by regulations make provision about the meaning of ‘back-office activities’ for the purposes of this Part.
(2) Regulations under this section may, in particular—
(a) specify activities that are, or are not, back-office activities, or
(b) specify circumstances in which activities are, or are not, to be regarded as back-office activities.
(3)Regulations under this section—
(a) may make different provision for different purposes;
(b) may make incidental, supplemental, consequential and transitional provision and savings.”
If the Treasury is accruing to itself the power to make adjustments, and to interpret and respond to behavioural issues and practices to anticipate possible interpretative challenges in the future, it must show that it is willing to listen to one sensible and compelling interpretive issue that has arisen.
We have identified a clear wrinkle in the Bill that is not intended by parties in the Executive or the Assembly at large, or by independent Members from Northern Ireland in this House. Understandably, given the way that the Bill was scrambled forward—we know the issue was there, hung around and went forward and back, and we are legislating in relatively short order—it takes time to give the issue more consideration. If the Government say that because some concerns about interpretive openings might arise they are not minded to accept the amendment, perhaps they will assure us that they will listen to the points that have been made.
The Secretary of State has heard from the Assembly Committees. I do not know what she intends to write to them, but if she writes in the same terms as those in which the Minister addressed the House, by quoting the Executive, she will find that a strong argument comes back. The parties will be saying, “How dare you quote us against our own representations? We have no part of it, and that was not what we understood or intended when we negotiated”
Mr Gauke
The Bill is based on the principle of separating trading activities from investment activities, and for a very good reason to do with profit-shifting risks and so on. The hon. Gentleman rightly points out that there is the capability to make amendments in future to regulatory powers and so on. It is not for me to bind the next Parliament, but those powers do exist so there is the ability to look at arguments. I hope he finds that reassuring. The only point I would make, and it is the point I made both in Committee and today, is that there is a very good reason, accepted by all, for a divide between trading profits and investment profits. If we were to break that rule—a principle that runs through all legislation here—it would raise a number of important questions on where to draw the line. I am sure he recognises that, but I had to make that point.
Mark Durkan
I take that point from the Minister; nevertheless, the provisions in the Bill that I just quoted allow the Treasury to draw and redraw that line in future. There is no argument in principle with that, even though we know that it may be arbitrary and capricious as well. It may well be the subject of representations when it happens, but we are asking for the spirit of that power to be used and even reflected in the Bill, if possible.
The point we need to go back to is that the Minister relies on the definition of trading activity. People will find it hard to see that the Government can, for a good and understandable reason, make sure—and want to declare on Second Reading—that something like the operations of Citigroup in the Titanic Quarter in Belfast are catered for. In spite of the fact that we are talking about international financial services activity, that will come under the devolved corporation tax rate, but somehow, under this handcuff the Minister is creating in the definition of trading activities, credit unions and mutual building societies such as the Progressive cannot be. That is what people see as disproportionate, artificial and unfair. The Assembly clearly wants to know that, when it has the power to set a corporation tax rate for small and medium-sized enterprises and has legislative power over credit unions, credit unions will pay the devolved rate of corporation tax on their investment income. That seems fair and reasonable in the overall scheme of things.
I hope the credit unions in Northern Ireland will continue to thrive and grow, and no doubt they will. However, at no point is the amount of money they will be paying in corporation tax or the amount of relief they will receive from the corporation tax rate going to bust the Assembly’s or the Exchequer’s budget. We are talking about clear, definable, workable and absorbable margins here. The money would be used for good and understandable purposes, and never sold for profit or given away in gross bonuses or anything else like that. The same applies in respect of the Progressive building society.
The Minister said that if I pressed the amendment to a Division he would vote against it. I do not want to create a complete lock-in on the issue. I do not want the Government to find themselves locked in on an argument they cannot climb down from. I just encourage the Secretary of State and the Financial Secretary, who are both here listening to the debate, to stay open not just to the arguments they have heard from me and other hon. Members today, but to listen very closely to the arguments they will be hearing from the Executive, the Assembly and the credit union sector in Northern Ireland—not just the credit unions that are members of the Irish League of Credit Unions, but the Ulster Federation of Credit Unions and other credit unions too.
The Minister has heard the arguments, although he has perhaps not listened to them as well as I would have wanted him to. I do not accept the points he has made in supposed rebuttal, because I do not think they stand up to the facts. I also do not think they stand up to some of the terminology used in the Bill. After all, the Minister on a previous occasion, as quoted by the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), said that in the Bill as drafted they are neither included nor excluded from the devolved corporation tax rate. It seems very clear from what the Minister is saying today that for the purposes of the corporation tax they do pay on their investment income, they will definitely be excluded from the devolved corporation tax rate. The Minister seems to have left us in very little doubt about that, unless he wants to indicate that, under the powers outlined on page 66, that may be subject to other interpretation in the future. That is something I would certainly encourage if the Government are not prepared to accept my amendment, or any other amendment that I hope will be tabled in another place.
That said, I have no wish to press my amendment to a Division at this point, because I do not want to put people in that sort of difficulty. I want the Government to move on this, and I will not give the Government an excuse to embed their position. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Reading
Mr Gauke
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I would like to start by noting the immense amount of hard work done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, before her, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) in getting this policy to where it is today. The parties of Northern Ireland are united in calling for this measure, saying that
“Securing the power to lower corporation tax is a key priority for the Executive to promote the growth of the local community.”
I welcome the ongoing co-operation of colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed constructively and positively to the scrutiny of the Bill, even if we have not managed to reach complete agreement this afternoon. We have now reached the final stage of this House’s consideration of the Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill. I have been pleased by the wide-ranging and informed debate we have had.
This measure will allow the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly to set a different rate of corporation tax from the rest of the UK for most types of trading profits arising in Northern Ireland. The tax base, including reliefs and exemptions, will remain under the control of the UK Government. The earliest financial year for which Northern Ireland could have its own rate is 2017. This allows time for businesses and agents to become familiar with the new rules. The power will enable the Executive to encourage genuine investment that will create jobs and growth, meeting the shared goal of the UK Government and the Executive of rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy away from our dependence on the public sector.
I would like briefly to remind hon. Members of the aim of this policy and the key measures within the Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the autumn statement:
“we recognise the strongly held arguments for devolving corporation tax-setting powers to Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2014; Vol. 589, c. 314.]
These include: its land border with the very low corporation tax environment in the Republic of Ireland; the fact that Northern Ireland is more dependent on the public sector than most other parts of the UK—estimates of the extent of this dependence vary, but it is generally accepted that about 30% work in the public sector, compared with about 20% in the rest of the UK; the claimant count in Northern Ireland in October 2014 was 5.9% compared to 2.8% in the UK as a whole, and the unemployment rates are reducing more slowly than the rest of the UK; and economic prosperity—GVA per capita—is persistently some 20% below the UK average and has been for a number of decades. To a large degree, many of these issues are the legacy of the troubles.
Devolving corporation tax recognises these unique challenges. The Northern Ireland regime has been carefully designed to enable the Executive to encourage genuine investment that will create jobs and growth, while minimising opportunities for avoidance and profit shifting. It balances this with the need to keep the costs of a reduced rate proportionate, both for the Executive and in relation to any additional administrative burdens for businesses. The design of the regime builds on the principles agreed in 2012 by the joint ministerial working group, which included Ministers from the Treasury, the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Executive. In essence, companies trading in Northern Ireland will attract a Northern Ireland rate on their qualifying trading profits but continue to pay the UK rate on profits from non-trading activities, which do not generate jobs or economic growth in the same way.
Similarly, the regime does not extend to financial trades such as lending, leasing and reinsurance, as they offer significant scope for profit shifting without the benefits of substantial new jobs. The regime does not provide opportunities for brass plating, but the policy recognises the genuine growth and employment potential for Northern Ireland offered by back-office operations. Companies with financial trades not covered by the Northern Ireland regime may make a one-off election in respect of profits, determined by mark-up, on the back-office functions of those trades to qualify for the Northern Ireland regime.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his hard work in taking the Bill through the House. It is important for Northern Ireland and its unique circumstances, but does he agree that there will probably be lessons for the rest of the UK to learn from Northern Ireland about further reducing corporation tax to make our country even more competitive?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are in an era when countries are generally reducing corporation tax rates. In this Parliament, we have reduced our rate from 28% to 21% and are about to reduce it further to 20%, although some advocate that we reverse some of that progress. I also note that the Indian Government set out a plan at the weekend to reduce their corporation tax rates. Certainly, I think that the whole UK will be watching the experience in Northern Ireland very closely to see what economic benefits arise as a consequence of a reduced rate.
Lady Hermon
In case we are building up false hope, I would be grateful if the Minister made it clear that reducing the rate of corporation tax—if that is what the Northern Ireland Executive decides to do in 2017 or thereafter—on its own will not rebalance the Northern Ireland economy or guarantee the creation of one extra job. We need a range of measures that combine to rebalance the economy.
Mr Gauke
The hon. Lady makes an important point, although it is for the Northern Ireland Executive to judge how to proceed. In the UK, our reductions in corporation tax have been an important part of our long-term economic plan, but they have not been the only part, and I know that the Northern Ireland Executive will want to do everything possible, in addition to this power, to put in place the conditions for economic growth. One should not pretend that this in isolation solves every problem. None the less it will be a very useful additional power for the Northern Ireland Executive, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) said, there will be considerable interest elsewhere in how the policy develops and the benefits that accrue as a consequence.
To reduce the administrative burdens on SMEs, a special regime will be put in place. A simple in/out test will mean that the majority of companies will be spared the burden and cost of proportioning profits. More than 97% of SMEs operating in Northern Ireland meet the 75% employment test threshold and will benefit from the Northern Ireland regime.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank KPMG Belfast, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants and PricewaterhouseCoopers for their written submissions to the Public Bill Committee and the other businesses that sent representations directly to HMRC, and I welcome the continued support shown by the Northern Ireland business community and businesses elsewhere in the UK for this measure. In January, 80% of firms polled at an Ernst & Young Ulster Hall seminar on the Bill believed that a cut in corporation tax would have a positive impact on their businesses.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made clear on Second Reading, the Bill’s progress through Parliament is dependent on the Executive parties delivering on their commitments in the Stormont House agreement, so I am pleased that the Executive has so far met their obligations. They agreed their budget for 2015-16, passing their Budget Bill last week, while the Welfare Reform Bill passed its Further Consideration stage in the Assembly at the end of February. The Government will continue to assess progress as the Bill moves forward, and in future years as decisions on implementing the powers are to be taken.
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
As we have recently seen, a cut in the higher rate of income tax leads to increased revenues—from the dynamic effects—so has the Treasury done any modelling on the optimum rate of corporation tax, if the aim is to maximise revenue?
Mr Gauke
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the Treasury’s study into the effects of our reductions in UK corporation tax, and it was clear that they would result in increased investment and growth in the UK. The Treasury’s assessment was that about half of the forgone revenue consequent on the reduction in corporation tax would be recovered over time. As the OECD has set out on numerous occasions, there is a strong case for saying that corporation tax is one of the more growth-damaging of taxes—it is economically very inefficient, being a tax on investment—and therefore making progress on that front is to be welcomed. Come April, the UK will have the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G20, and we on the Government Benches would want to maintain that position, despite the calls from others to abandon such an approach.
The Stormont House agreement also outlined the approach to adjusting the Executive’s block grant, alongside devolution of the power to set the rate of corporation tax. I recognise the interest of right hon. and hon. Members in the issue and have therefore set out further details in a letter to the Public Bill Committee. I would like to reassure Members that the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive continue to work closely to finalise the arrangements.
A minor and technical amendment was agreed in Committee to ensure that clause 5 was drafted in line with normal practice for commencement powers and to remove the scope for misinterpretation. It gives the Government the power to turn on the legislation by regulations made by statutory instrument.
The Bill is vital in allowing the Northern Ireland Executive greater power to rebalance the economy towards a stronger private sector, boosting employment, growth and the standard of living in Northern Ireland, with benefits for the wider UK. The unique challenges faced by Northern Ireland have been recognised by Members on both sides of the House, and I welcome the efficient and effective debate we have had so far. I am grateful for the Opposition’s commitment to co-operate with the Government to ensure that the Bill can be scrutinised appropriately and dealt with speedily in this Parliament, and I hope that hon. Members will see fit to read it the Third time.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I would like to associate myself with the Minister’s comments about the quality of our debate thus far on the Bill. We have had a thorough discussion. It has been shorter than originally anticipated, but that is because the Bill has wide-ranging support across the House, and it is a pleasure to rise, once again, to support the measures in it.
We are committed, as are Members across the House, to supporting measures to increase inward investment into Northern Ireland and support the much-needed rebalancing of its economy. We have all recognised that Northern Ireland has lagged behind the rest of the UK on productivity and prosperity. Over the years, measures have been implemented to boost the Northern Ireland economy, including through increased levels of investment and job creation programmes, but few have met with long-term success. It is important to consider a measure that would put a rocket-booster under the approaches taken so far to rebalancing and strengthening Northern Ireland’s economy. In that spirit, we have supported the Bill.
As I noted in Committee, the Bill is both straightforward and complicated. It is short in respect of the number of clauses, but those clauses include a huge amount of detail, some of which has still to be worked out. The Minister alluded to that in his comments. It is important to recognise that we are at the start-point rather than the end stage of the process.
Let me draw out a couple of issues that will be the subject of live discussions between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. Before I do so, however, let me reinforce a point made in the intervention by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—that it would be a mistake to think that corporation tax devolution will, in and of itself, do what is needed to rebalance Northern Ireland’s economy. It has to be part of a much wider picture that includes other policy drivers to help make this measure a success. That is certainly the experience of the Republic of Ireland, whose extremely low corporation tax does not sit alone; it is supported by other policy measures, particularly on skills and infrastructure. If this Bill is to be a success in Northern Ireland, it will be important for all parties to work together to ensure that the rest of the policy framework is in place to allow the rebalancing that we all want to happen.
Ian Paisley
I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments, but does she accept that much of this is about perception and the business-friendly nature of our economy, which will allow it to grow? It is about offering investors incentives to come in by providing good profit returns for their hard-earned labour. If we continue to build up and push that perception, does she agree that opportunities will flow from it and that this Bill now offers the best way forward in the current economic climate?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the perception of business is really important, but he will recognise, I think, a point that businesses often make to Members of all parties—that headline rates of corporation tax are extremely important for decisions about where to locate businesses, but that they are not the only factor that businesses take into account. I recognise the importance of this Bill for Northern Ireland, given the unique situation in which Northern Ireland finds itself. As I say, it is putting a rocket-booster under the approach taken so far to try to rebalance the Northern Ireland economy, but it will not succeed on its own—it has to be part of a wider policy framework. Despite recognition of the importance of a wider policy framework, we have not yet heard a huge amount of detail about what it will look like on the ground in Northern Ireland. These are matters largely for the Northern Ireland Executive, but they need to know and to hear that the Opposition support them in having a wider framework of policy measures around skills and infrastructure that will help to make all this a success, which we all want to see.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful. I am curious to know what reassurances a future Labour Government would give, if they were in office after the general election of 7 May—none of us has a crystal ball, so we do not know—to credit unions and the Progressive building society, which we debated earlier?
Shabana Mahmood
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention, but I am afraid that I am going to disappoint her a little because my reading of the Bill, what it is intended to achieve and of the agreement that has been struck is very similar to that of the Minister. I agree with him that a deliberate part of the agreement relates to trading profits. Under the new Northern Ireland regime, corporation tax is to be devolved only in so far as it relates to trading profits rather than other aspects of business. That part of the policy is designed to make it successful and ensure that this devolution results in a genuine rebalancing of Northern Ireland’s economy. With respect, I feel that takes care of the point about the credit unions.
I have some sympathy with the argument when it comes to the Progressive building society. I have received communication from it about how it feels it will be caught unfairly by these provisions. I felt that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) did not take care of the scope for profit shifting within the financial services sector. We are all alive to that threat, but I am afraid that the amendment did not deal satisfactorily with the problem that the good work of the Progressive in Northern Ireland could slip through and be accounted for, whereas everything else that could result in profit shifting would be excluded. To that extent, my reading is similar to that of the Minister, and that will certainly be our approach. I am happy to give an undertaking—dependent on the outcome of the general election—to continue a debate with Members who feel strongly about this point, as did the Minister.
Shabana Mahmood
I do not want to repeat a lengthy debate on credit unions, but I will give way to the hon. Lady one final time.
Lady Hermon
I am extremely grateful, but we need some clarity on this. There is potential for the Labour party to be in government after the general election of 7 May, so I have to ask on behalf of all the people we on the Northern Ireland Benches represent whether the Labour party is ruling out any flexibility, as the hon. Lady seems to have done this afternoon. She has said that there will be no flexibility for credit unions, whereas I think the Minister said there could be at least some flexibility to look at back-office activities and excluded trades. Is the hon. Lady ruling that out for the Labour party?
Shabana Mahmood
With respect to the hon. Lady, the whole scope of the Northern Ireland regime under the Bill relates to trading profits. Credit unions do not pay corporation tax on their trading profits, so this Bill does not impact on them. I am not sure how many ways there are of saying that; I feel that the different formulations of the point have probably been covered. If the credit unions did pay corporation tax on their trading profits, we would be having a different discussion. If Members wish to see a devolution regime for Northern Ireland that includes activities other than trading profits, so that corporation tax would be paid on investments, income and so forth, that is a big call to make. If provisions were to be applied but limited to credit unions alone, it would mean carving out an exception to the regime. Let me say that that goes beyond the context of the agreement struck between this Government and the Northern Ireland Executive—the agreement that we have supported and the agreement that is the subject matter of the Bill. I would have a huge amount of sympathy if credit unions found themselves caught because they did pay corporation tax on their trading profits, but that is not the case, so—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The amendment has been discussed and withdrawn. We had a lengthy debate on it and we do not have a lot of time for this part of the debate, so we must stick to what exactly is in the Bill—and nothing more.
Shabana Mahmood
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will move on to the rest of my remarks.
Shabana Mahmood
Forgive me, but because of time considerations, I will not.
Let me raise a couple of issues that received lengthy debate in Committee and will be important aspects of the work needed to take the Bill forward. I speak particularly of the block grant. I am grateful for the letter that the Minister sent to the Public Bill Committee, further setting out the Government’s approach to calculating the element of the block grant that the Northern Ireland Executive will have to pay back to the UK Government. We are still a long way from a nail-down formula, as it were, for how the block grant reduction will be calculated, particularly in respect of measuring and calculating behavioural effects that will need to be taken into account.
I note the indication in one of the appendices to the letter that the devolution of corporation tax to the Northern Ireland Executive in 2019-20 is expected to cost about £325 million if Northern Ireland opts for a 12.5% rate rather than the United Kingdom’s 20% rate, but much more work will need to be done on that, and an agreement will need to be struck with the Northern Ireland Executive.
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman is persistent. I will give way to him very briefly.
Mr Redwood
When will the Labour party give justice to England? Surely, given the devolution of tax matters to Northern Ireland and Scotland—which we welcome—there needs to be a voice for England, and an ability for England to make her decisions on those matters as well.
Shabana Mahmood
With respect, responding to the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention would lead me into a much lengthier discussion on a matter that is not directly relevant to the Bill. However, he has put his point on the record once again, and I am sure that he is pleased about that.
As I was saying, it is clear that the methodology for calculating behavioural changes in particular will require detailed work between the United Kingdom Government and the Northern Ireland Executive.
The Minister said in Committee that there would be pressure on the Executive to take account of any profit shifting that might occur. Indeed, it is in their interest to limit profit shifting in order not to increase the amount that they must pay back to the Treasury. The Minister said that a memorandum of understanding would be drawn up between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive in respect of the costs of policing the limitation of profit shifting, and the processes, governance and accountability that would be needed for assessment of the activity. That is an important part of the framework, but we have not been given many details so far.
We all hope that the devolution will go ahead in 2017, but a potential stumbling block is the condition that Northern Ireland’s finances must be put on a stable footing before that can happen. We have still not been told exactly what that will mean, and what threshold the Executive will have to cross in order to prove that they have met the condition. I hoped that the Minister might give some idea of the timetable agreed between the UK Government and the Executive in relation to when some of the key decisions will have to be made. I trust that they will be made well before 2017, although the Minister said in Committee that that was the deadline, because there is a great deal to be done between now and then. I think that we shall all have to return to the issue of conditionality after the general election.
We are in favour of all measures that will assist the people of Northern Ireland and their economy. It is in the interests of the whole United Kingdom for Northern Ireland’s economy to be rebalanced and strengthened. We therefore support the Bill, and will continue to support it.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister and the Secretary of State. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), who saw the importance of a measure such as this even when we were in opposition and he was shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. That was not the conventional thinking at the time, as I well remember because I was working with him, but he persisted, and the Bill eventually found its way to the Chamber.
Nearly five years ago—the time has passed quickly—when the Select Committee was re-formed and I had the privilege of becoming its Chairman, it decided to look into this matter. We decided that, in what was our first inquiry during the present Parliament, we would examine the current financial and economic issues rather than what might have been seen as the usual “orange or green” issues. We examined those issues in great detail, and, although I would be the first to admit that the report that we eventually published was not unanimously agreed, we saw the importance of a measure such as this. We also saw that it was not the silver bullet—it was not the only measure that needed to be taken in Northern Ireland to rebalance its economy and make it more prosperous—but we did consider it to be very important.
As has already been mentioned, Northern Ireland’s geographical position makes it special in this context. It shares a land border with another country, and it is also part of an island which is, in turn, off another island. That geographical position alone means that in order to attract the investment that it needs—especially overseas investment—it must have a different quality, because otherwise people might prefer to invest on the mainland. Although that might be good for many of us, it would not necessarily help Northern Ireland directly. Similarly, if the UK were just like the rest of the European Union, there would be no reason for people to invest here rather than on the continent. I am pleased that many aspects of our economy and the way in which we run things are different from what happens in the rest of the European Union, because that makes ours an attractive economy and makes this country a very good place in which to invest, as is clear from figures that were published only recently.
A short time ago, when the Select Committee visited Belfast, we had the pleasure of meeting Senator Gary Hart. He was there principally to engage in political discussions, but we discussed the economy as well, and he made a great many encouraging noises about the prospect of American investment in Northern Ireland if this step were taken.
I hope that the Northern Ireland Assembly will take advantage of the Bill when it is passed, because it is one of the very few measures with which all the parties in Northern Ireland—and, I think, all the parties in the House—agree. That is a very unusual situation in itself, but it is extremely welcome, because it gives us an opportunity to improve the economy in Northern Ireland to a greater extent than we have done so far. That is important for two reasons: it will ensure that people in Northern Ireland enjoy more prosperity, and it will give them the opportunity to cement the relative peace that has been achieved there. A strong economy will obviously help the cementing of that peace. For those two reasons in particular, I am very happy to support the Bill.
Dr McCrea
Let me begin by thanking the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for the Bill, and thanking Opposition Members for supporting it.
I must also apologise for the absence of some of my colleagues. As a number of Members will know, the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has died, and was buried this afternoon. That is why my hon. Friends the Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson) are not present either, although they have a tremendous interest in this subject. On behalf of all Members, I wish to express our sincere sympathy to my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford. We pray that the Lord will strengthen and comfort his family, especially his mother, at this time of their grief and sorrow.
I know that some Members have felt rather envious as they have sat back and watched the progress of the Bill to its present stage. Nevertheless, both the Government and the official Opposition have acknowledged that the circumstances of Northern Ireland are unique because of its land border with the Irish Republic, which has one of the world’s lowest corporation tax regimes. Government policy has directed us to rebalance the economy—to move away from our high dependence on public sector employment and boost the local private sector—but we cannot do that with no more than an instruction from the House; we need the tools that will allow us to do the job. We have an earnest desire to move Northern Ireland forward, and to transfer our people from the unemployment list to meaningful and gainful employment.
Mr Redwood
I assure the hon. Gentleman that many of us have pressed for a measure of this kind for a long time, and welcome it greatly. I like to see all parties united behind the simple proposition that tax cuts make us a more prosperous society. I only hope that they learn the lesson in respect of the other parts of the Union and the other taxes.
Dr McCrea
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I certainly believe that we need to be very prudent in our expenditure, but we also need to allow people to have more of their own money in their pockets, and we want to see prosperity across the United Kingdom. I certainly want to see that achieved. After we have gone to the 20% corporation tax there has, rather worryingly, been some talk of moving back to 21%. That would be a retrograde step and I trust it will be put to bed this afternoon because it would have implications for the block grant for Northern Ireland. We need to get that clarified.
Businesses throughout my constituency tell me that corporation tax could be a game-changer, or at least assist in our genuine efforts for growth. Those who have in the past opposed the devolution of corporation tax stated that this would assist only large multinational companies, yet Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that a reduction in corporation tax in Northern Ireland would affect some 34,000 companies of all sizes, including 26,500 small and medium-sized enterprises.
As the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said, corporation tax is not a silver bullet that will transform the economy of Northern Ireland, but it allows us to go out with confidence on to the world stage and sell Northern Ireland without being undercut by our neighbours in the Irish Republic. I accept that other economic reforms are necessary. We need to train and upskill our work force, and focus on skills and competiveness, and strengthen our infrastructure, thereby achieving a stronger economy and a higher standard of living for all our constituents.
I welcome today’s debate. I am disappointed in the Minister’s response to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and supported by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long). However, we are getting an opportunity to assist the Northern Ireland Executive in gaining greater power to rebalance the economy and boost employment and growth by attracting more high-quality investment. Opportunity awaits us. To do nothing is unacceptable; to do our best is honourable.
Naomi Long
I do not wish to detain the House for very long. I merely want to put on record my thanks to the Government for the work they have done in bringing this Bill forward, and also to the Opposition for their support for the Bill. I welcome the progress in this matter, which we have debated many times in this House, and we also talked about it for a long time when I was in the Assembly. Those of us on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs spent many hours discussing the issue of corporation tax and its potential positive impact on Northern Ireland and its economy, so I welcome the progress we have made in what is a relatively short period of time from the announcement. It is good to see this measure reach its Third Reading today.
Others have already said this is not a silver bullet for the economic challenges that face Northern Ireland, but it is a very important lever for the Northern Ireland Executive to have within their control to address the imbalances in the economy, to encourage further growth of our local companies and to encourage further inward investment. Even without corporation tax being reduced, Northern Ireland outperforms many other regions in attracting inward investment. This gives us another opportunity to raise our profile internationally and encourage more companies to look at Northern Ireland as a serious investment prospect, but also to see us as a competitive region where they can locate and do real business.
I look forward to seeing this Bill reach fruition. There will be challenges ahead for the Northern Ireland Executive as they go about the more complex work of setting a rate for corporation tax, particularly in terms of affordability at a time when resources are extremely tight. It will be difficult because there will be a gap between any benefits from the change and the amount they will lose to the Treasury in the interim. The Executive will have to look at that period very carefully in terms of affordability and how that is managed.
There is also a challenge in dealing with investment in skills, which are required if we are to see the full benefits of any reduction in corporation tax. There is no point in reducing corporation tax to get new businesses to come in and invest if we do not have the skilled workers to be able to take up employment in those companies. Part of the due diligence that any company will do before investment will involve looking at our skills base. That will be one of the key issues. We therefore have to see a renewed focus from the Executive on investing in skills, and particularly the right skills for the companies that we are encouraging to come to Northern Ireland.
We also face challenges in terms of infrastructure. As a civil engineer, it would be remiss of me not to mention that. It is not just our communications infrastructure, but also our physical infrastructure, which requires investment. Companies doing due diligence before investing in a region will look at such issues. It is hugely important that we are able to invest in infrastructure in a way that will both encourage and benefit companies locally who are already involved in growing their businesses and attract new inward investment to Northern Ireland.
Our connectivity will need to be defended. That is a role that both Westminster and the Assembly can have some regard to. It is hugely important that our air transport links, particularly those routes that allow us to cargo material from Northern Ireland for export markets, are protected. That should detain this House perhaps more than it has done to date.
If we are to benefit the economy and feel the true benefit of this change in corporation tax, we also need to create the kind of political stability in Northern Ireland that is conducive to creating economic growth.
Mr Dodds
On the economic issues and making the most of this devolved corporation tax power, does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that the Assembly and the Executive determine the sort of rate that is going to apply as quickly as possible so that Invest NI can get out into the marketplace and begin to sell Northern Ireland and the benefits of this as soon as possible? As she knows, there is a big lead-in time in terms of attracting investment?
Naomi Long
I am aware of the pressure to want to do that quickly, but it is also important that, as the Executive do that, the cost of it to the Northern Ireland economy is thoroughly assessed and we work out how we are going to pay for it in the interim. Otherwise, before we reap the benefits, we could leave a gap in our public finances that creates pressure, particularly from those that are already under financial pressure. It could lead to a push back against the corporation tax reduction. Getting that balance right is important. I agree that it would be wrong for people to be unnecessarily tardy, but I also think it is important that proper due diligence is done around what that level should be.
Reaping the maximum benefit from the changes under this Bill requires political stability. It requires people, when they look to Northern Ireland, to see the positive images that are so often broadcast, as opposed to some of the more negative images we have seen in recent years. If we want lasting prosperity, it has to be shared among everyone in our society. It is therefore hugely important that we see political maturing not just in terms of the Unionist-nationalist question and how that is handled politically in Northern Ireland, but in terms of the productivity of the Assembly.
Ms Ritchie
Does the hon. Lady agree that along with having corporation tax as a financial lever, and the need to create political and economic stability in Northern Ireland and the need to encourage people to come and visit, there is also a need for the Treasury to look at reducing VAT on tourism? That would enable us to be more competitive with the south of Ireland in terms of visitors and the economy.
Naomi Long
I am aware that the hon. Lady has long since advocated such a move, as have I. Unfortunately, the Treasury response has been that in some way reducing the VAT on leisure would encourage people to have a rather lackadaisical attitude to the workplace. In fact both inward and outward tourism generates a significant amount of money into our economy, so I think a future assessment would be valid.
Today marks a very welcome step forward in the potential for Northern Ireland to rebalance its economy and encourage further growth of the public sector. I hope that when the Executive meet, as they will do over the coming months, they will meet the challenge of setting the rate and stepping up around infrastructure and skills, as well as around stability and peace building. We will then be able to reap the maximum reward for the work that has been done.
Ian Paisley
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate on corporation tax. Today is a red-letter day for Northern Ireland. The Bill certainly gives the lie to those who suggest that nothing ever changes in politics or that devolution does not actually do anything. It sends out the powerful signal that, after much diligent hard work, the constant dripping has eventually worn away the stone and we have achieved something positive for Northern Ireland: we have ensured that we can at last set our own rate of corporation tax.
This is what devolution is supposed to be about. It is supposed to allow the economies that make up the United Kingdom to compete according to their strengths, to set their own pace of change and to be agile. Many of us have argued for this change for a long time, and we at last see the legislation in print. We now see it moving forward on a very positive footing. So those who oppose devolution and say that nothing really changes can eat their words today, and I hope they choke on the Bill—
Ian Paisley
Indeed.
Some Members have suggested that the devolution of corporation tax is not a silver bullet, but I do not think I ever heard anyone say that it was going to be a once-in-a-lifetime, miracle-working, stand-alone solution. No one ever thought of it like that. It is one of the arrows in the quiver, to be fired at the right target at the right time.
The important thing about the corporation tax measure is that it will change people’s perceptions about our economy. We have a go-forward, low-tax, incentivised economy. Indeed, that seems to be part of the Government’s own economic plan. They have tried to reduce taxes time and again, and I welcome that. I agree with the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), who has often contributed to debates in the House by demanding that we have even lower taxes across the whole of the United Kingdom. Would it not be a far better day today if the Bill were introducing a reduction in corporation tax for the whole of the United Kingdom? That is what we should really be debating, and I hope that one day Government Members will follow our lead and reduce their corporation tax to the new levels that Northern Ireland has ambitions to achieve.
The Government’s plan to reduce tax is welcome. When we look at the history of the economy of the Republic of Ireland, we see that it was not corporation tax reductions alone that supported the country’s boom years. There were other unique selling points that it is important to consider. The Republic sold the fact that it had a great, well-educated and advantaged youth population who made the country cheaper, as an offshore part of Europe, to invest in. Northern Ireland competes on exactly the same footing as that, and I believe that we can do it even better. After all, we are British. We are an offshore part of Britain: we are Britain offshore. If we can use that to our advantage as a unique selling point, we should do so, and I welcome those who will join us. As other Members have said, this change will affect 34,000-plus local companies, 26,500 of which—the small and medium-sized enterprises—form the backbone of our economy. I know that many of them welcome this measure, and I look forward to the opportunities that the legislation will create.
I welcome the fact that those on the Front Benches have changed their minds on this matter. For a long time, certain Members were like John the Baptist, in that they were preaching in the wilderness. Eventually, however, they have managed to convert; I think that those on both Front Benches recognised that they needed to do so. That is a good thing. There has been a lot of thought on this issue on both sides of the House and I welcome the change of heart, particularly on the Labour Front Bench. I remember the former Prime Minister telling us in 2007 that he could not do this. He gave us the Varney review and told us that we could tamper with this, that and the other. Indeed, the then Treasury spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), said at the time that corporation tax reduction for Northern Ireland
“does not offer the best way forward”.—[Official Report, 17 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 74WS.]
I am glad that we have recognition today that it is the best way forward, and I hope that we will have unanimity on the matter in the House.
As I have said, this is not going to be a one-night wonder; it will not change things overnight. It will probably take at least a decade before we reap the benefit of the change, but anyone who knows that Northern Ireland’s economy also has a strong agricultural sector will appreciate what I am about to say. Before we can reap the benefit of the changes, we have to sow, and today we have very good seed that I believe we are going to be putting into very good ground. I look forward to seeing the game-changing strategy that is being put in place today reaping a wonderful economic harvest for Northern Ireland over the next 15 to 20 years. I believe that anything the Republic of Ireland has been able to offer as a result of its corporation tax reduction, Northern Ireland will be able to do on steroids. We will do it better. After all, we are part of a G20 nation, and the benefits of that stability should be recognisable to all.
In 2011, the Select Committee, under the watchful eye of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), indicated that this measure was going to be a game-changer. The Select Committee is to be congratulated on pursuing this matter and encouraging the Government to look afresh at it. At that point, it had been dropped from the agenda and people thought that it was all over, and the Chairman of the Committee should be singled out today and congratulated on pushing the matter forward.
Over the past five years, the Northern Ireland Executive have demonstrated their ability to look at other good competitive economic measures that we should be embracing.
Mr Dodds
Would my hon. Friend acknowledge that, in addition to some people here giving up on devolving the power to set corporation tax rates, there were parties and politicians in the Northern Ireland Assembly who had also given up on it? Our party did not give up on it, however, and we are glad to be seeing the fruits of our labour today.
Ian Paisley
I have to say that I am shocked. My right hon. Friend wants me to start electioneering in the House. He wants me to say that it was us that won it. Well, it was! We know that and the electorate know it; we will prove that on 7 May.
Ian Paisley
I know that the record is a powerful one. We did not give up on this; we pushed for it. I think the hon. Member for Tewkesbury will confirm that it was our party that pushed the Select Committee to press the issue and to hold not just a desktop inquiry but a solid investigation. That investigation took us overseas, to the Republic of Ireland and to the United States. We looked at the issue, we pushed it solidly, and today we are reaping the benefits of that. Some of the foot-draggers did not want to see this day, but I am glad that those of us who were swift of foot have now reached the finish line.
Northern Ireland offers a unique brand for people to invest in. Obviously, we have a land border with the Republic of Ireland, so we have to demonstrate additional economic stimuli to get our economy going. The Bill will allow us to do that. A recent Ernst and Young survey on global cities of the future found that Belfast was one of the most business-friendly medium-sized cities in the world to invest in. That shows that what Northern Ireland is offering, to foreign indirect investment in particular, is an agile and capable economy with workers who want to see their economy change and grow.
We export the best buses; they come from my constituency to this city. Northern Ireland also exports the best pavements. I think that they come from the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), and they are used to pave London. We also export some of the best drink to ply the workers with, from Bushmills, and all our existing exports represent a continuing opportunity to grow the Northern Ireland economy. Northern Ireland is a good place to invest in. Indeed, 75% of investors reinvest after having been in Northern Ireland. Not only do they go there to make their initial investment but the lion’s share of them go back and reinvest because they see it as the place where their pounds can grow.
Lady Hermon
The hon. Gentleman will have noted that the Minister made the valid point earlier that the devolution of corporation tax to the Northern Ireland Executive was contingent on the implementation of the Stormont House talks. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is speaking loudly for the Democratic Unionist party, would like to confirm that his party is absolutely wedded to the full implementation of all the commitments and recommendations that resulted from those talks.
Ian Paisley
This is not the place to debate all of the Stormont House agreement, but given that we were instrumental in helping to achieve it, we will, of course, be pursuing every line, every jot and every tittle to ensure that we get the best deal for Northern Ireland in all of that arrangement.
Between 2013 and 2014 we had a record year of investment in Northern Ireland. Nearly 11,000 new jobs were promoted and 23 first-time investors were welcomed into Northern Ireland. If we can do that in one year in advance of the corporation tax Bill, what can we not do if we can now go out around the world and start to market Northern Ireland as the place with what I hope will be the lowest level of corporation tax on these islands? If we can do that, we really will have the opportunity to see Northern Ireland attracting even more companies. Our attracting 23 new, high-calibre investors in the past year, in the hard economic climate we have been coming out of, is a signal that things they are a-changing.
Ms Ritchie
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as part of lowering the level of corporation tax in Northern Ireland there is a need not only to rebalance the economy, but to ensure that a balanced regional development approach is taken to the location of foreign direct investment and other investment, to ensure that all citizens benefit from this lowering of corporation tax?
Ian Paisley
The hon. Lady makes a good point—it is key. This tax is not just about investment in Belfast, Londonderry or key cities; it is about investment in the whole of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister recently stated that he wanted to make the United Kingdom the “factory of Europe” and attract more jobs into the UK, and I hope he was speaking for every part of the UK. I hope he wanted to see those investments coming across not just to London and the south, but to all of the UK, because that is what we really need—we need more investment. I know that the hon. Lady wants to see investment in her constituency. My constituency is carrying what is going to be the single largest job loss in Northern Ireland in several years, with the closure of the JTI Gallaher factory in 2017. I want to see those jobs filled. I want to see opportunity created whereby more investment will be happening in my constituency and more factories will be brought there. If the current Government are returned, I hope that they will add meat to the bones of that call to turn the UK into the factory of Europe by bringing jobs, not only to the hon. Lady’s constituency, but to mine and, indeed, to all our constituencies. I hope we see a balance in the investment that is going to be made.
In an earlier intervention, the hon. Lady also called for a reduction in VAT, especially on our tourism trade, and I fully support that. Tourism is one of the key areas where we are trying to grow our economy and attract new business investment, with new hoteliers and new companies. If we can reduce VAT in that sector, we will see it grow. Again, we compete with the Republic of Ireland in that sector, but it has a lower tax rate and that damages us. We really need to try to make progress on that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman will be very careful in sticking to the narrow confines of the Third Reading of this Bill. I appreciate that the points he is making are tangentially attached to the Bill, but I am sure that, in concluding, he will be referring entirely to the Bill.
Ian Paisley
Thank you for that prompt, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was actually at the point of conclusion, and I thank you for reminding me that I do have to conclude. I know that hon. Members are captivated by my oratory today and want me to continue, but I must desist and so I shall leave those points with the House.
Mark Durkan
I will probably differ in some emphasis and some recollection from the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), but I wish to begin on a point of absolute harmony, in offering thanks to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and all the members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, who tilled this hard ground over quite some time, some years ago. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury has rightly been generous in acknowledging the role played by his colleague, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), and I will do so, too.
The devolving of corporation tax to Northern Ireland has not always been the point of constant unanimity that it appears to be today. People did have different approaches and different concerns about it; back when we were negotiating the Belfast agreement or Good Friday agreement some of us wanted fiscal discretion as part of the devolved package, whereas most parties did not. My party was in the very small minority of those that did, and we were particularly clear about the corporation tax side of things. When we did get our institutions up and running, some of us argued the need for devolving corporation tax so that we could do more to maximise the north-south potential for inward investment on the island of Ireland, but many people resisted that idea of working with the south on inward investment. For that same reason, those people were very iffy about the idea of devolving corporation tax, as they felt that somehow it was going to separate Northern Ireland from the Union and be a chink in Unionism. I am very glad that, because of a variety of different experiences, positions have adjusted and moved on in that regard.
Reference has been made to the Varney review. When Sir David Varney was conducting the review of corporation tax issues under the previous Government, he made it clear that he was hearing different views from different parties in Northern Ireland and, in particular, from different Departments and from different Ministers. In fairness to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), he acknowledged that at times he had different views and different emphases on this issue, as it is understandable that a Minister of Finance and Personnel would have. I served in that office—I see that the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) is in his place, too—so I am conscious of the fact that cautionary pieces of advice need to come from that office about what some of the consequences might be. When I was in that post, I used to tell people that as the Minister of Finance and Personnel I did not suffer from depression but I was a carrier. So I can accept that Ministers of Finance and Personnel perhaps did need to sound some cautionary note, but this seemed to go beyond those Ministers; I am glad that we now have a much stronger position on the devolution of corporation tax.
We also need to be clear that the devolution of corporation tax does not put the north—does not put the Assembly—on a par with the corporation tax powers of the Oireachtas. Although it allows the Assembly to set the rates for certain qualifying businesses, it does not allow it to decide who the qualifying businesses are, and the Assembly has no control over any of the other rules that attach to that. The Oireachtas has a very different arrangement. Even when moves are made in the Oireachtas on the “double Irish” situation, which are long overdue and right, we also see a targeted use of things. A bit like this Government’s use of the patent box, the Irish Government have introduced the knowledge box. So there are other ways in which they are going to target competitiveness, and incentivise particular industries and sectors.
That is one issue I wish to address at this point in examining the overall impact of the Bill, because too often the focus in Northern Ireland has been that devolving corporation tax would allow us better to compete with the south. We need to recognise that the competition landscape within these islands has changed. I acknowledge that a regional economic dynamic has been provided under this Government, through initiatives such as enterprise zones, city deals and growth deals, which are creating some drive, regional economic traction and city economic traction. If Northern Ireland relies just on corporation tax and does not look to some of those other tools that are helping to drive regional and local economic growth, we will lose out.
I represent a city where many people go to work across the border for companies that are benefiting from the 12.5% corporation tax rate. That proximity—this is in our travel-to-work area—does not mitigate the fact that my constituency has the highest registered unemployment of all the 650 constituencies represented in this House, which shows that a reduced corporation tax rate alone is not a magic bullet and does not solve everything. As has been said, including by the hon. Member for North Antrim, the south of Ireland’s approach is not just about corporation tax alone; it is about investment in infrastructure and in education, not least in third-level education. Even this week, as we see that the Irish Government’s revenues are up and things are shifting there, and they are looking at and talking about possibly adjusting the spending and tax profile, the Tanaiste, Joan Burton, is emphasising that if money can now be spent, it has to be focused on infrastructure and on education, particularly at the third level.
We see that emphasis in the south, but not in the north. We need to recognise that, with regard to the Stormont House agreement and the wider landscape, all that glisters is not gold. The fact is that the Assembly and the Executive will have a difficult Budget landscape over a number of years and there will be a price on the block grant. That was touched on by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) when she referred to the letter from the Treasury to the Bill Committee—unfortunately, it arrived after the Bill Committee had completed its considerations. The letter, while reflecting the fact that negotiations with the Executive are ongoing, sets out a number of changes that will need to be made to the funding arrangements of Northern Ireland. I am talking about how the block grant will be set and how the Barnett formula will operate. More time needs to be taken to consider those wider consequentials and the implications for the devolved Budget.
In the Stormont House negotiations, I did question why we were not discussing the implications of a corporation tax rate cut or what the implications would be for the block grant. I was told by the First Minister that the rate cut was not an issue, that it would be modest and graduated and that it did not really need to come into our wider discussions about the strong budgetary pressures we were under. But that does not seem to be the case. His understanding and his reassurances were not reflected in the terms outlined by the Treasury Minister in the Bill Committee or in this letter and its attachments. There was an assumption that there would be a gradual working adjustment. In other words, there would not be a full hit in relation to the devolved envelope. But the Minister, both in Committee and in the letter, made it clear that the hit would be up front.
I joined the hon. Member for East Antrim—I understand that his absence is to do with the unfortunate bereavement experienced by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—in questioning the arrangements. We asked about the working implications of the Executive’s Budget year on year and of the setting of the block grant. We wanted to know whether adjustments would have to be made to reflect higher or lower tax takes. In the letter from the Minister, which was sent on 16 February, we see that those adjustments may be made two or three years later, whenever the full tax yield is made. That creates uncertainty. Given that corporation tax is, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, sometimes volatile, there could be further implications that we should acknowledge. We should not say that we do not understand them or that they were someone else’s fault. We need to go into these things with our eyes open.
Let me turn now to the wider position of the Executive in relation to the operation of corporation tax. Under the Bill, the Treasury retains not just ownership of all the rule-making and interpretive powers, but the commencement power in relation to corporation tax. We know that the timetable is 2017, but, as we heard from the Minister in Committee, the Government will exercise that commencement power when they are satisfied that the Executive has a sustainable Budget.
Over the past couple of years, the Treasury has made it very clear that it judged the sustainability of the Executive’s Budget on whether the Assembly would pass welfare reform legislation. That legislation may not have been to the Assembly’s taste or of a devolved design, but they would have to pass it as a way of proving that they had a sustainable Budget. In 2017, the issue will be whether the Treasury will use that same power to impose policy choices on the Executive. In the Bill Committee, I specifically asked the Minister that question. Let us take the example of water charges. We know that the Executive have consistently tried to prevail on the Administration in Northern Ireland to move to direct water charges in one form or another. When I was a Minister, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Paul Boateng, wrote to us at the Executive twice, asking that we make that commitment. The Executive, on my proposal, refused to do that. Various other ruses have been attempted. During the period of direct rule, Northern Ireland Water was essentially set up on a conveyor belt to privatisation. The question is whether the Treasury would abuse that power and say, “Just like we used to say that you had a sustainable Budget only when you had absorbed what we wanted you to do on welfare reform, we are saying now that you only have a sustainable Budget when we see you levying water charges, raising revenue in other areas or changing your policy in relation to student finances.” It could be linked again to welfare reform. After all, we are now locked into a welfare cap. Luckily, we are being given a lot of leeway in how the welfare cap operates at the minute. If the truth be told, the deal that was reached on welfare reform as part of the Stormont House agreement—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I will say to the hon. Gentleman the same as I said to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who spoke immediately before him: I have not been very strict in keeping him to the exact words of the Bill, but, as he knows very well, he is beginning to stray a little. I trust that, in concluding, he will address precisely the points in the Bill that relate to Third Reading.
Mark Durkan
I am sticking very much to the thrust and the purpose of the Bill. The Bill is presented as part of a suite of measures coming from the Stormont House agreement. That suite of measures included issues in relation to welfare reform. After all, we were told that there would be no Corporation Tax Bill unless there was agreement on welfare reform, so what I am saying is entirely consistent. Ministers have referred to these other measures when they have addressed this Bill, as have other hon. Members. The point goes to something that is in the Bill, which is the control that the Treasury will have over the commencement of this power and whether it uses that to impose other policy choices on the Assembly. Given that the welfare cap will be in place in the next Parliament—if it is supported both by the Government and the Opposition—it could well be a part of the working reference of the Treasury when it comes to make a judgment on Budget sustainability. In fairness, the Minister made the point in Committee that the judgment would be made on the sum of the Executive’s Budget parts and on a range of issues, but not on specific measures. He would not rule out it being used in that way. Again, in terms of due legislative diligence, all of us must have regard to how this might operate in practice. I am talking about not just some of the detailed rules as they affect businesses but how the overall Budgetary situation of the Executive is affected. There is no point in our popping corks about the legislative power over corporation tax that the Executive and the Assembly will have if we are not also alert to the very real budget constraints and the hard choices that might be imposed with that.
Naomi Long
The hon. Gentleman has said on a number of occasions that, as a result of the Stormont House agreement, one obligation was to sign up to welfare reform. Does he not agree that, more correctly, what was agreed was that we had to come up with a package on welfare reform that we could pay for? As it happens, that package was parity with a little bit of flexibility—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Interventions are meant to be short. The hon. Lady has already spoken. It is perfectly in order for her to make an intervention, but it must be short, especially as she has, quite rightly, taken up the House’s time this afternoon. I politely indicated to the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor that he might consider drawing his remarks to a close. He chose to argue with me on the points I had made. I will speak less politely to him if he does not adhere to what I have said. He has spoken for a considerable time this afternoon. He is in order. He has the opportunity to conclude his speech. I am not saying that he must finish immediately now, but I am sure that he will give thought to other people in the Chamber.
Mark Durkan
I have no wish to argue with you now, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I must say that I was not arguing with you previously. I was simply clarifying the position and the background, as you have not had the privilege of sitting through all the debates on what was deemed relevant to the Bill and the wider Stormont House agreement.
The Executive and the Assembly will have to absorb the Bill’s wider implications. There are implications for the economy and for businesses, too. We have heard from many hon. Members that businesses are well seized of the need to try to take advantage of that. We have no problem with the regime on the balance between the rates and the rules, but we want to ensure that there is no undue assumption that the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland alone will transform our economy. We need more investment in infrastructure and higher education and following the decisions in the Stormont House agreement it is not clear whether our borrowing power, which was originally designed for strategic capital, is now being used to pay for a voluntary exit scheme. There is an opportunity cost as regards the wider economic investments.
I do not wish to use the term long-term economic plan, but without addressing some of the other issues, including providing tools that compare with city deals, growth deals, enterprise zones and so on, and without a new level of commitment on third-level education and infrastructure, the Executive might well be getting the novelty of devolved corporation tax without strategic economic perspectives that are other than short term in nature.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy and for not arguing with me.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should be grateful if you confirmed how this House could express our condolences to the family of Konstandinos Erik Scurfield, a constituent of mine who has been reported killed in Syria. Erik was a former Royal Marine who travelled to the region because he was horrified by Islamic State’s brutal atrocities. His parents have asked me to pass on this brief message:
“We are devastated to confirm the death of our son in Syria where he went to support the forces opposing Islamic State. His flame might have burned briefly, but it burned brightly, with love, courage, conviction and honour, and we are very proud of him. We would like to request that we be allowed to grieve in peace as a family, without intrusion at this difficult time.”
Three weeks ago, I raised this matter with the Foreign Office but I have not received a response. Given the serious nature of this issue I ask for more guidance on how I can best secure a response from Ministers so that together we can underline the grave dangers that face anyone who travels to Iraq or Syria.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Let me first say on behalf of the whole House that we send to his constituent’s family our most sincere sympathy at the loss of this brave young man. The hon. Gentleman knows that his point of order is not a point for me to deal with from the Chair. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he said, and if he has not had a timely reply to a question he asked of a Minister, he ought to have. I trust that that message will have gone out loud and clear to the relevant Minister.
Opposition Day
Future Government Spending
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 298 - Question accordingly negatived.
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House rejects this Government’s failing austerity plan set out in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement which the Office for Budget Responsibility has said will take public spending back to a share of national income not seen since the late 1930s, before the National Health Service came into existence; notes that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that this would entail cuts on a colossal scale and has raised concerns that this could involve a fundamental reimagining of the role of the state; further notes that the Chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that these spending figures were based on the policy assumption presented by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and signed off by the quad, which consists of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; and calls on the Government to instead adopt a different, fairer and more balanced approach, which involves sensible reductions in public spending, a reversal of this Government’s £3 billion-a-year top rate of income tax cut for people earning over £150,000 and an economic plan that delivers the sustained rises in living standards needed to boost tax revenues, in order to get the current budget into surplus and national debt as a share of GDP falling as soon as possible in the next Parliament.
I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) in his point of order. He made the point eloquently and I pass on our condolences from the Opposition Front Bench.
The choice between this Government’s failing austerity plan and a better plan for working families at this election is now clear. The majority of people are not feeling the benefit of the recovery and the squeeze on living standards has not been so prolonged since the 1920s. When we cut through the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s rosy view and spin and look at the report produced today by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, we can see that it confirms that the vast majority of people, typical working people, are worse off than they were in 2010.
Chris Leslie
I shall give way in a moment. What has been less well known is the devastatingly corrosive effect of stagnant wages, falling tax receipts and rising welfare costs on the health of our public finances. The social security bill is £25 billion more than planned at the outset of the Parliament. Tax credit costs have risen to subsidise the low-wage economy. Incidentally, my hon. Friends know from looking at the statistics last week that, in just one year, the number of zero-hours contracts in our society has grown by 20%.
Chris Leslie
I shall give way in a moment. The number of working people receiving housing benefit has gone up by two thirds since the last general election, tax receipts have been £68 billion lower than expected and national insurance contributions have been £27 billion lower than expected. That impact on the state and health of the public finances has been a direct result of the stagnant wages and suppressed living standards in our society.
Chris Leslie
I hope that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) can explain why the deficit has continued at such a level and whether he agrees that the fall in living standards has had that effect on our public finances.
Sir Gerald Howarth
I am grateful to the shadow Chief Secretary for giving way. I will tell him why we are in this situation today: the destruction of the public finances by his right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer and the former Prime Minister. When will the shadow Chief Secretary apologise to the British people on behalf of the Labour party for having put them through this misery, which we have now amended? We are restoring the strength of the British economy and we have the fastest-growing economy in the G7. That is no thanks to the shadow Chief Secretary but is thanks to this Government. Apologise.
Chris Leslie
I expected better than that from a knight of the realm. I thought that such partisanship would be beneath the hon. Gentleman, but no. I did not quite hear him mention those words “global banking crisis” and perhaps I might remind him of the cause of the difficulties our economy has faced. He did not answer my question about the state of our public finances today. He seems to feel content that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who promised that the deficit would all have been eradicated by now, has not done exactly the job he set out to do in 2010. The hon. Gentleman also did not explain why things have not turned out as the Chancellor promised.
Chris Leslie
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he will try his hardest to explain why things have not turned out as the Chancellor promised.
Mr Newmark
I would be delighted to explain it to the hon. Gentleman. It is about something called the structural deficit and the Opposition must acknowledge that the problem we face was created not just by the banking crisis but by the massive overspending of the previous Government. That is called the structural deficit.
Chris Leslie
Now we are coming to some of the issues. The hon. Gentleman feels that the Chancellor did not make an error when he promised back in 2010 that by now we would have no deficit and that it would all have been eradicated. The esteemed Chancellor of the Exchequer promised in his autumn statement that
“we will meet our fiscal mandate to eliminate the structural current budget deficit one year early, in 2014-15.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 532.]
That is the year we are in now. This is about the Government’s record for the past four and a half to five years.
Chris Leslie
I will give way to my hon. Friend, whose constituents have been very much affected by the squeeze in living standards. He knows that it is the health of the economy and of the finances of working people across the country that determine the health of our public finances.
Chris Bryant
Will my hon. Friend explain to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) and everyone else who seems to have forgotten that, in 2008, the massed ranks of the Conservative party supported Labour’s public spending plans, so they cannot now pretend that they were not in this as well?
Chris Leslie
It is amazing how quiet Conservative Members are on that particular point.
Chris Leslie
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, because a particular part of my speech is dedicated to him.
On the “Today” programme this morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—for it was he—uttered the phrase:
“We’ve got on top of our debts and deficits.”
Those were the words—[Interruption.] If Government Members really believe that they have been reducing the national debt and that the deficit has been eradicated, they are either delusional or not feeling particularly well.
Mr Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being very kind. He has blamed the biggest peacetime budget deficit, which we inherited from the previous Government, on the global economic crisis. Will he confirm that the Office for Budget Responsibility’s public finances database clearly shows that public spending rose by £267 billion between 1997 and 2009-10, and that 71% of that rise took place by 2006-07—well before the financial crisis? Will he confirm that that is true?
Chris Leslie
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was making those points before the last general election. If he can point to evidence that he was warning, “No, those spending plans are entirely wrong and we shouldn’t be spending on schools and hospitals in that way,” I will give way to him again. Did he warn us about those problems at the time?
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting the OBR’s views. It is clear, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said today, that the global banking crisis had a devastating effect not just on this country’s public finances, but across the world. Conspicuous by its absence from the hon. Gentleman’s comments was any evidence that he had said in the past that public expenditure plans were all wrong. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister signed up to support all the previous Government’s proposals.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Government Members should be reminded of chart 1.1 of the OBR report, which shows that total managed expenditure rose from 36% to 40% of GDP between 1998 and 2008, and then from 40% to 46% by 2009? In other words, the biggest part came from the banking crisis.
Chris Leslie
If we had a Government who understood that a connection exists between living standards, the health of our economy and the health of our public finances, perhaps we could make some progress on deficit reduction and tackle some of those issues. Instead, recent figures show that the gap between what the Government spend and their income is perpetuating at a very high level. I think it came down from £80 billion in the first nine months of last year to £74 billion in the first nine months of this year. The deficit reduction strategy is a thing of the past for this Government, because they do not realise how stagnant wages have pulled the rug from underneath it.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Of course, the inconvenient truth for the Conservative party is that it cannot whitewash history. [Interruption.] A BBC news online article on Monday 3 September 2007, under the headline, “Tories ‘to match Labour spending’”, said:
“A Conservative government would match Labour’s projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.”
Chris Leslie
The reason Conservative Members are getting so irritated is that they do not like being reminded that it was a global banking crisis. They like to airbrush that entirely from the record. That has been their strategy throughout, but we will not let them forget that there was a banking crisis across the globe. We needed to take greater action to regulate it, but I did not hear Conservative Members calling for stronger regulation of financial services; the truth was quite the opposite.
If we had a rational debate, we would see the connection between living standards, growth and the health of the public finances.
Chris Leslie
I will give way in a moment.
I am afraid that Conservative Members are not driven by rationality when it comes to a strategy for dealing with the public finances. They are driven by dogma. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. They are on an ideological crusade to shrink public services as a percentage of national income. Their plan, when they stand up to talk about these things, is not about eliminating the deficit at all; it is beyond that. The guiding principle of the Conservative party is a desire for public services actively to decline year after year after year.
That is why so many Conservative Members have joined that fabled Conservative group, the Free Enterprise Group of Conservative MPs. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) is not in the Chamber, but he has famously called for massive reductions in public spending. The Economic Secretary, who will wind up the debate, is also a member of the Free Enterprise Group, as is her colleague the Exchequer Secretary and the hon. Members for Macclesfield (David Rutley), for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke). I am sure there are others, although perhaps of a lower ranking order within the Free Enterprise Group structure. [Interruption.] Well, I am not a member of the Free Enterprise Group of Conservative MPs and, with members like that, I am quite glad I am not.
That organisation reveals the true face of the Conservative agenda. It believes very much in shrinking the state and it is driven by that fundamental belief. It is highly dogmatic and has used the financial crisis as a pretext for reducing the level of public investment.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Free Enterprise Group. Does he stand by its manifesto?
Charlie Elphicke
Let us talk about Labour’s spending commitments. The shadow Minister has been going up and down the country making £20 billion-worth of unfunded spending commitments. Would they be paid for by more borrowing or more taxes?
Chris Leslie
That was a good try, but the hon. Gentleman knows very well that we do not have unfunded spending commitments. Our manifesto will be fully costed and fully funded. He does not need to take my word for it: we would be more than happy to let the OBR audit all of the proposals in our manifesto and to undertake to validate that they are, indeed, fully costed. I wonder if any Government Members would like to support the idea that all the political parties should have their manifestos fully costed by the OBR. Can I see a show of hands?
Chris Leslie
There is one individual: the hon. Gentleman is an independent champion on Treasury matters. I wonder whether he would like to at least say that there is a strong case for letting the OBR cut through this political nonsense and make sure that we have proper independent validation of spending commitments. Does he agree with that?
Mark Garnier
I do—absolutely. In the early part of this Parliament the Treasury Committee looked at exactly that point and there was a big and heated debate about it. Conservative members were in favour of it, but Labour members were not, and they were led by the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), who was dead against it. What does the shadow Minister have to say about that?
Chris Leslie
Well, we are all in favour of it now and I am delighted that there is consensus. In fact, I am tempted to invite the hon. Gentleman to this side of the Chamber, but we have a rigorous application process and he would need to go through a number of other stages first.
The Conservatives’ strategy is failing and there are good reasons for that. They do not realise the important role that active Government can play in supporting our economy and improving living standards. Government and public investment can make a real difference, whether by guaranteeing apprenticeships, tackling unfair energy bills, raising the minimum wage, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts or action on housing and infrastructure to boost productivity. All these would represent a better plan but the Conservatives’ 1930s strategy, coupled with that trickle-down philosophy, is totally discredited. Lavishing tax cuts on the very wealthiest 1% is not just the wrong priority; it is also the wrong strategy.
Chris Leslie
I am conscious that there are many hon. Members who want to get in so I will limit the number of interventions hereafter, but how could I resist giving way to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler)?
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is very kind. He speaks about tax cuts being only for the top 1%. Will he congratulate Conservative-controlled South Derbyshire district council, which is not only holding the council tax for the fifth year running, but is going to give a rebate in July to every council tax payer in the whole of South Derbyshire? They will all get a council tax rebate.
Chris Leslie
Local government matters are for individual authorities. I know that there are a number of authorities that are struggling financially and finding things very difficult, not least because the funding formula has been so heavily rigged and skewed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I do not know the individual case of the hon. Lady’s district council. Individual local authorities will have to make their own decisions. Her constituents, like others, have to look at the situation in the round. The Government are very good at giving a little bit with one hand, and taking back so much more with the other. Her constituents know about the rise in VAT that she voted for and those cuts to tax credits, among other things.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is being far too generous to Government Members, who do not deserve it. In my council area, £328 is being stolen from every man, woman and child and 1,700 good quality public servants are being put on the dole, just to prove that the Government’s long-term economic plan is working. It is not a plan; it is a sham.
Chris Leslie
We need to tackle the blatant unfairness of the rigged funding formula for local government finance, which the Labour party has committed to do in government.
Helen Jones
Will my hon. Friend remind Government Members that when the Government introduced their Local Government Finance Act 2012, they deliberately set up a system that penalised the poorest councils more than the richest councils, they took no notice of the amount of council tax that could be raised from different boroughs, and in doing so they destroyed the social services system, which is now leading to people remaining in hospital when they should be out—a prime example of a stupid cut which costs more in the end? [Interruption.]
Chris Leslie
Government Members are trying to shout down my hon. Friend because they do not like to hear the truth. The truth is that many of our public services are affected by the support and the funding formula given to local government. She is right to highlight the impact—
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Leslie
No.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) is right to highlight the impact on our national health service of some of the devastating changes that have hit social care. She made her point well.
It is bad enough that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister fight so hard against the idea that an inclusive approach leads to a stronger economy and a better plan. [Interruption.] What is worse is that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Government Members fully intend to accelerate the failing plan for a further five years—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Conservative Members have had their fun in shouting across the Chamber. The debate should settle down now, with interventions when they are taken, but a proper debate. Mr Smith, if you have a question, it is normal to stand up on an intervention, not just speak by Christian name across the Chamber. Thank you.
Chris Leslie
I may give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but not just yet.
I want to pause for a moment and reflect on the implications of taking UK public expenditure on vital public services down to the 35% level that was announced in the autumn statement. These plans would mean that we are only halfway through the cuts. These are plans for the biggest cuts to public services since the second world war. The Office for Budget Responsibility says on page 148 of its report that
“the closest equivalent in the National Accounts implies that by 2019-20 day-to-day spending on public services would be at its lowest level … since the late-1930s as a share of GDP.”
The OBR goes on to say—Government Members may not have heard this—that
“total public spending is now projected to fall to 35.2 per cent of GDP in 2019-20, taking it below the previous post-war lows reached in 1957-58 and 1999-00 to what would probably be its lowest level in 80 years.”
That recalls a time before we had an NHS, when children left school at 14, and when life expectancy was just 60. That is why Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said on 4 December that we can expect
“Spending cuts on a colossal scale…taking total government spending to its lowest level as a proportion of national income since before the last war.”
Chris Leslie
I seem to have hit a nerve with Government Members. I give way to the good-looking one.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
That is one of the few points on which I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has been quoting selectively from various institutions. He has just quoted the IFS. The director general of the IFS has said that
“if the Conservatives win the election they will neither, despite what the opposition would have us believe, destroy the NHS nor return the welfare state . . . to 1930s level of provision.”
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, and will he now withdraw his previous comment?
Chris Leslie
With the greatest respect, I do not accept that. I will come to that shortly.
When we look at the effect on public finances of the plan that the hon. Gentleman has signed up to with the Free Enterprise Group and with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, the effect on our public services, not least the NHS, could be exceptionally difficult and potentially implausible.
Paul Johnson of the IFS asks:
“How will these cut be implemented? What will local government, the defence force, the transport system, look like in this world? Is this a fundamental reimagining of the role of the state? ... If we move in anything like this direction, whilst continuing to protect health and pensions, the role and shape of the state will have changed beyond recognition.”
Is it any wonder that UKIP has backed Conservative plans? No surprise there.
Be under no illusions—the Conservatives’ pathway for the next Parliament is a statement of intent to wage war on public services, and people need to understand the tremendous risks involved. It is a major threat to the viability of public services, which would wreak havoc especially in non-ring-fenced areas such as policing, border controls, child protection and social care. Such extreme plans would decimate skills, infrastructure, research and development and science, undermining the competitiveness of our economy. Devastation on that scale would not be tolerable, which is why we suspect that the Conservatives have secret plans to hit household finances in other ways.
Chris Leslie
I want to make sure that other Members have a chance to contribute to the debate, so I will give way one final time.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
The difficulty that Government Members have is the question of motive. When people across the country see Sure Start centres, police stations and NHS walk-in centres closing, underinvestment in schools and queues outside our A and Es, they know what a Tory Government have done already, and they know what will happen if we go back to their 1930s plan.
Chris Leslie
The whole country will be affected, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, if the Conservatives are given a further five years for their ideological plan. The plan has not just failed to date; it will continue to fail and will continue to harm those on lower and middle incomes and those who depend on public services. The Conservatives will not set out where their billions of social security cuts will hit, for example, so we have to take past performance as a guide.
Chris Leslie
I will not give way again, because I want to make some progress.
Tax credits, for example, have already been hit hard in this Parliament. The typical household is £1,127 worse off this year as a result of the tax and benefit changes introduced since 2010. Those who depend on tax credits to make ends meet need to be aware of what five more years of Conservative Government would mean.
There is a better, sensible and balanced alternative, a sensible fiscal framework aimed at getting the current budget into surplus and national debt falling as soon as possible in the next Parliament. We must make progress and cut the deficit every year. Where we make promises in our manifesto, supported by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), they will be fully funded—we want them to be audited independently by the OBR—and they will not involve additional borrowing. We need workable efficiencies and spending reductions in non-protected areas. We have already published seven of our interim zero-based review reports listing examples of where those could be made. We need fairer choices on taxation, not a £3 billion give-away to the richest 1% earning over £150,000 a year. Fundamentally, we need rising living standards and sustained growth to repair tax receipts and control welfare spending, which has got totally out of control under this Government.
This Government’s failing plan has not eradicated the deficit, but it has left us with an NHS in crisis, the bedroom tax and 20 million meals served in food banks last year. Their sharp turn towards a right-wing ideological approach would cull public investment to levels not seen since the late 1930s. For our public services, for policing, for social care, for defence and for the NHS, at this election the stakes have never been higher. I urge the House to reject the Conservatives’ risky and extreme approach and instead back Labour’s fairer and better plan for the future.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Well, here is another opportunity to tell the House about the successes of our long-term economic plan. I must say that I am impressed by the Labour party’s courage in selecting the economic recovery for the last Opposition day debate of this Parliament, but not by its judgment. Given the catastrophic situation in which Labour left the country after 13 years in charge, Members might have thought that it would have the good grace to accept that our economic plan is putting Britain back on track, delivering growth, jobs and prosperity for hard-working households up and down the country.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is right that we focus on spending totals, but there is an even better argument. A careful academic study of National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports over Labour’s time in government recently found that a staggering £230 billion was wasted on incompetence, inefficiency and undelivered programmes. That is a real legacy of 13 years of wasted Labour government.
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, as a distinguished Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, he was heavily involved in identifying that wasteful spending. One of this Government’s achievements is the measures we have introduced to reduce such wasteful spending. In particular, the efforts of the Minister for the Cabinet Office in pushing forward reform and identifying efficiency savings have reduced the cost of Whitehall strikingly.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Is not it disingenuous—some might even say slightly dishonest—to pray in aid references to 35.2% of public expenditure, as opposed to GDP, as ideological extremism when we need look back only 12 years to the Blair-Brown Government to find a time when the percentage was 35.9%, which is almost indistinguishable? Is not that trying to hoodwink and fool the voters, and is not that pretty dishonest?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The statistics he uses are absolutely right. With regard to public spending on services—I will turn to the detail in a moment—we are talking about returning to the levels of 2002-03, before the previous Government lost control of public spending.
Charlie Elphicke
The tenor of the Opposition’s argument is that public spending ought to be higher. Given that they are disagreeing with our plans, should they not specify how much higher they would want it to be?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was struck that when it came to the substance of the shadow Chief Secretary’s speech, he rather rushed through that process. He tells us that he does not like our spending plans—I will come to the details of that in a few moments—but he does not tell us how much extra he would spend, or, if he is going to spend extra, how he is going to pay for it. Will it be through higher taxes or through more borrowing? We did not get any indication.
Chris Leslie
If the Minister wants to clear all these things up and make sure that we have an independent appraisal, does he back the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) in supporting the idea that the Office for Budget Responsibility should be allowed to report on the proposals of all the parties? What is so wrong with that?
Mr Gauke
I am afraid that that is a bit of a red herring. If the shadow Chief Secretary wants to set out what his plans are, and if he believes that spending needs to be higher than it would be under a Conservative Government, he can tell us how much higher—he does not need the OBR to look at his numbers. Does he believe that spending should be financed through more borrowing or more tax? What is it to be—a tax bombshell, a borrowing bombshell, or both? I will happily give way to him. He does not want to answer.
Mark Hendrick
The Minister will recall that prior to the 2010 general election, the then Conservative Opposition promised to get rid of the deficit by the end of this Parliament. We have already seen that the Government are planning to borrow £200 billion more than was originally estimated, which is clearly way off track. If they could not get their promises right before the last election, why should we believe them, in government, about what they will do after the next election?
Mr Gauke
So there we have it—that is the complaint from the Opposition. Their big problem is that we have not cleared up their mess fast enough. That is the essence of their argument. They have opposed every difficult decision we took on the path towards recovery—every spending cut and every welfare change. As for the deficit, they usually forget to mention it. All the rhetoric we are hearing from them is about how they would reverse the decisions that we have taken and presumably turn the clock back to 2010—the time when we had the worst deficit in peacetime history, when we were borrowing £1 for every £4 spent, when we had an economy whose ability to pay its way was questioned internationally, and when the outlook of the Labour Government could be summed up by the note left by the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne):
“I’m afraid there is no money.”
This Government have made great steps forward to get us out of that mess. In 2014, our growth rate was 2.6%—the highest of any major advanced economy. Our deficit is down by half as a percentage of GDP. Thanks to the stability that we have put in place, businesses have created 2.16 million private sector jobs since the first quarter of 2010, each and every one representing someone in the UK who is now standing on their own two feet. Some 2.1 million more entrepreneurships have been set up, with over 750,000 more businesses than in 2010. That has all happened under this Government.
Helen Goodman
Can the Minister explain why the real Chief Secretary is not responding to this debate? Is it because when the OBR finally audited the Government’s future plans and found that they would take us back to the 1930s, the other coalition partner peeled off and left the Tories isolated?
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought this back to jobs and what that means for our constituents. In Crawley, we now see record employment levels. That is not an accident; it is a direct result of the long-term economic plan.
Chris Bryant
May I ask the Minister about cuts to the Arts Council budget? So far, this Govt have cut it by 30%, but on 5 January, the Tory party produced a report saying that £83 million more would be cut from Arts Council, and that this
“cost is based on the real terms decrease in the Grant in Aid for the Arts Council from 2014/15 to 2015/16”.
Does he stand by the figure that the Arts Council will be cut by £83 million this year?
Mr Gauke
I recall the debate on arts spending at the beginning of the year. If I remember correctly, the note that was published showing the Labour party’s areas of spending commitments included a commitment on the arts, but the shadow Chancellor very quickly ruled it out. He said it was not correct, and the deputy leader of the Labour party had to withdraw what she had previously said on that subject. That is my memory of it.
Chris Bryant
This is a serious matter, and if the Minister cannot give a precise answer now, I would be very grateful if he wrote to me. Does he think that the Arts Council budget will or will not be cut from this year to next year by £83 million?
Mr Gauke
If we have any future announcements about the Arts Council budget, we will make them in the usual way.
As we have seen only today from the report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, average household incomes are back to the levels they were at before the recession began and they are expected to grow by well above inflation this year, while income inequality is down and pensioner poverty is at record lows under this Government: our plan is working.
The Labour party claims that we are taking public spending back to the level of the 1930s, but let us look at the facts. Even on the assumption that 100% of our future consolidation comes from cuts to departmental expenditure, which is not the Conservative party’s approach, the Government’s plans will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has pointed out, put spending on public services at their lowest real-terms level since 2002-03, so instead of the late 1930s, we are talking about the early 2000s—only 65 years out.
Andrew Bridgen
Throughout the debate, the Opposition have attacked our long-term economic plan, which is delivering the highest economic growth of any developed economy, and has created more jobs in this country than in the whole of Europe added together. Will the Minister remind the House whose economic policies the Labour party was exalting? I seem to remember something about “What Hollande is doing in France I want to do in Britain.”
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, to which I will return in a moment.
Although we have made considerable progress, the reality is that we face further difficult decisions. On that basis, the House signed up to the “Charter for Budget Responsibility” last month. It enshrines in law that the Government elected in May, whatever their colour, must have a plan to tackle the deficit and to bring our national debt under control. Pretty well all of us, with one or two exceptions, committed to achieving falling national debt as a share of GDP by 2016-17, and to balance the cyclically adjusted current budget by the end of the third year of the rolling forecast period, which is 2017-18.
On the latest forecasts, the charter requires about £30 billion of consolidation in the first two years of the next Parliament. Under the plans set out by the Chancellor, it will be achieved by bearing down on spending, the welfare budget, and tax avoidance and evasion. To break the figure down, that is at least £13 billion of savings from Departments’ spending, at least £12 billion from welfare and more than £5 billion from tax avoidance and evasion.
The Labour party agreed to the charter: the motion was passed by 515 votes to 18. Perhaps it believes that a fiscal consolidation of £30 billion is too much. After all, that is the position of the Greens and the nationalist parties, who have explicitly said that they would borrow more over the next three years. That position is irresponsible, but I accept that it is coherent with everything else that those parties are saying. Labour, however, has voted to accept that a fiscal consolidation of £30 billion is necessary, so where is it coming from?
Mr Gauke
In a moment. If the Labour party does not believe in making savings from departmental budgets or welfare, where is the money coming from? To quote its leader,
“if we just try and cut our way to getting rid of this deficit, it won’t work.”
That is the Labour party’s position. Out come the old answers, but where is the money coming from?
Chris Leslie
The Minister must have the charter for budget responsibility with him. I will give him a moment if he wants to pick it out of his file. Where does it say in the charter for budget responsibility—perhaps he could give us a page or line reference—that the figure is £30 billion? Can he quote the OBR on that figure either? Is it not the case that the charter for budget responsibility was about agreeing to focus on current budget plans, and not about the absolute budget surplus that his party was apparently committed to? What on earth was going on?
Mr Gauke
That position is supported by the IFS. The figure is £30 billion. Where is it coming from? The Labour party simply does not have an answer. If it is not prepared to accept the £30 billion figure, it will be borrowing more. If it does accept the £30 billion figure, where is it coming from? If it is not coming from spending, it must be coming from tax.
Mr Raab
Does the Minister recognise the figure given by Paul Johnson of the IFS in The Times on 13 January, when he said that Labour’s plans amounted to £170 billion more on the national debt by 2020, which is about a third higher than the entire NHS budget? That is what we are talking about.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
Small businesses across north Yorkshire are really worried about the fact that Labour has not yet ruled out a jobs tax, should it be elected. Are they missing something?
Mr Gauke
That is the key to the matter. The truth is that there will be either a tax bombshell or a borrowing bombshell if the Labour party is in office. It fought the last general election campaigning for an increase in the jobs tax. I have a strong suspicion that a future Labour Government will look at precisely that to fill the gap.
Simon Kirby
Perhaps I can help Labour Members. Has not the shadow Chancellor outlined £3.3 billion of cuts to local councils up and down the country? Today there is total chaos, contradiction and confusion. Where is their policy? What is their plan?
Mr Anderson
In the unlikely event that the Minister is in charge after 7 May, is he as confident that he will reach the target in 2017 as he was in 2010 that he would get rid of the deficit in four years, at which he completely and utterly failed?
Mr Gauke
We stand by the OBR’s projections. We have made considerable progress at a time when other economies have struggled and when there has been a eurozone crisis. But for the steps that we have taken, our debts would have risen much more quickly.
Let us return to the position of the Labour party. Where are its answers on deficit reduction? We get the old answers, which are that it would squeeze the rich and reintroduce the 50p top rate of tax. It conveniently forgets that the previous Government had a top rate of 40p for all but 36 of their 4,758 days in office.
The House will want to be aware that our move to the 45p rate cost only around £100 million—a small price to pay for making the international message loud and clear that we are open for business. How much does Labour think that reversing that policy would raise? I am happy to give way to the shadow Minister on that. To say that a return to the 50p rate would bring in an extra £3 billion a year, which is what he implied, is frankly ludicrous, and I challenge him to identify one reputable economist between now and 7 May who will support such a position.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The Minister has probably forgotten that when it came to the millionaires’ tax cut, the Labour party abstained and did not vote against it. More importantly, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research said that if it were not for austerity, UK GDP would be 5% higher. The tax take with 5% more GDP is about £32 billion, or equivalent to 30% of the current deficit. Does the Minister accept that austerity has been a mistake and that we should have gone for growth through investment?
Mr Gauke
I am not persuaded by the argument that if we borrow more we ultimately borrow less—I am afraid that is far too easy an answer.
The Government believe that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden, and as the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed today, that is exactly what is happening. That is why the richest in our society now pay more in tax than at any point under the previous Government. The Labour party can lecture us all it likes about taxing the rich, but it was not on our watch that private equity managers paid a lower rate of tax than their cleaners. It was not on our watch that the wealthy could sidestep stamp duty, or that higher earners could disguise their remuneration as loans that were never repaid. Under our watch, however, every single Budget that we introduced raised revenues from the most well off in society.
Mr Raab
Will the Minister confirm that, although the motion talks about reversing our changes to income tax, the latest HMRC data show that someone who earns £10,000 to £15,000 a year will pay 54% less income tax than they did under Labour, while someone who earns £1 million to £2 million pays 14% more?
Stephen Hammond
The Minister is right to point out those things, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) pointed out, we have taken many people out of tax altogether. On Labour’s watch, if it were ever to be in government, the deputy leader of the Labour party has already said:
“Yes I think people on middle incomes should contribute more through their taxes”.
Therefore anyone earning more than £26,000 will have a tax rise under the next Labour Government. That is what the deputy leader of the Labour party has committed to.
Mr Gauke
As I said, the money has to come from somewhere, and middle-income earners are probably pretty high up the list. To be fair, it is not just the 50p rate, although that is the only policy mentioned in the motion. In television interviews, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury has proclaimed one other policy to reduce the deficit. This is the key to deficit reduction and the policy that will restore public finances to health: a future Labour Government will put up fees for gun licences. How much will that raise? A whopping £17 million—except, to be fair, the shadow Home Secretary has already pledged to spend that money elsewhere.
Chris Leslie
The hon. Gentleman urged me to give the Minister both barrels, but I will try to resist. It is all very good banter trying to claim that that is the only way we would deal with the deficit, but of course that is absolute nonsense—when asked for examples, we give examples. The Minister raises an important point about gun licences. It is a small amount of money but it is still worth doing. Is he saying that we should not raise gun licence fees? Is he ruling that out because he thinks it is the wrong idea?
Mr Gauke
It was an attempt to show how ridiculous the Labour party’s economic policy is when the only example it puts forward, apart from the 50p rate, which is likely to cost money, is increasing the cost of gun licences. I did not really expect the shadow Chief Secretary to take it seriously that that was the big policy. Does he disagree that the shadow Home Secretary has already claimed that that money will be spent on policing? It is going to be spent on policing, is it not? There was a time in debating these matters when the big argument from Labour Members, their big macro-economic analysis, was that we were going too far, too fast. Now it has come down to this. What have they got a few days away from a general election? They have a policy on gun licences—that is it. What has the great Labour party come to? Gun licences!
Mr Stewart Jackson
Perhaps the Minister can help me out. The Labour party had a top tax rate of 40% for 155 of its 156 weeks in office, which apparently was the epitome of social justice. Why does he think Labour is attacking us for having a 45% rate, which brings in more money but is suddenly seen as feathering the nest for the rich?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem with the 50p policy is that it is not an effective way to raise revenue. Our record is very clear: we have been very effective at getting more money out of the wealthy. As we see from the IFS analysis today, the wealthiest have made the biggest contribution. What we are left with is a symbolic gesture, not a tax policy.
Mark Garnier
Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is quite remarkable that the Labour party has not yet come out categorically and refused to raise taxes through a jobs tax? Is it not worth remembering while we are debating a possible jobs tax—or not, depending on what they want to do—that there has never been a Labour Government who have not failed to increase unemployment?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is right that we highlight that point. They do not like our spending plans, but what are they going to do? Are they willing to borrow more? Are they willing to tax more? It must be one or the other or both. Which is it to be: a borrowing bombshell or a tax bombshell?
Helen Goodman
I want to bring the Minister back to the point he was making about five minutes ago, when he said that there should be £12 billion of cuts to the welfare budget. Would he like to spell out for the House and the nation what those £12 billion of cuts will be?
Mr Gauke
We will set out the full details in due course, but we have already said that £3 billion of that will come from freezing benefits. If the Labour party is ruling out touching the welfare budget, which is a considerable part of public spending, where else is the money coming from?
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
One of the reasons the Opposition are focusing on the gun licence is that they have got it wrong on just about everything else. Will my hon. Friend remind us who said it was not possible to cut spending and create jobs?
Andrew Bridgen
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He is right to try to pin down the Opposition on how they will fund their spending commitments, but it is a forlorn hope. It is like trying to bottle fog. He should remember their cornucopia of endless money, the bankers’ bonus tax. They have used it 12 times already. Surely they will be using it again before the election.
Mr Bain
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at last.
The “Charter for Budget Responsibility” states that the Treasury will balance the current budget
“by the end of the third year of the rolling, 5-year forecast period.”
Can the Minister point out the reference to 2017-18? If he cannot, his figure of £30 billion of cuts is entirely bogus.
Mr Gauke
It is by looking at where we are and then adding three years. It is really not that difficult.
In the motion, the Opposition attempt to evade the hard choice between more tax or more borrowing facing those who oppose spending cuts by saying they will grow the economy faster so that wages go up and the problem is solved, despite this being a structural issue. Every Government want the economy to grow faster. When François Hollande came to power, with a new economic model praised by the Leader of the Opposition, I have no doubt that he wanted the French economy to grow faster, but it did not, and I have no doubt that in 2008 the Labour Government also wanted the economy to grow faster, but that did not prevent it from shrinking by 6%. Wanting an economy to grow is not the same as achieving economic growth, and nor is it an excuse for not making the hard decisions necessary to reduce the deficit.
Where is Labour’s plan for growth? If we examine the motion, do we find a single policy that would help economic growth? One specific policy is mentioned, about punishing high earners, but that is hardly a policy for growth. After five years, where are these policies for growth? They could mention increasing the number of apprenticeships, reforming banking regulation and increasing infrastructure investment, except that those are policies delivered by this Government. Or they could set out how they would encourage business investment by putting in place competitive business taxes and reducing regulatory burdens, except those are policies they intend to reverse. Or they could mention improving education standards or securing the future of universities, except that they would abandon the progress we have made, not least with their shambolic policy on tuition fees.
Labour’s policies have three characteristics: they are not long term, they are not economic, and they do not constitute a plan. The motion reveals a vacuous Opposition horribly ill-prepared for government. The motion, like the Opposition, has little to say on macro-economic policy and nothing to say on supply-side policy. It is evasive on the deficit and incoherent on economic growth. The motion, like the Opposition, is destined for a heavy defeat.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. There is a seven-minute time limit on all Back-Bench contributions, starting with the next speaker.
Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)
For some reason, my mind is drawn increasingly to the time that people are in particular positions, and I note this afternoon a conspicuous absence on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I think back to the early part of this Parliament, when the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) held the post of Chief Secretary to the Treasury for a total of 17 days, and I recall being in the Chamber when, with barely disguised glee and in a remarkable contribution that has continued in the approach of the coalition, he began the process of cutting back on investments, some of which have since been re-announced. This was at a time when the economy was beginning to grow after a long global banking crisis out of which we are only just starting to emerge. Since then, for the past five years, for the vast majority of constituents in all parts of the UK, things have been getting worse, not better. The coalition justified it on the basis of shoddy analysis of how our economy and situation was the same as that in Greece.
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I notice that there are no Scottish nats in the Chamber at present, which is not unusual. Will my hon. Friend touch on the effect of the price of North sea oil on the economy of today?
Tom Greatrex
My hon. Friend makes a different point from the one I was making, but an important one. The reduction in the price of a barrel of oil has had a significant impact on revenues. If Scotland had become a separate country or was in the process of becoming a separate country, the impact on revenues would have amounted to the equivalent of the entire education budget. That much would have been wiped out in the course of the last few months, highlighting the dangers of an economy being over-reliant on what the record shows to be such a volatile commodity, and indeed, by definition, a declining one, given the amount of oil still left in the ground. This is an important point for Scotland.
The tenure in office of the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been slightly longer, and 1,591 days ago, the Prime Minister said:
“In five years’ time, we will have balanced the books.”
He has 63 days left in his job, and I suspect that he is not going to meet that promise.
Tom Greatrex
No, I am going to make some progress, and I have a relatively short time.
The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that borrowing for 2015-16 is set to be £75 billion and that the Government are borrowing over £200 billion more than they planned in 2010—hardly an exemplar of a functioning economic policy.
The last five years, then, have indeed seemed long term—and they felt long term to many of my constituents, who have suffered from declining incomes and struggling to find work. During that long-term five years, they have certainly suffered real economic pain. Such economic pain might well not be appreciated by the Government Members who have chosen to turn up this afternoon, but it is real and long-term economic pain to my constituents. If Government Members were to pay some attention to the entirety of their constituencies, they would find that it is exactly the same for them.
I believe that the Government have failed their own test on the economy because they have failed the test set for them by people’s expectations. Over the last five years, they have failed to create an economy that works for the majority of people. Working people are, on average, £1,600 a year worse off than they were at the start of the Parliament. Wages are stagnant for many people, and I know that all too many of my constituents who have been able to get back into work are in low-paid, insecure work. They are regularly on contracts that make them wait for a text message at the start of the week to be told how many hours’ work they are going to get for that week. [Interruption.]
I note the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) shaking his head in disdain, so I invite him to come to my constituency to meet people in my surgeries each week who are suffering as a result of what has been allowed to happen and because of the failure of his party to take action to tackle these types of exploitative contracts. If he thinks that that is a fair basis for our economic growth, I suggest that he is not speaking even for his own constituents, let alone the majority of people in this country.
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman argues with passion; I argue with similar passion. If he looks at the statistics, he will find that it is clear that the vast majority—more than 70%—of the jobs created are for full-time, permanent work. That benefits his constituents as well as mine. It is working.
Tom Greatrex
Many people in my constituency who were out of work and are now in work are employed on zero-hours contracts—as I said, contracts that make them wait for a text message at the start of the week to find out whether they will get any hours that week. They have variable levels of hours from week to week. It does not involve simply doing a top-up job or an additional job. In many cases, this provides these people’s main source of income, and these contracts have increased over the last five years. That is the reality, and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed that his Government have failed to tackle it. It is a disgrace that this is where we are in the 21st century—and that is exactly where we are at present.
Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Sandra Osborne
My hon. Friend will be aware of the thousands of people using food banks in our constituencies up and down the country—and many of the people using them are in work.
Tom Greatrex
Indeed. My hon. Friend makes a very important point—that many of the people accessing and using food banks are the same people who are increasingly reliant on in-work benefits. They are not out of work or seeking to be in work, but the hourly wages they receive are not enough to heat their homes or put food on the table for their families. That is a notable feature of the economy at present.
Tom Greatrex
No, I will not. I have already given way three times, and I am running out of time.
As a result of low and stagnant pay, tax receipts are more than £68 billion lower, and receipts from national insurance contributions are £27.3 billion lower, than they were expected to be five years ago. Chronic low pay only drives up the costs of welfare, and the welfare bill is £25 billion higher than it was planned to be in 2010. The problems have been exacerbated over the last five years, not solved, and that has skewed the economy towards the interests of the few rather than the many. We need a fundamental change of approach: we need an economy that is focused on ensuring that people can earn decent wages and survive. That would enable us to increase the tax take, and to reduce the benefits bill. The choice that we shall all have to make at the general election will be crucial to the future of many of our constituents.
My own constituency badly needs that change of approach. Youth unemployment is 5.7%, well above the United Kingdom average of 3.2%, and median wages last year were 10% lower than the United Kingdom average. Every week I hear from people who are concerned about the contracts under which they are employed and about their prospects, and who fear that their children will be unable to find work. To those people, the last five years have meant a Government who have failed them.
As I have said, there will be a choice to be made at the general election. The Government have demonstrated that their plan is failing. They boast of economic success, but they have created the early signs of a recovery that works only for a handful at the top. There is an alternative to a failing plan, and that is a much better plan. The economy must succeed for working families throughout Britain: it must succeed for everyone in the country. I think that, in 63 days’ time, the people of this country will succeed where the Prime Minister has failed, and will hold him to his pledge. He has failed on the economy, so they will kick him out, and it will be good riddance to a failed Government.
Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)
We seem to be living in two parallel universes. What the Opposition do not seem to realise is that we were facing bankruptcy as a country. We were in economic meltdown, and the markets were judging us by raising the cost of our borrowing. That is the best judgment of all: the markets know best when it comes to judging what is going on.
We have heard a great deal from the Opposition about a banking crisis. Of course there was a banking crisis—there was a worldwide banking crisis, we all know that—but the real problem with the way in which the Opposition were managing our economy was something called a structural deficit. We were spending much more on running UK plc than we were bringing in.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am not sure that it is wise for us to go on all the time about the fact that we have cut the deficit in half. We have cut it in half, but that disguises the real crisis that we are still experiencing. We are still borrowing £90 billion a year, which means that we cannot relax for a moment. It is madness to make unfunded borrowing and spending commitments.
Mr Newmark
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we had an emergency Budget which laid out clearly our long-term economic plan.
Let us consider our record in government since we picked up the pieces that were left by the last Government. As my hon. Friend has just said, we have halved the deficit. That is important, because it has kept interest rates low for mortgage holders and for business. Income tax has been cut for 25 million people, by about £705 per person. The personal allowance has been raised from £6,500 to £10,600, and some 3.4 million people have been taken out of tax altogether. Benefits have been capped to reward hard-working people. Employment is up, and youth unemployment is down. The Million Jobs campaign, which I put together, managed to persuade the Chancellor to abolish national insurance payments for those who hired people under 21. That has paid dividends, because it has accelerated the decline in youth unemployment. The state pension is also up by £800. Fuel duty has been frozen. Energy costs are down. Overall, wages now are rising higher than inflation; on the latest statistics, total pay is up by 2.1%, whereas inflation is only up by 0.9%.
Andrew Gwynne
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will add to his list of successes the fact that the welfare bill is up by £25 billion, as a result of increases in housing benefit costs to the Exchequer and the failure of low pay.
Mr Newmark
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman should talk about our welfare policies as his side wants to increase spending, whereas we are trying to cap it at a reasonable state—£26,000, which is £35,000 pre-tax, which is higher than the average wage of most people.
Labour was financially reckless in government and, it seems, is even more financially reckless in opposition. Already it has £20.7 billion of unfunded spending commitments for 2015-16, which is £1,200 per household. HM Treasury estimates Labour now has £32 billion of borrowing for 2020-21 and £166 billion over the next Parliament—the next five years—or £10,000 extra per household. I hope voters are listening to that. That is £10,000 extra per household; they should remember that before they go into the ballot box. We have learned today that Labour’s new great tax policy is to increase the cost of a gun licence. So Labour’s policy going forward is, as always, tax more and borrow more.
Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)
This motion refers to
“sensible reductions in public spending”.
Does my hon. Friend know what these reductions are and how much they might raise, because there is no mention of that whatever? They are just a blank canvas.
Mr Newmark
I know, and I suspect Labour will be going into the election with a blank canvas, and no doubt voters will make their judgment on that.
Going forward, the Government are committed to raising the personal allowance once again—up from £10,500 to £12,500. That is a tax cut for 30 million people and removes 1 million of the lowest paid out of tax altogether. The Conservative Government are committed to balancing the books by the end of the Parliament, which the Opposition party is not, and a Conservative Government are committed to reducing Government spending to 35.2% by 2020, as the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) pointed out. I remind him that when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was Chancellor he had borrowing at 35.9%, so we are not talking about a huge difference between the 35.2%, which is apparently an absolute crisis, and the 35.9% in 2000.
To conclude, the Government have a track record to be proud of: reducing spending; reducing the deficit; reducing taxes; and reducing unemployment. Here are the words of Christine Lagarde of the International Monetary Fund—although I will not say this in a French accent. She said:
“Certainly from a global perspective this is exactly the sort of result that we would like to see…More growth, less unemployment, a growth that is more”—
wait for it—
“inclusive, that is better shared, and a growth that is also sustainable and more balanced.”
These are the words of Christine Lagarde this year, on 15 January 2015, at an IMF round-table discussion in Washington.
The Government’s long-term economic plan is working, and hopefully on 7 May the British people will not give the keys back to the guys who crashed the car.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
We debated similar issues early in January, when the Government laid out their proposals for the “Charter for Budget Responsibility”. I explained in that debate that the Government had promised that they would eradicate the entire structural deficit within the five years of this Parliament. It is important to understand what the Government pledged. They specifically stated that debt would begin to fall as a share of GDP in 2014-15, that the current account would be in balance in 2015-16 and that public sector net borrowing in that year would be barely £20 billion. We now know that, on their numbers, debt will not begin to fall as a share of GDP until 2016-17 at the earliest, that the current account will not be back in the black until at least the following year and that public sector net borrowing will not be £20 billion for the forthcoming year but almost four times that amount, at £75 billion. In short, the Chancellor and the Government have failed to meet a single one of the key targets that they set for themselves. The Tory policy of a fixed-term approach to deficit reduction strangled the recovery in the early years of this Parliament, and with tens of billions in cuts and tax rises still to come, the inescapable conclusion is that austerity has failed.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that there was a big issue, and that it was called Greece? The problems there and in the eurozone blew everything off course completely.
Stewart Hosie
That is precisely why the Government should have taken a flexible approach to deficit consolidation, rather than a fixed-term approach. I will say more about that in a moment.
It is useful today to identify precisely what is on offer, other than the £30 billion of extra cuts that were promised by the Government in January. That is, of course, no more than a continuation of the existing failed policy of fixed-term deficit consolidation and a plan for further attacks on the welfare budget. It is a plan to balance the books on the backs of the poor, which we now understand means taking levels of public expenditure back to those of the 1930s.
Today’s motion calls for a
“different, fairer and more balanced approach”
and I agree with that. The key thing that needs to be changed is the fixed-term approach to cutting the deficit. Instead of that approach, which has self-evidently failed so far, we should have a more flexible, medium-term strategy whose first principle should be about reducing debt to a “prudent” level. It is important that the Government of the day should specify what is or is not prudent, depending on the real circumstances that they face, precisely to deal with the kind of external shocks that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) has just mentioned.
Stewart Hosie
It is a Labour motion, and I might not even support it. I am merely pointing out that the Tory party told us that the current account would be back in the black, but it is not. We are borrowing almost £80 billion this year. The Tories’ austerity programme has failed.
We need to reduce debt to a prudent level, with the Government of the day specifying what is or is not prudent, depending on the circumstances. A second principle should be that, once debt is reduced, the Government should maintain a balanced budget on average over the medium to long term, not in a way that would prevent them from implementing the steps they believed necessary to achieve their long-term objective, but in order to afford them the flexibility to deal with external shocks over the medium term.
A third principle is that the Government should achieve and maintain a level of net worth that provides a buffer against unforeseen factors. A fourth calls on the Government to manage fiscal risks prudently. A fifth principle is that the Government should pursue policies consistent with a reasonable degree of predictability about the level and stability of tax rates. That is incredibly important, because the tax system, tax rates and tax certainty form a vital component of fiscal stability and fiscal responsibility.
Stewart Hosie
I am sorry; I have given way already, and we are time-limited.
The motion also calls for a programme to get the current account into surplus and to get the national debt falling as a share of GDP as soon as possible. In principle, I agree with that, but my party wants to see an explicit end to austerity because, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) pointed out, people have suffered enough already. That is why we have set out a plan for a modest real-terms increase in departmental spending that would deliver £180 billion of investment in the next Parliament. Our plan would result in the deficit coming down, from 3.4% to 3%, 2.5% and 2.1% of GDP from 2016-17. It is a plan that would see the national debt fall as a share of GDP, albeit on a different, more shallow trajectory. It is a plan that would in the first year, 2016-17, not see £23 billion of extra Tory-Liberal cuts, but £25 billion of investment. We think that is extremely sensible, and it ties in to what the Chief Secretary said about active government and what difference that and the Government’s investment can make.
The motion also calls for
“sensible reductions in public spending”.
Our plan is to see a modest increase in departmental spending. Although I would most certainly accept a sensible reduction in spending on Trident and its replacement—a policy apparently supported by three quarters of Labour candidates—that is not on offer today. Sadly, what Labour appears to have proposed is no more than keeping to the Tory spending cuts, and we simply cannot support that.
I hope that tomorrow, in Scotland, Labour will take a different view, and support a real end to austerity and a real increase in public spending, because we do need to take a different approach. We need to take a different approach to economic management because if we do not, we will have set in concrete a further attack on our welfare budgets. With 22% of our children, 11% of our pensioners and 21% of our working-age adults in Scotland in poverty, launching a further attack on welfare, as this Government are planning to do, is simply wrong. We also need to change the way we manage the economy or we will be faced with a plan, set out in January by this Government, for future discretionary consolidation that changes the ratio of cuts to tax rises from 4:1 to more than 9:1—in effect, trying to balance the books on the backs of the poor. I am sure no Opposition Member would support that.
This motion also talks of the need for
“an economic plan that delivers the sustained rises in living standards needed to boost tax revenues”.
That is sensible, so I hope the Labour party and others would support the Scottish Government’s economic strategy, which was published yesterday. In particular, I hope they would support the Scottish business pledge, which is designed not just to promote economic growth, which is necessary, but to drive fairness and help tackle inequality at the same time. In return for assistance from the Scottish Government, businesses will be required to pay the living wage, commit to an innovation programme, cease using zero-hours contracts, agree to pursue international opportunities, make progress on gender balance, support youth and so on. That is the kind of initiative that should form the bedrock of any genuine long-term economic plan, and it is one that recognises not only that business growth and economic growth are essential to fund and pay for our vital public services, but that squeezing out inequality is an absolute prerequisite for a growing economy in the first place.
I am sure that there will be more of this debate as we move towards the end of this Parliament and into the election. I am disappointed that Labour appears on its last Opposition day to have said that it will stick to the Tory spending cuts. Let us hope that the results after the election ensure that everybody can change their mind.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
It has been a pleasure to speak twice this week under your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. If this is to be my last speech in this Parliament with you in the Chair, may I say that I have had an absolutely great time under your guidance as Deputy Speaker? However, I do hope to come back, and to see you there again and we could have another life of five years together.
Today’s issue is a serious one, but I would like this speech to be in the right vein; it should deal with what this means to those watching our debate today. We are bandying figures about all over the place, but what do they actually mean to people? I can talk only about my experiences over the past five years. I was a newly elected MP and we were going through the Lobby making decisions that we knew were going to affect people’s lives. But we had to take these decisions to get the country on the right track. Over my five years as a first-term MP—after the election I hope to be in a second term, but I do not count my chickens—I have wanted to see what has happened in my community. The first thing I remember talking about was a road in my community. I am glad to say that that road, which took 70 years to build, came to fruition with my guidance and under the coalition Government. Costing £123 million, the road will join up the M6 with the port at Heysham and will increase the prosperity in the area tenfold. For every £1 spent on the road, £10 will be put back into the local economy.
We are considering building a new power station. My constituency already has two nuclear power stations, which account for 2,000 jobs in the area. Thankfully, again under this coalition Government, we have a footprint for a third nuclear power station, which will be completed in the next five to 10 years, creating a further 2,000 new jobs.
Let me turn now to schools. Without wanting to be overtly political, schools that were closed down under the previous Government have reopened under the coalition. In my constituency, a school was closed down and has now reopened. Sadly, another school, Skerton, has closed, but I am fighting to get it reopened as a free school. We can find the money to carry out all this work at a time when austerity is at its worst.
Sea wall defences have been built in my constituency, at a cost of more than £10 million. A mandate went out just before the last general election in which five out of the 10 categories of coastal protection were wiped away. Thankfully, we have put two of them back, and we have saved an area off Sunderland Point.
Mark Garnier
My hon. Friend has talked a great deal about how much money the Government have put into his area. Does he also not recognise that private sector investment, such as the £140 million of private sector investment that will be put into the Wyre Forest in the future—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I have to intervene. I have allowed some leeway here, but I will not let this debate be turned into an election broadcast for all Members who wish to speak. This is about future Government spending. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has set out a bit of a programme, but we are in danger of going around every constituency and hearing what the measures will be. That is not what today is about.
David Morris
I respectfully understand that, but I do agree with my hon. Friend on that particular point.
Under the coalition, we have had to make some very distasteful decisions, but in my area, health is on the up. We had problems in my local hospital which were put to bed yesterday in the Kirkup inquiry. Since 2010, we have had four new hospital wards at the Royal Lancaster infirmary. [Interruption.] Yes, we have had a new health centre costing £25 million in Heysham—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I am trying to be helpful. This debate is about future Government spending. We cannot talk about what has been spent. I have allowed some leeway in that regard. I understand that a general election is coming, but we cannot be so blatant about it. This is about future Government spending. I am sure that the Government want Members to recognise their vision for the future, and that the Opposition want to challenge the Government. I know that that is what everybody wants. If we can stick around that, I will be very grateful.
David Morris
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for indulging me. I got a bit carried away with the good news in my constituency. So, yes, where are we going in the future? The deficit has been halved. As the self-employment ambassador to the Government, I can say that one of the largest sectors in our economy is self-employment. I am sad to see that the Opposition have not recognised the importance of that sector.
David Morris
If the hon. Lady will let me finish, I will gladly give way. Labour’s manifesto, which we have seen on the internet, does not recognise the self-employment sector, as it sees it as a failure in the labour market, which is quite wrong. I say that respectfully to the Opposition. I was self-employed for 30 years, so I know what it is like to survive.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
My hon. Friend has set out very eloquently the investment that we have seen in Lancashire in transport and infrastructure, including the £15 million invested in the rail link between Darwen and Manchester—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman should know better than to tempt fate, as the fate will not be good for either of us. This is about future Government spending. We do not need pats on the back over spending that has already been invested.
David Morris
Once again, thank you for your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The self-employment sector in this country accounts for 760,000 new businesses created since 2010, which shows that the country has an entrepreneurial spirit, with huge advantages for taxation. I hold out an olive branch to the Opposition and ask them to embrace it, purely and simply because it is better for us all, irrespective of political party. I believe that the country is going in the right direction—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you, I really do. Unemployment is moving towards historic low levels and the future is bright. I would like to think that the future is blue, but the electorate will have their say in about eight weeks’ time. I thank the House for the five years for which I have been a Member of Parliament, the Opposition as well as my colleagues, and I thank you, too, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that I shall be returned to carry on the good work for Morecambe and Lunesdale’s constituents.
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
I am somewhat bemused to follow the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris), who seemed to be giving us a public mulling over of his chances of re-election in May. We will leave him to consider that.
We are discussing Government spending and I am sure that Treasury Ministers will have been hard at work this morning trying to find some positive news in the briefing published by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. They will have to keep looking, as the report confirms that working people are worse off now than they were in 2010.
“It’s astonishing actually that seven years later incomes are still no higher than they were pre-recession and indeed for working-age households they're still a bit below where they were pre-recession”.
Those are not my words, but those of the IFS director, Paul Johnson, who has already been quoted today. Mr Johnson might well be astonished that after five years of this Government life for working people in Britain is harder, but I am not. In West Dunbartonshire, we know what a Tory Government means: hardship, job cuts and poverty.
This Government have chosen to pursue an austerity plan that has not worked and that has hurt.
Gemma Doyle
No, I will not, because my constituents want me to make these points, not to give more time to Conservative Members.
The plan has not hurt the people with the broadest shoulders. No, this Government thought that they deserved a tax cut.
Gemma Doyle
I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I will not give him and his broad shoulders any more time.
The Government’s plan has hurt my constituents. It has hurt the poorest, the people who have to count every penny to pay the bills every month. What have the Government achieved? Nothing but pain. The Prime Minister promised that he would balance the books by 2015, but he has failed. Instead, borrowing for 2015-16 is set to be £75 billion and the Government will have borrowed more than £200 billion more than they planned in 2010. Their failure to balance the books is fundamentally linked to their failure to tackle the cost of living crisis in this country. How can we expect public finances to improve when Ministers have trapped families all over the UK in working poverty? Low pay, rising housing costs, disastrous benefit reforms, sky-high unemployment and spiralling energy costs are the marks of this five years in office and they are all driving up the cost of social security and driving down living standards.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Is not future Government spending a question of priorities? This Government introduced the cruel and pernicious bedroom tax; a Labour Government will scrap it.
Gemma Doyle
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would be naive of us to think that the Government were making life harder for everyone. As he points out, that is simply not the case. The rich are getting richer, bankers’ bonuses are buoyant once again and corporations are lining their pockets at the expense of families in the UK. That is absolutely unacceptable, because when big companies do not pay their taxes, the working man and woman have to pay more. It is clear that five more years of the Tories means a continuation of an economy that rewards only the most privileged while piling on the pressure for millions of families. That unbalanced and extreme approach is only going to lead to deeper spending cuts—cuts that my constituents cannot afford to live with.
The Government want us to return to public spending levels last seen in the 1930s, a time before the NHS even existed.
Gemma Doyle
No, I will not.
Labour Members reject this Government’s failing austerity plan for what it is: unbalanced, unfair and unjust. This election is about saving the NHS and it is about opportunities and jobs for our young people. A Labour Government would take a very different approach to balancing the books, including a bankers’ bonus tax to fund jobs for our young people, a mansion tax to fund an extra 1,000 nurses in Scotland and raising taxes so that the richest pay more.
Gemma Doyle
No, I will not give way.
Our spending plans would support working people, boost living standards, protect our NHS and support the next generation. We want people in this country to do well, but we are not afraid of asking those with the broadest shoulders to contribute more. If someone has done well for themselves under this Government, the next Government or any Government, they should pay their fair share.
We need to pull together as a society, not drift further apart. We need to return to being a country that works for people, not against them, and that provides public services that families can rely on when they need them most. Unlike this Government, we are taking the important step of ensuring that we can deliver every promise we make. I know from talking to my constituents on the doorstep that they are fed up with being told one thing before an election only for something different to happen afterwards. There is too much of that in politics and it should stop.
The IFS has praised Labour’s approach to our spending commitments. It is a shame that this Government have not been able to make promises that they plan to keep. Our plans are simple: we will make life better for people by increasing the national minimum wage, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, freezing energy bills, expanding child care and providing a paid job with proper training for young people who are unemployed.
I know from my conversations with people on the doorstep in West Dunbartonshire that they have had enough of the Tory austerity plan. This Government have had five years and they have failed.
Gemma Doyle
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I have some time left.
Stephen Mosley
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. The motion, which I am sure she will be supporting, calls for
“sensible reductions in public spending”.
Will she outline what sensible reductions in public spending Labour is planning for her constituency?
Gemma Doyle
My constituents are among the poorest in this country. The point is not to cut spending for the poorest people in this country; it is to support them. The point is that millionaires do not need a tax cut; I do not know why the hon. Gentleman thinks they do, but I certainly think they do not. We need to support people in this country who are trying to get by.
The hon. Gentleman’s Government have failed. The verdict is in: they have had five years and they have failed. We need a change of Government. The Labour party will do things differently, and I hope we get the chance to show that in May, because my constituents cannot suffer another five years of this.
Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I am afraid this Opposition day debate proves one thing more than anything else: Labour has not changed and it never will.
I am a bit of a political anorak and occasionally I watch re-runs of previous general elections. One of my favourite moments is from the 1983 election when, in the early hours of the morning, Robin Day, with a glass of Scotch in his hand, turned to Arthur Scargill and asked him, “Well, Mr Scargill, what do you think a future Conservative Government will mean for all the voters out there?” Arthur Scargill proceeded to give a bit of a diatribe not dissimilar to the utterances of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) on the Labour Front Bench. He said, “Public services will be smashed and the NHS will be privatised.” I half expected the four horsemen of the apocalypse to turn up at some point and also to see Mr Burns from “The Simpsons” rubbing his hands.
The reality is that everything changes in politics, but nothing does actually change. If my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary wants guidance on where Labour is in the 21st century, he would do well to look at the soothsaying words of Arthur Scargill, because that appears to be the party’s direction of travel.
Mr Anderson
As a matter of historical fact, was Arthur Scargill right that the Conservative Government decimated the public service that was the National Coal Board and the coal industry, putting 200,000 miners on the dole and ending up with this country today importing coal from places such as Ukraine, where 30 men were killed yesterday because of the lousy safety record in that part of the world?
Paul Uppal
The hon. Gentleman’s words prove my point. We need to look forward to the future.
Through 13 years of government and five years of opposition, Labour has not learned from its previous mistakes—mistakes that left us with the biggest deficit in our peacetime history and took this country to the brink of bankruptcy. The Leader of the Opposition has returned to the old Labour argument that cutting spending will work and refuses to accept that the £30 billion of consolidations that we will continue to make are what is needed for the economic health of the country. Labour’s plans to spend more without higher taxes will naturally lead to increased borrowing and an ever-increasing debt burden on future generations. Our children and grandchildren will have to pick up the tab for those plans.
Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who has already been quoted, predicts that Labour rule would mean that the national debt will climb £170 billion higher by the 2020s. The irony is that the Opposition frequently rail against banks and the bankers, but it is their policies that will mean that a higher proportion of our national income flows into banks and bankers’ pockets in debt repayments and interest charges, instead of being spent on public services. Surely the Opposition can see that the only way we can get to grips with Britain’s debt is to tackle the deficit. Thanks to the difficult decisions this Government have made, we are cutting it by half.
Let us not forget that there is some good news out there. Opposition Members seem to forget that. Our economy is growing at the fastest rate in the G7, and the only way to ensure that this continues is the Conservatives’ long-term economic stewardship. Over the past few years nearly 750,000 businesses have been created and unemployment is down by almost 2 million. In my constituency, Wolverhampton South West, unemployment has fallen by more than 1,000 since May 2010, after rising in the previous five years.
There is still much more to do, which is why Britain must stick with our long-term economic plan. Labour still believes fundamentally in more borrowing, more spending and more debt. It does not have a serious, long-term plan to fix Britain’s economy or to reduce our debt. Often when talking about public services we look at what is being put in, rather than the more important point of what is being achieved. Through greater efficiency and a reduction in bureaucracy and waste, we can be smarter with public money. People often say to me on the doorstep, “We want politicians to spend our money the way you would spend the money in your own pocket, your own wallet, your own purse.” We need a long-term approach from a party which has the long-term interests of the economy at its heart.
The NHS provides a good example of how less bureaucracy leads to improved services. We have rightly increased the NHS budget, but at the same time we are using public funds better. The NHS is something to be valued and protected, but we have made tough decisions to improve front-line services. Let us be under no illusion. The only thing that is a long-term threat to the NHS is Labour being in power and running our economy into the ground, because without a strong economy we cannot have good public services. If Labour is not going to borrow more to cover its spending binge, how will it pay for it? I am sure most of the country want an answer to that question.
It is my view, and that of many others, that Labour is planning a post-election corporation tax rise. The BBC has already reported that Labour will pay for some of its spending by not going ahead with our vital 1p cut in the main corporation tax. That is not just a cut in the rate of corporation tax, but simplifies the tax system. I fear that Labour will go further and instead increase corporation tax, taking Britain out of its competitive position. Such a rise would be disastrous for the UK economy and our jobs recovery. We have seen the impact that low taxes have had on the jobs market, and that move would undo the hard work that we have done to ensure that families have a guaranteed monthly pay cheque. Analysis has shown that even a 1p rise would lead to massive job losses, forcing unemployment up and increasing welfare. The Institute of Directors has described it as a
“dangerous move to risk our business-friendly environment in this way”.
The BBC has gone even further and said:
“Labour must realise that you can’t rob Peter to pay Paul.”
Our business-friendly policies have helped the UK become one of the best countries to do business in, increasing employment levels and reducing the deficit. Labour’s plans, or the lack thereof, would wreck that.
I am surprised that Labour has chosen to go down this route on its final Opposition day. It would have done better by apologising for the financial heart attack it inflicted on this country. Thank goodness that the Government have sorted it out. We might think that there are lots of smart people in this Chamber, and there are, but one lesson is absolutely crucial: never take the voters out there for fools or think that they are stupid. They can see the reality of what we have delivered over the past five years.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I am glad that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) finished his speech by saying that this is Labour’s final Opposition day—hopefully it will be the last for a very long time. Is anyone else sick of hearing the term “long-term economic plan”? Government Members are not; they seem to think it is a catchy phrase. What have we had for the past four years? We have had a short-term economic scam.
The Government promised to cut the deficit in four years, but they have completely and utterly failed. They promised not to borrow, but they have borrowed £219 billion more that they said they would—enough to run the health service for two years. They have decimated public services, destroying hundreds of thousands of good-quality jobs done by people who were delivering vital public services to the people we represent. They were working hard, contributing and paying income tax and national insurance contributions.
The Government have hammered every man, woman and child in this country with a 2.5% VAT rise, and the Liberal Democrats supported it, despite saying they would not. The Government have made life desperate for those people who rely on benefits, so those who were already poor have been made poorer. They have penalised people for having the temerity to be in poverty by bringing in things like the poverty tax—I meant the bedroom tax, but actually I was right first time.
The Government have given away successful public assets such as Royal Mail. They privatised the successful side and nationalised the deficit, which was the pensions. Now even the chief executive worries that it will not be able to keep the universal service obligation. This week they privatised East Coast, the best performing railway line in the country, and now they are talking about privatising Eurostar. We all know, despite their promises, that if they are re-elected the NHS will be moving rapidly towards privatisation, whether via a transatlantic trade and investment partnership or some other route.
My council has been hammered. It now has 45% less money than it did four years ago, meaning that every man, woman and child has been robbed of £328. We have lost 1,700 high-quality people who were delivering services to the people of my town. We have lost a fire engine, and another has been lost in a different part of the constituency, and 130 firefighters had to go across Tyne and Wear. The fire chief’s advice is, “I am being forced to make 35% cuts, and if I do that lives will be lost.” Lives will be lost not only in fires, but on the A1 motorway, which goes through my constituency, the third most congested road in Britain, because firefighters will no longer be available to get people out of damaged vehicles.
There really is a long-term economic plan, and we know what it is: to continue making rich people richer—the same as it has always been with the Tories. They will not stop their friends having dodgy tax deals, because they use the dodgy tax funding for their election campaigns. They will not cut taxes for the poor, but they will for the rich—£7 billion of unfunded tax promises.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend, as an avid watcher of politics, will have seen that at last year’s Conservative party conference the Prime Minister and the Chancellor promised £7 billion of unfunded tax cuts. Is he as worried as I am that they would fund those by making more cuts to the public services that our constituents rely on?
Mr Anderson
I rarely disagree with my hon. Friend, but I could never bring myself to watch the Tory party conference. However, I heard what they said, and it is quite clear what they would do: they would have to take £7 billion from somewhere, and it will be the public sector. They are committed to going back to the level that things were at in the 1930s, when people in this country were, quite frankly, living like slaves, working in conditions that were abhorrent and going home to houses that were a disgrace. That is why when my party came into government in 1945 we had a massive house building project. That is why we nationalised the coal industry, the rail industry and the steel industry—the Conservatives had let them run into disrepair for decades and did not care a toss about the people who worked in them and lived in conditions that were worse than we could ever imagine.
The Government have not only failed on those levels—they have also failed to collect money because they have made people go out of wealthier jobs into low-paid jobs where they are not paying income tax or national insurance contributions. They have collected £68 billion less in income tax than they projected and lost £27 billion in national insurance contributions. You couldn’t make it up, Mr Deputy Speaker. We can see where they want to be. They want to take us back to the 1930s, when we had a low-paid, low-skill work force who were frightened to stand up to the boss, made to go to work when they did not want to, and made to work for poverty wages. That is exactly what they want to us to go back to—unless, of course, you are one of their friends who happens to be the chairman of a FTSE 100 company, and who last year, on average, had a £4.27 million salary. That is a lot of money, even for the Conservatives. Perhaps it is not as much as some of them earn, but it is a lot of money. The directors in those firms got a 21% pay rise, on average, while at the same time the Government are denying a pay rise of even a meagre 1% to nurses, firefighters and care workers—the people who keep this country running day in, day out, and contribute more in a day than some of these leeches will do in a lifetime.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. Is it not also a disgrace that young people are being hammered in so many different directions by this Government and have seen an average 7.8% drop in their income over the past five years?
Mr Anderson
It is an absolute disgrace. One of the saddest things of my life is that I might go out of it—I hope a long time from now—and leave behind a generation who are worse off than I was, for the first time ever. We should hang our heads in shame if that is where we end up with the young people of this country, because it is clearly where we are going. During the past week, I have been approached by a young man who was an apprentice, and who became ill and had to come off work. He was not even allowed to get statutory sick pay. That is how disgraceful things are in this day and age.
Oliver Colvile
I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but nobody has mentioned how we are going to create wealth in order to meet some of the costs that we end up having to pay.
Mr Anderson
I am glad that I gave way: thank you very much for being my straight man, Oliver. The Tories will have us believe that prosperity will trickle down. Where is it going to trickle down from? There is no proof of that. In my part of the world, 4,000 people will benefit from the income tax hand-back, but 144,000 have seen their tax credits cut at the same time. Young people and other people in my part of the world have lost £1,160 a year, so they will not be doing very much to create the wealth of this country.
In the programme that we will put forward, we will put small businesses first by lowering their taxes. We will promote a proper industrial strategy for our biggest employers, not just the high-tech firms, and work in partnership with them and the trade unions—I know that is a dirty word for Conservative Members—to create the situation where we increase the national minimum wage to a level it should be at, unlike the Conservatives, who opposed it at every step. We will reverse the cut in the top rate of tax, because that is the right thing to do. We will close the loopholes that have been exploited by the friends and funders of the Conservatives, who take the money off them to run their election campaigns.
We will freeze gas and electricity bills, because we are sick to death of these companies saying “We can’t do any more.” Now they are saying, “Leave us alone, leave us alone.” They have bled this country dry ever since they were privatised in the 1980s. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West complained about what was said in the 1980s, but what was projected then is exactly what happened. Public services were decimated and the people of this country are paying the price every time they pay an electricity bill, a gas bill or a water bill.
We will devolve power to councils and people at lower levels so they can take proper decisions on the front line and at the cutting edge, where they know what is going on in their areas. We will make work pay. We will stop exploitive zero-hours contracts, because nothing in the world will ever convince me that having people on tenterhooks, not knowing whether they will work the next day, is an absolute and utter disgrace. We will increase the minimum wage to £8 an hour. That will boost the pay of more than 76,000 people in my part of the world, which they will be really delighted about.
At the end of the day, we will end this system of despair. People have said, “We had no alternative. We had to do it this way.” They did not have to do it this way; they chose to do it this way—on the back of the most vulnerable in society.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Before I call Mr Stewart Jackson, let me say that there is now a six-minute limit on speeches.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
What a pathetic, facile motion the Opposition have brought forward for their last Opposition day debate during this Government. They could have introduced a proper costed programme. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) has said, they could have apologised for the huge number of errors they made in government. All elections, including the one in 63 days’ time, are about hope versus fear. From them we hear fear and smear, but we have a policy of hope, because we have turned around the economy following the disastrous economic legacy left by the Labour party.
Mr Jackson
Absolutely. In more than two hours, we have not heard anything, except in relation to gun licences and, of course, the recycled bankers’ bonuses.
What a contrast between the Opposition and the Labour party on the cusp of the election on 1 May 1997, when I was a candidate and lost by the not inconsiderable majority of 19,500 in Brent South. No wonder Labour MPs are depressed when they are sober and catatonic when drunk, quite frankly, because they know there is an acute contrast between that historic election and now. The Labour Government led by Tony Blair was ambitious, and their programme was thoughtful, forward looking, positive, generous and optimistic. Tony Blair is now persona non grata in the Labour party, and it now has a core vote strategy, with a mean-spirited, peevish, insular, dreary collection of bungs to special interest groups, and smears and caricatures aimed at the Conservative party.
What is more, Labour policy does not stand up to any form of scrutiny. We have heard about the utilities price freeze—a disastrous policy that has damaged the industry and, perversely, will damage the interests of consumers. Wither Labour’s cost of living crisis? Today, the IFS says that prices are being outstripped by wages for the first time since 2007. There is no more cost of living crisis because wages are growing at 2.1% against a retail prices index of 0.9%. On fuel, council tax, food, beer duty and children’s air passenger duty, the Government have made efforts to reduce the cost of living of ordinary families. We have driven up the personal allowance, and we are committed to drive it up to £12,500 in the next Parliament.
Mr Jackson
No, I will not give way at present.
As we have already heard, the 45p tax rate has raised more income for public services than was ever done by the 50p rate, which was put in place for cynical political reasons. We will not take any lectures from the party that abolished the 10p tax rate for the poorest working families. What sticks in my craw is the moral superiority of the Labour party in this debate. In 2011, 1,200 people in my constituency had been parked on out-of-work benefits—incapacity benefit or invalidity benefit—for more than 10 years during a period of economic growth. Some 5.2 million were parked on out-of-work benefits when the economy was growing quarter by quarter during the 13 years of the Labour Government. We will not take any lectures or moral indignation from the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and other Labour Members.
The top 1% of taxpayers are paying 25% of income taxes. We have driven up employment levels. More women than ever are working. Some 30.9 million people are working, despite the ludicrous prognostications of people such as David Blanchflower, who told us that 5 million people would be unemployed, and the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), who said that we could not cut expenditure and have growth in private sector jobs—complete and utter nonsense. In my constituency, unemployment has gone down by almost 60% and youth unemployment by almost 66%.
Stephen Mosley
Under the last Government, almost 1 million young people were out of work. Through apprenticeships and job opportunities, those people now have opportunities and hope for the future. They are the people who are benefiting from this Government. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mr Jackson
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend has put forward the strong views of his constituents in Chester for the past five years, and I expect him to be handsomely re-elected.
What I find depressing is the pernicious smear and myth that we are going back to the 1930s, when there was no NHS. That is a lie. It is disingenuous to make that point. First, the figures were not even collected until 1956. Secondly, the economy is at least 10 times bigger than it ever was in the 1930s. As I made clear in an earlier intervention, expenditure as a proportion of GDP is more or less the same as it was in 2002—the fifth year of a Labour Government.
I will not dwell on Labour’s record on the economy, other than to say that we had a record decline in manufacturing—that is for the benefit of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson)—we had disastrous school results, youth unemployment doubled, a quarter of all public expenditure was borrowed by the end of Labour’s rule and there was a structural deficit when the economy was growing. While we are at it, inequality grew between 1997 and 2010. The gap between the poorest 10% and the richest 10% grew wider during the time of the Labour Government.
What a contrast that is to what we have done. We have capped benefits, focused on capital investment, driven up the number of apprenticeships, created 760,000 new jobs, increased the state pension and come up with a properly costed plan for our future. I am proud of the work that this Government have done, given the appalling financial inheritance they were encumbered by in May 2010.
Let us have a little humility from Labour Members. The reason they have zero credibility with electors on the deficit and the management of the economy is that they do not believe they did anything wrong. That is normal for a party that won 258 seats, even though if we had got the same number of votes, we would have got fewer than 200 seats because of the boundaries. They think, “One more heave. More spending and more borrowing is absolutely fine.”
However, the election of a Labour Government is an existential threat to the health and prospects of the economy and my constituency, and to the mortgages, jobs, pensions, savings and businesses of my constituents. Higher mortgage rates, higher unemployment, higher prices, more debt and borrowing, punishing middle-class earners, punishing aspiring wealth creators, same old class envy, same old spiteful prejudice, same old economic failure, same old Labour—on 7 May, the British people just won’t risk it.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to say that it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), but he reminded me of a performance by Sir Ian Bowler at a “Stand up for Labour” event at the Labour club in my constituency, which was a caricature of a particularly unpleasant form of Conservatism in this country. I can see now how Ian Bowler was inspired. The hon. Gentleman used ugly language to portray a gross mischaracterisation of the events of recent years.
The hon. Gentleman called for some humility. He might have acknowledged that when the Government came to office, they promised to balance the books and said that we would all be in it together. They have failed on both counts, and people in his Peterborough constituency know that.
“In five years’ time, we will have balanced the books,”
the Prime Minister told the CBI in October 2010. Let us be absolutely clear: that promise has been broken. They have not balanced the books and the next Labour Government are set to inherit a large deficit as a result. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that borrowing in 2015-16 is set to be £75 billion. The Government will be borrowing over £200 billion more than they planned in 2010. It is because of their failure to deliver on debt and tackle the cost of living crisis that we so desperately need a Labour Government.
Despite Tory claims that our economy is fixed—Conservative Members go around the country and we see pictures of the Chancellor in his hard hat doing a lap of honour while the public look on incredulous—wages have stagnated for many workers. Too many of the jobs that are being created are in low-paid insecure work, rather than high-productivity sectors. I have consistently called for action on zero-hours exploitation, and I introduced a private Member’s Bill on the issue. I am pleased that we have made a tiny bit of progress, and I was proud of the role I played in getting the Office for National Statistics to change the way it records figures so that we now have a more accurate reflection of the situation.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The problem of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) is that a lot of us were in the House when the world economic situation deteriorated. He forgot to tell us that the problems started in America. Conservative Members were in their bunkers at the time and talked about doing something about regulation and so on; they never had a policy. Therefore when they talk about honesty in this debate, they should get up and admit that they suddenly discovered there was a problem after they came to power. What happened? People’s wages have been cut by 7%.
Andy Sawford
My hon. Friend is right. Conservative Members were calling for less regulation of banking in this country. Not only did they back Labour’s spending plans right up to the time of the global financial crash, but I remember that in my area they paraded around during the 2005 election calling for more spending and criticising the then Labour Government because we had not built enough hospitals, rebuilt enough schools, created enough Sure Start centres, or put more police on the beat. They had the cheek to call for more public spending in 2005, and now 10 years later they pretend that they were counselling caution at that time when they plainly were not.
The notion that the Labour party—the powerful Labour party that created a global financial crash that hit a Conservative-led Government in Germany and right-wing Governments in France and America—did so because we were investing in schools and hospitals is completely absurd. The public have found the Government out and they will be exposed for it at the election.
Andrew Gwynne
Let me take my hon. Friend back to what he said about low pay and its impact on the economy. Low pay is not just a tragedy for our constituents who are forced to accept low wages; it is a disaster for the economy of Britain. We have seen tax receipts drop by £68 billion, and national insurance contributions by £27.3 billion—money that could be invested in public services.
Andy Sawford
My hon. Friend is right. The effect of low and stagnant pay means that tax receipts have been much lower than expected. The Government have failed on the deficit and the cost of living crisis. Low pay is combining with higher housing costs and the failure to deliver benefit reform to drive down social security costs, which are rising under this Government. The Tory-led Government are set to spend £25 billion more on social security than they planned in 2010. We need action on the issues that our constituents are facing.
In my area it is not just zero-hours exploitation that causes insecurity, and many people are working through agencies. They come off the books of the jobcentre to work for an agency. That work might last days, weeks, or a few months if they are lucky, and sometimes they get exploited working year in, year out through an agency without holiday pay or proper terms and conditions—desperately insecure employment. Although a few agencies follow the law, when HMRC investigated agencies in my constituency they found more than 70 breaches of the law, and £120,000 owing to local workers in non-payment of the minimum wage. People were being made to pay to get their own pay through payroll companies, or they had to pay illegally for their own protective equipment. That is the real world that many people face in my constituency and across the country.
Andy Sawford
I have no more time. The Prime Minister said that he would name and shame those companies. A year ago he made me that promise at the Dispatch Box during Prime Minister’s questions, in front of the whole House and the country. It was on the front page of my local paper, but a year on he still has not named and shamed those local companies. The people in my area do not know which of these agencies is most likely to rip them off.
What about the second part of the Government’s promise: that we are all in this together? They promised us that they would not balance the budget on the back of the poor. They cut the 50p rate to 45p, handing a £3 billion tax cut to the richest 1%. They handed people earning £1 million a tax cut of more than £42,000 a year, while cutting council tax support for war widows and the disabled. They imposed the deeply unfair bedroom tax, which has had the direct result of driving many people into the queues at the food banks in my constituency and across the country. I want to thank Hope church for its brilliant work, which I try to support. The people of Corby have been brilliant. The food bank ran out of stocks recently. We put out an appeal and within 24 hours it was full again. However, people in this country, one of the wealthiest countries in the world, should not have to rely on food banks. That is Tory Britain.
Since 2010, there have been 24 Tory tax rises. Ordinary families are paying £450 a year more in VAT. Figures from the IFS show that households will on average be more than £1,000 a year worse off by the time of the next general election. This is the first Government to lower living standards during their time in office. It gets worse: because of their failure and their dogma—the Tory party tried to stop the NHS being created in the first place—they are now planning to take us back to a time before the NHS existed, to a 1930s level of spending.
At the coming election, there will be a very stark choice. Under Tory plans, the state will shrink from 41% now to 35% by the end of the next Parliament. That is the lowest level since 1939, before the NHS existed and when children left school at the age of 14. That is the equivalent of cutting every penny we spend on schools, half the budget of our NHS, and more than all the Departments’ capital budgets added together, including what we spend on investment in schools, hospitals, roads, railways, housing, science and flood defences.
People in my constituency know that I have been fighting very hard to try to stop cuts to the local fire service and to keep Sure Start centres open. The children’s centre in Raunds has just closed. Our police stations are threatened: the front desk at Oundle has just closed and Corby police station is threatened with closure. We have had cuts to our ambulance services. Last week, the captain of Corby Town football club broke his leg in two places and dislocated his ankle. An ambulance was called at 8.10 pm. It came at 11.10 pm.
That is what has happened in the first five years of a Tory Government. People know what will happen in the next five years of a Tory Government. Our NHS will be completely decimated, as our social care services have been in this Parliament. People in my constituency and across the country cannot afford five more years of this rotten Tory Government.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
First, may I thank the Opposition very much indeed for securing this debate? This is one of the most important issues that we need to discuss between now and 7 May. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury team on controlling public expenditure and making progress on reducing the deficit. I do that not only as a Member of Parliament but principally as a taxpayer. I do not particularly want to see my mortgages go up because we have a Labour Government.
I first raised this issue during the 2001 general election campaign, the first of the three times that I have fought my Plymouth seat. At a meeting of the Plymouth chamber of commerce, I pointed out to then Labour MP that the then Chancellor’s Red Book clearly stipulated that the Government would be creating a structural budget deficit. My predecessor looked somewhat blankly at me and did not appear to be familiar with the Treasury’s Red Book. At the 2005 election when I talked about this again, she seemed to have become a little more familiar with the Red Book. I was told that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) always got his sums right and that I was just scaremongering. Well, I just have to ask one question: “Oh, really?”
I would like to pay tribute to Warwick Lightfoot, a very good friend of mine and a former special adviser at the Treasury. He has provided me with the intelligence and ammunition in the past 15 years to deal with these issues. Soon after my election in 2010, with his help, I submitted a paper on my thoughts about the strategic defence and security review. I made it quite clear that while I recognised the need to control the public expenditure envelope, I named my spending priorities as defence and long-term care for the elderly. Representing a naval garrison city, I have in the past five years consistently called on the Government to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence. This could be achieved by taking the renewal of the nuclear deterrent out of the defence budget and returning it to the Treasury.
I am grateful that the seven Type 23 frigates that the previous Labour Government had proposed to send to Portsmouth have been returned to Plymouth, and I am delighted that HMS Protector has been sent from Portsmouth to Devonport. It is good to have another ship there.
Adam Afriyie
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for his constituents and has won some great concessions on their behalf in his time here. Does he share my concern—in a way, it is a sadness—that Labour does not seem to have learned anything in the past four or five years? It calls for more spending regardless of whether there is a budget surplus or deficit. If it continued spending as it would like, this country would be back on its knees in the blink of an eye.
Oliver Colvile
My hon. Friend talks the truth about the importance of our controlling public expenditure.
Over the past five years, I have worked closely with Plymouth university’s Ian Sherriff on long-term care for the elderly and combating dementia, which is something I know my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister takes very seriously. For those in our mid-50s and facing old age, the worry is that we will get dementia, so I pay tribute to the Government for implementing the vast majority of the Dilnot report. We have much further to go, but it is a start. Unfortunately, the previous Labour Government did not do much about implementing their royal commission.
Another incredibly important issue in my constituency is the rebalancing of Plymouth’s low-waged, low-skilled economy. More than 38% of people working in the city are employed by the public sector, and when I was first elected, people believed that Plymouth would be badly hit by, and vulnerable to, the cuts to public expenditure, and there was the threat of the claimant count in the city going through the roof, but I am delighted to say that under this Government the count has fallen by 42%.
The city council has criticised me for voting to control public expenditure, claiming that the Government have not invested in the south-west, but it fails to recognise that they have given Plymouth and the peninsula a city deal that, in return for £10 million, will create 10,000 new jobs. It fails to acknowledge that releasing land in South Yard will deliver a marine industry campus and create 1,200 new jobs—this would be helped significantly by an enterprise zone in South Yard as well. It fails to acknowledge that they have given us the Mayflower 2020 commemorations, which will boost the local tourist industry, and the council has disregarded the £2.6 billion investment in our dockyard, which will safeguard 4,000 new jobs, and dismissed the dualling of the A303 after the next election.
The biggest threat to my city over the next few weeks would be the return of a Labour Government, because, unfortunately, a Labour Government would never think about Plymouth—they would be much more interested in looking after Scotland at Plymouth’s expense. Following the 1997 election, when Tony Blair won his landslide, Labour had only four seats in the whole of Devon and Cornwall, meaning they did not invest in transport or skills there. I fear that Labour would put this investment into Scotland at our expense and would not deliver on Mayflower 400.
We need a stronger Navy. We need to put pressure on the Government for more funds to fix our potholes, in addition to the £9.6 million the council has been given over the past five years, and we need to restore our maritime built heritage, particularly Devonport’s north corner pontoon and sea wall. If we want to ensure that Drake’s drum does not sound, we need the Prime Minister back in No. 10 and a Conservative Chancellor making the right decisions.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I am reducing the time limit to five minutes.
Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
In 2010, the Conservative leader, then in opposition, promised he would be able to “balance the books” by 2015—in other words, during the term of this Parliament that is coming to an end. He failed to do so. Borrowing for 2015-16 is now set for £75 billion. It is clear that the Conservative-led Government have borrowed more than £200 billion more than was planned in 2010. The books have not been balanced, yet there has been a great deal of borrowing. Where has that money gone? I can say where it has not gone. Not much of it has gone on spending in constituencies such as mine.
The Government’s failing austerity plan risks reducing the role of the state to a size not seen since the 1930s, as we have seen. Nowhere is this more evident than in my Preston constituency and certain other parts of Lancashire. The commitment to spending cuts is beginning to show in the quality of local health care. The number of elective operations cancelled in Lancashire has gone up by an average of 12%. Still on health care, I am particularly concerned about the decline in the North West ambulance service response times for both red 1 and red 2 emergency responses. According to the most recent data in 2014, response times within the standard eight minutes were down by 3.5%, while red 2 emergency response times were down by 5%. Those are just two examples of how the health service in my constituency has been degraded and how public services have been degraded generally—despite the extra borrowing undertaken by the Government.
The spending cuts have drastically affected front-line policing in Lancashire. Since 2010, the number of new police officers in the north-west has fallen by 28%. Since 2010, too, 291 police officers have been cut from front-line policing roles in Lancashire, accounting for 10% of the whole of the Lancashire police force. The cut in Government spending on front-line policing in Lancashire has had a direct impact on local crime. Since 2013, drug crimes have risen in Preston, and domestic burglaries have gone up by an average of nearly 6% over the last five years. Offences involving knives and other sharp objects in 2013 rose, on the most recently available statistics, by 8.4%. Hate crimes and disability hate crimes are at an all-time high in Lancashire.
We have seen cuts in child care, too. The number of early-years child care providers in Lancashire has declined by nearly 4.5% since 2012. On housing, there are currently 3,394 households on the waiting list for social housing in Preston—3,394 too many. What we are now seeing is a clear manifestation of what we call the working poor. We used to define people as poor if they were out of work and struggling. Now, however, we see the working poor paying regular visits to Preston’s food banks.
The unemployment figures might be falling, but the real picture is very different. Low pay is endemic, and there is wage stagnation. The Conservatives said that if we introduced the minimum wage, it would cost a million jobs. As we know, the introduction of the minimum wage created lots of jobs. We are seeing more zero-hours contracts, at the same time as we are seeing what I take to be sanctions placed on people—not necessarily because they are not looking for work, but because the Department for Work and Pensions has an unofficial and devolved policy of targeting sanctions on people by various officers and offices. On the “Dispatches” programme on Channel 4 the other night, we saw people dying as a result of these sanctions. Agency workers are contributing to the problem, and people are either being forced to go self-employed or forced off the register altogether.
Some 1,200 properties in Preston have to pay the bedroom tax, while we have seen cuts in local government spending and cuts in health service provision, as I said. For the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) to say that there is no cost of living crisis is incredible, when year after year since 2007 inflation has run ahead of wages. Now, because there has been a small upturn, he tries to pretend that it has never been any different. The Government are a disgrace; the quicker we can get rid of them, the better. Bring on 7 May!
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
At the heart of the motion is the idea that the Government’s economic policy is failing. It raises a scenario of a country going back to the 1930s—a country without the NHS and with mass unemployment. It was indeed a dark time, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said. I simply do not recognise that scenario, however—either for my own constituency or for the country more broadly. The motion raises the spectre of no NHS. That is absolute nonsense. The NHS budget has risen by £12.7 billion during this Parliament.
Mark Hendrick
The budget may have risen, but the delivery of front-line services, and of services more generally, has been overshadowed by the top-down reorganisation which the Government, when in opposition, said would not happen. That is where much of the money has gone. It has not been spent on the delivery of services.
Andrew Jones
I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. The restructuring of the NHS has saved money, and we have more doctors and nurses as a result. Indeed, Members on both sides of the House have backed the NHS’s “Five Year Forward View”. To suggest that we are not investing in health in our country is simply mistaken. The Opposition’s suggestion that the NHS is somehow under enormous pressure is scaring people, because we all rely on the NHS.
Is our plan failing? No, it is not. The evidence simply is not there. Our economic growth is faster than that of any other developed economy, but the best evidence that the plan is succeeding is what that growth means to people, and that is the level of work. Unemployment has been falling, and a huge number of jobs are being created: 1.85 million have been created during this Parliament. In my constituency, the figures are extremely positive. At the start of this Parliament, there were 13,084 unemployed people; now there are 529. That pattern is mirrored throughout the country, and it means that more people are able to provide for themselves and their families.
The motion suggests that the economic plan is unfair. It is not. There is nothing fair about saddling future generations with debt. Of course dealing with a huge recession is a challenge. We all know that people have been under enormous pressure which has been compounded by food price and fuel inflation, although that it is passing. However, the key Government tax policy has been an enormous help. The huge increases in the personal allowance have benefited about 25 million people, and in my constituency about 4,500 people have been taken out of tax altogether. Both the Treasury and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have confirmed that the richest are making the largest contribution to reducing our deficit, as they should. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary referred to that earlier.
How does the Government’s plan compare with others? If we are failing here, how are other countries doing? I think that they are looking at our progress with some envy. The international response from the OECD, and the national response from business groups, is that the plan is working. The head of the OECD has said that Britain “needs to stick with” its long-term economic plan.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an alternative to the Government’s long-term economic plan, namely the Labour party’s proposals, which would take this country in the direction of Greece?
Andrew Jones
I entirely agree. There is indeed an alternative, and that alternative is pretty stark. The choice to be made at the next election will be one of the most important that we have faced for a generation.
I am sure that, when the motion was drafted, the Opposition did not realise that the IFS would publish a report today highlighting the fact that average incomes have returned to pre-crisis levels. I recognise that the position is not the same for different groups in our community, and that much more needs to be done. I know that we all want to see living standards rise. I am strongly in favour of the living wage, and was pleased when it was adopted by Harrogate borough council. However, the motion is nonsense. Claims that we are heading back to the 1930s are ridiculous.
Yes, an incoming Conservative Government would see public spending fall as a percentage of our economy, from about 40% now to 35.2% at the end of the next Parliament. That is very similar to the 35.9% that we saw in 2000, and in real terms, when we allow for inflation, the level is the same as it was in 2002. However, we will then be living within our means, and the sooner we reach the point at which we are living within our means, the better it will be for our country.
Austerity has not choked jobs and growth, as the shadow Chancellor predicted. It has been a key ingredient in the progress that we have made. That is why we must continue our drive to balance the books, create the most favourable possible environment for the wealth creators in business, and not pretend that the job is done or that there is an easy way to make progress.
Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It has been a pleasure to listen to the whole of this debate and to make a contribution at this stage. It has been a revealing debate, showing the paucity of the Government and the Conservatives’ argument for re-election. It comes down to this: “We have nearly doubled the debt, we have completely broken our promise on the deficit, we have stripped growth out of the economy for the first three years, we have been the worst Government for 140 years on wages and living standards—now go on, vote for us and give us a second term.” That is it: no positive policies; no vision of how the economy can be different; no vision of how to get more people involved in work, in decent, good paying jobs; no vision of high skill, high investment, high exports. No; instead, we have just had negativity and fear and I suspect that that is what will do for this Government on 7 May.
Mark Hendrick
My hon. Friend omitted to mention the fact that voters will, on average, be £1,600 per person worse off than they were at the last general election. What sort of Government can present a spectacle of people being worse off by that amount and still expect to get re-elected?
Mr Bain
Indeed, and as the Institute for Fiscal Studies said this morning, this has been the slowest recovery in living standards in history. I do not think any reasonable Government would expect to be re-elected with that kind of record, and those are the facts.
What was extraordinary about the debate was the way in which the Government, having twice moved the goalposts on their deficit target, again tried to pull this extraordinary trick over the eyes of the country today. As I said in an intervention, the “Charter for Budget Responsibility”, which this House endorsed in January, made no reference to balancing the current Budget by 2017-18. It talked about a rolling five-year forecast, yet it was used today by the Financial Secretary, who is no longer in his place, to refer to a bogus sum saying that £30 billion in cuts were implied by that charter. That type of approach shows that the view of the Conservative party and this Government is, “This is as good as it gets”, and that we should have no ambition for our country of higher growth, higher skills and higher investment than that which they have been able to provide. My constituents and Opposition Members reject that completely.
Let us look at what the International Monetary Fund is saying on growth. It says that next year growth will fall compared with this year and that it will still be falling the year after. Is that really as good as it gets for Britain in this early stage of the 21st century? The next Government should follow policies that see us have higher growth, higher wages and higher skills.
It was also revealing in this debate that the Minister could not say whether he supported the Office for Budget Responsibility evaluating the fiscal plans of any other party, and small wonder because the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the one organisation that has evaluated the plans and looked at the difference between the Conservative spending plans and those that would be followed by Labour, has said that there will be more growth, more jobs, and faster rises in wages under Labour’s spending plans than under those of the Tories. So there it is: confirmation that if we want to have ambition for our country, a fairer society, better public spending and better living standards and outcomes for our constituents, seeing an end to this Government is absolutely critical.
We also need in this debate a recognition that the way the Government have tried to reduce the deficit in this Parliament has brought exceptional hardship to our constituents. Anyone who has held the hand of a disabled person, as I have, having to pay the wicked, pernicious bedroom tax, with tears in her eyes, wondering how any decent Government could ever inflict that on any of its citizens, knows that the course the country has been on for the past five years is wrong and needs to change. Anyone who has seen, as I have in my surgery, people on low incomes with family members suffering sanctions imposed through targets from the Department for Work and Pensions knows that we are a better country than that and the next Government can do better for all of its people and produce much more fairness.
It is key that we get more people into work, abolish long-term unemployment among our young people and those over the age of 25, and ensure that we have an economy with more productivity leading to rises in wages and higher living standards for all. We need an economy that is based more on exports and investment than on the racking up of public and private debt that this Government have presided over.
I believe that there is a better way, and that the people of this country will vote for it on 7 May. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) talked about fear. As we approach this critical general election, we should remember the words of Franklin Roosevelt in his inauguration speech of 1932. He said:
“The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”
I do not believe that the British people will be fearful on 7 May. I believe that they will be purposeful in voting out this Government, in voting for change and in voting for a Labour Government.
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to wind up the debate today and to speak in favour of our Opposition motion. This gives me a chance to describe in plain terms the gulf between this Government’s spending plans and the approach that will be taken by a future Labour Government. It also gives me the opportunity to make it crystal clear that we reject the failed austerity plans that were set out in the Government’s autumn statement.
The Minister and the Chancellor were patting themselves on the back in the media this morning, congratulating themselves on their success. That just shows how out of touch the Government are. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) said earlier, the Chancellor told the “Today” programme this morning:
“We’ve got on top of our debts and deficits.”
My hon. Friend made it quite clear that they have not. As he and many other Labour Members made clear, this Government have failed on their own terms. In 2010, the Chancellor said that he would balance the current budget by 2014-15, but in the first nine months of this financial year, the gap was £74 billion. The Chancellor has had five years, and he has failed. We cannot afford to give him another five. That point has been made time and again this afternoon.
Let us look at some more evidence. As I have said, the Government have missed their current budget target by £74 billion. In addition, the social security bill is £25 billion more than planned, and tax credits have risen, subsidising the low-wage economy. The number of working people receiving housing benefit is up two thirds, and tax receipts are much lower than expected. The Government have failed on the deficit, on the debt and on living standards.
Some Conservative Members seemed rather excited about today’s Institute for Fiscal Studies report, but if we look at it in more detail, we can see what it actually says. It states that people are worse off today than they were in 2010. As we have heard this afternoon, the real problem is that more people are scraping by, from day to day and week to week, in poorly paid jobs or on exploitative zero-hours contracts. A number of Members have described what it is like for their constituents who have to wait for a text message on a Monday morning to tell them whether they will have any paid work that week. That is no way for them to live their lives. It does not enable them to have any sort of quality of life or to balance their household budget. There is nothing in that for the Government to be proud of.
A number of Members have eloquently argued that at the heart of the Government’s failure is their ideological obsession with shrinking the state. That seems to be their true aim, superseding all else. From what we have heard from the Government this afternoon, it is clear that they will continue to keep chipping away at that, even as the ground crumbles beneath us.
We have heard some powerful and passionate speeches from Labour Members this afternoon. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), for Corby (Andy Sawford), for Preston (Mark Hendrick) and for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain), all of whom are powerful champions for their constituents. My hon. Friends were speaking up for the people who have suffered under this Government, laying out in clear terms what the impact has been on families right across the UK and talking about their experiences of dealing with the zero-hours contracts, the low pay, being on agency work, and the impact of cuts on local government, which has affected and in some cases decimated local services. They spoke about the sense they got from their constituents that living standards simply have not improved for them; any recovery has not yet reached the kitchen table of our constituents.
My hon. Friends spoke this afternoon about the need to do more to tackle tax avoidance. They spoke about the inequities of the Government’s lack of action to tackle the tax dodgers while imposing the hated bedroom tax. Labour Members made it very clear that our constituents cannot face another five years of Tory Government and that we need a change. As for the consequences of five more years of the Tories, they are still intent on doing more damage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East reminded us in his opening speech, and as hon. Members said at various points in the debate, five more years would take us back to a spending level as a percentage of national income that was last seen in the 1930s, before there was an NHS, when kids left school at 14 and when life expectancy was 60.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has been much quoted by Government Members this afternoon, that would necessitate undeliverable and nigh unthinkable cuts of more than £50 billion. It would, as the IFS said, represent:
“Spending cuts on a colossal scale”—
which would leave—
“the role and shape of the state… changed beyond recognition.”
So let us make no mistake: this is not about fixing the economy; it is about remodelling the role of the state This Government’s plans will do real and lasting damage in the long term, wreaking havoc in public services, decimating our skills and infrastructure, and undermining our competitiveness.—[Interruption.] I hear Government Members shouting, “Rubbish”, but they clearly have not listened to the testimonies of Opposition Members, who so eloquently, passionately and powerfully laid out the impact of this Government’s policies and actions on their constituents.
Cathy Jamieson
I am not going to give way because the hon. Gentleman had his opportunity earlier, and I wish to make a few more points about what has been said this afternoon.
The true scale and nature of that impact cannot be quantified, because the Government will not set out where their billions of social security cuts will fall, so we have to look at past performance as our guide. Those reliant on tax credits to make ends meet will be justly wary of another five years of the Tories; because of their tax and benefit changes, a typical household is £891 worse off this year. This Government’s right-wing, doctrinaire approach to the deficit has already done untold damage. Their trickle-down philosophy has been exposed for the sham that it is, and their true aim, as it ever was, is to pulverise the state and to protect the wealthy.
Labour has a better plan. As last year’s IFS green budget made abundantly clear, there is a huge gulf between this Government’s approach and that outlined by Labour. Our approach is not punitive; it is a common-sense approach. It is balanced and proportionate. We acknowledge and accept the need to close the deficit and reduce the debt as soon as possible in the next Parliament, and we are committed to achieving that, but we will do it fairly. That is because we think the wealthiest should shoulder the greatest burden. So we will reverse the £3 billion tax cut for those earning over £150,000, to increase tax revenues and help reduce the deficit fairly; we will introduce a mansion tax on homes worth more than £2 million and crack down on tax avoidance, investing the proceeds in our NHS; and we will tax bank bonuses to create jobs for young people and the long-term unemployed, increase the minimum wage and incentivise payment of the living wage. All our spending commitments will be fully funded. We will deal with the deficit and the debt, but we will not place our public services in jeopardy. Our plan will secure the rising living standards, higher wages and sustainable growth that are needed to fix the economy fairly in a way that benefits everyone, not just a few at the top.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said at the outset, the stakes could not be higher, and the choice could not be starker. There is a massive gulf between this Government’s spending plans and those outlined by Labour. The Tories' austerity agenda has failed. The choice at the election is between five more years of Tory failure, wage stagnation and decimation of the state, or Labour's progressive and balanced plan for the economy that is sustainable in the long term and better for current and future generations.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
How dare Opposition Members indulge in the sort of scaremongering that we have heard this afternoon! I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) would like to celebrate the fact that youth unemployment in her constituency has gone down by 43% since 2010 and that overall, unemployment has gone down by 31% over the same period.
Andrea Leadsom
I will not give way to the hon. Lady as she did not give way to my hon. Friends.
Furthermore, does the hon. Lady agree that Labour’s motion today is false? She said that the cuts we have made take us back to the 1930s. In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that
“by 2019-20, day-to-day spending on public services would be at its lowest level since 2002-03 in real terms.”
And that was when the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) was in the Government. Does she want to celebrate any of those points with me?
Cathy Jamieson
I thank the Minister for eventually giving way. Although I celebrate young people and the long-term unemployed finding work in my constituency, I hope that she will recognise that for many of them, it is zero-hours contracts, low-paid work, and jobs that are not in their chosen careers. They want more from a future Labour Government and they will get it.
Andrea Leadsom
I am sure that there is no need for me to give way to the hon. Lady again so that she can congratulate us on the fact that, on average, 75% of those new jobs are full-time employment. There are some other facts that Opposition Members might like to celebrate. I am talking about the fact that the UK was the fastest growing major economy in 2014; that more than 760,000 private sector businesses have been created over the past four years; and that employment is up by 1.85 million since the last general election—that is 1.85 million more people with the security of bringing home a regular pay packet. She might like to celebrate the fact that wages are rising significantly faster than inflation, and that total pay was up 2.1% in the three months to 2014.
The hon. Lady might like to hear the views of international commentators. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, said:
“The sweet spot you want is low, stable predictable inflation. You’re going to get that”—
in 2015. Is the hon. Lady interested in the view of President Obama? He said:
“I would note that Great Britain and the United States are two economies that are standing out at a time when a lot of other countries are having problems. So we must be doing something right.”
Perhaps she would like to hear the views of Christine Lagarde who runs the IMF. She says:
“A few countries, only a few, are driving growth.”
The hon. Lady needs to listen to this. Christine Lagarde is talking about America and the UK. She goes on to say:
“And the UK, where clearly growth is improving, the deficit has been reduced, and where the unemployment is going down…Certainly from a global perspective this is exactly the sort of result that we would like to see.”
There is a word of warning from the OECD. It says:
“Well done so far, Chancellor. But finish the job. Britain has a long term economic plan, but it needs to stick with it.”
That is vital and it is what we intend to do.
Let me turn now to some of the very interesting comments made by colleagues across the House. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) gave an excellent talk about the reality of our determination to sort out Labour’s mess. My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) told us why the Government have been so good for his constituency and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) spoke about the importance of competition for economic growth. It is absolutely vital.
My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) contrasted Labour now with Labour in 1997, when the party at least had a vision. He also talked about Labour’s spiteful prejudice against success, and that is right, Mr Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) pointed out the vital need to invest in infrastructure in his constituency and his fears that Labour would prioritise Scottish over English interests. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) pointed out the nonsense of Labour’s motion and the need to ensure that we in this generation do not leave our debts to our children and our grandchildren.
Let me point out to Opposition Members what the IFS recently said about Labour: higher Government borrowing acts to support household incomes in the short run, but the resulting higher levels of Government debt mean that a greater proportion of public spending must be allocated to financing debt interest payments in the long run and potentially leave the UK more vulnerable to large negative shocks in future. Simply borrowing more is just not an option.
The hon. Members for Corby (Andy Sawford) and for Preston (Mark Hendrick) both accused this Government of having done nothing for the NHS, but perhaps they would like to celebrate with me the fact that the health budget has increased in real terms every year during this Parliament, that total health spending has increased by £12.7 billion during this Parliament and that on top of that in the autumn statement the Chancellor announced an additional £2 billion for front-line NHS services in England in 2015-16. The vital point about the NHS is that we cannot have a strong NHS without a strong economy.
Since today we have had a very interesting living standards report from the IFS, I want to give hon. Members some other things to celebrate. The IFS has assessed that average household incomes are now restored to around pre-crisis levels. That is something to celebrate. Wages are up 4.1% in real terms for those in continuous employment. That is fantastic. Inflation is at 0.3%, helping family budgets to stretch further. Let us look at inequality, which is lower than when this Government came to power with, as the IFS has said, pensioner poverty at near record low levels. That is vital in our economy. This Government support fairness and have also ensured, as the IFS has today confirmed, that the richest households have paid the most, with
“larger proportional falls in income for higher-income households.”
That is absolutely vital. Inequality has fallen and the biggest burden has been borne by those with the broadest shoulders.
It is vital that members of the public who have to choose very soon who they want to run the Government for the next five years know that they have the choice between a Government who have been determined to ensure fairness and an Opposition who are completely incoherent and whose lack of facts and plans lead them simply to resort to scaremongering in the hope they can persuade people to accept a non-coherent plan from their Front-Benchers. This Government believe in a fairer society and a fairer society is created by helping the weak get stronger, not by making the strong weaker. We can only have a fair society on the back of a healthy, well-functioning economy and we can only have a healthy, well-functioning economy on the back of sustainable public finances.
The Government’s long-term economic plan is making public finances sustainable for the first time in a great many years. It is delivering economic growth and as the IFS confirmed today it is raising the standards of living across the country. That is vital. We are finally on the right track and now would be the worst time to change direction. Let us keep going, let us finish the job and let us give the people of this country the fair, strong, healthy and vibrant economy that they deserve.
Question put.
Business without Debate
Mr Speaker
The Clerk at the Table is looking around anxiously. He is generously suggesting to me that I might suggest that, with the leave of the House, we take motions 6 to 15 together. [Interruption.] I hear a helpful “Hear, hear” from one well-disposed hon. Member. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his helpful sedentary chunter.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Environmental Protection
That the draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.
Proceeds of Crime
That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigations: Code of Practice) (England and Wales) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.
That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (England and Wales) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.
That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) (England and Wales and Scotland) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 17 December 2014, be approved.
That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors: Code of Practice) (England and Wales) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 21 January, be approved.
Police
That the draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.
Representation of the People
That the draft Representation of the People (Ballot Paper) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 13 January, be approved.
That the draft Representation of the People (Combination of Polls) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.
Financial Services and Markets
That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Banking Reform) (Pensions) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 21 January, be approved.
Pensions
That the draft Occupational Pensions Schemes (Charges and Governance) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.—(John Penrose.)
Question agreed to.
Business of the House
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 10 March, the provisions of Standing Orders No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents) and No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motions in the name of Secretary Theresa May relating to the draft Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Authority to Carry Scheme) Regulations 2015, the draft Authority to Carry Scheme (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015, the draft Passenger, Crew and Service Information (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015, the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers and Review Officers) Order 2015 and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Code of Practice for Officers exercising functions under Schedule 1) Regulations 2015 and the Motion in the name of Secretary Patrick McLoughlin relating to the draft Aviation Security Act 1982 (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015; the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of those Motions not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first of those Motions; and proceedings on those Motions may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption.—(John Penrose.)
Petitions
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
This petition is on behalf of 1,109 residents of the village of Middleton St George in my constituency who are concerned about the unsustainable housing developments potentially taking place in the village.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the Sedgefield constituency,
Declares that the Petitioners object to the over-development of the village of Middleton St George and further declares that the Petitioners believe that the current planning applications are not sustainable and will have a catastrophic impact on the infrastructure of the village.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reassess the planning applications for the development of Middleton St George.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001443]
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the Alyn and Deeside constituency,
Declares that Morquio syndrome (also known as MPS IV) is a rare genetic disease; further that Elosulfase, a drug to treat the syndrome, has recently been approved by the European Medicines Agency following positive results in the final stages of clinical trials; further that the drug (in the form of weekly enzyme replacement treatment) improves sufferers’ energy levels and stamina and therefore increases their independence, further that the effects of the drug are hugely beneficial not only to the individuals who have Morquio syndrome but also to their families; further that funding for the newly licensed enzyme replacement therapy to treat Morquio syndrome is unlikely to be approved due to cost saving; and further that the Petitioners believe that the consequences of patients, including children, such as Gracie in Buckley, not receiving this drug are unbearable.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Health to ensure that individuals who have Morquio syndrome are given free access at home to enzyme replacement therapy for the treatment of the syndrome.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001444]
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to present this petition asking the House to urge the Government to examine the feasibility of extending the Tyne and Wear metro to Washington and bringing the Leamside railway back into use. The petitioners and I believe that doing so would boost jobs and growth in Washington and, indeed, the wider region. The petition is along the same lines as the one that I submitted in May 2014. As of today, this new petition on my website has been signed by a further 1,736 people. The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Petitioners believe that the extension of the Tyne and Wear Metro to Washington is a vital, yet missing, part of the region’s transport system, and further that such an extension would make a significant contribution to the economic development of the town.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Transport to seriously explore the feasibility of extending the Tyne and Wear Metro to the town of Washington, utilising the old Leamside railway line.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.
[P001445]
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition opposing the closure of the Seven Stars pub in Sedgley. It is a popular, profitable and well run pub at the heart of community life, but Morrisons want to buy it from Marston’s to turn it into a supermarket. Led by Jon Hurst, Neil and Kate Shorthouse, Sid and Joy Bills, Zoe Huddlestone and Donna Bremner, residents have established a brilliant campaign. It has already succeeded in getting the pub listed as an asset of community value, and it has gathered the names of more than 2,500 local people who do not wish it to close. We want the Government to consider the petition, and bring forward stronger measures to ensure that planning law and other regulations offer such community pubs more protection.
The petition states:
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Marston’s PLC to reconsider the closure of the Seven Stars public house, Gospel End Road, Sedgley.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The Petition of residents of the Dudley North constituency,
Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the proposal to close the Seven Stars public house on Gospel End Road in Sedgley and are opposed to the retail development plans for the site.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Marston’s PLC to reconsider the closure of the Seven Stars public house, Gospel End Road, Sedgley.
And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001446]
Financial Services Industry
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (UKIP)
I am grateful to the Minister for taking part in this debate, following the previous long and onerous one.
This issue is desperately important: the need for more competition in financial services is urgent. Choice and competition are always and everywhere a good thing. They drive up standards, force innovation and always manage to give customers better value. In many areas of our lives, we take choice and competition for granted—we assume that they happen naturally—but I simply do not think that there is enough choice and competition when it comes to financial services. In fact, financial services in this country have in many respects become something of a cartel, in which the different provider interests do not have any incentive to give the customer what they want, or to innovate and do better.
Historically, there has been a great loss of diversity in the financial industry in this country. We have a handful of banks in the UK today, but my researcher tells me that there are 417 savings banks in Germany. There has been a steady process of centralisation over the past few generations. Within living memory, cities such as Leeds and Norwich were financial centres in their own right; today, London predominates. We used to have many more types of governance structure in banks and financial institutions, with many more credit unions, partnership banks, friendly societies and old-style building societies. Banking is now dominated by big corporate plcs, which is a model that detaches management from ownership. Today, 77% of the current account market is dominated by the big four banks.
It is interesting to ask whether that is a natural process that has happened because of market-driven consolidation. I think it is a consequence of a regulatory system that has created and enforced homogeneity not just of providers but of products. It is has led to a system in which compliance is elevated above the need for customer service. I cannot help noticing that growth in many financial institutions and businesses has happened through acquisition, rather than through increasing the number of happy customers.
It is worth asking whether regulation has proved to be a barrier to entry in financial services. We commonly hear the complaint that people with money to invest are looking for a way to save it with a good rate of interest, and at the same time it is often said that businesses complain that they cannot get credit. In a normal market, the former would be put together with the latter and those who want to lend at a competitive rate of return would lend to those who want to borrow. Might it be that something about the regulatory system in this country is preventing that from happening?
The old Financial Services Authority issued some 6,000 pages of regulation between its inception and the financial crash. It is fair to say that the new regulators are carrying on with the blizzard of regulations. There are thousands of pages of compliance. Ultimately, I suspect that that is an attempt to restrain the worst excesses of some aspects of fractional reserve banking and to mitigate risk by decree or fiat. I wonder whether one consequence of that regulation is that it prevents us having new competitors, a broader spectrum of products and a broader range of providers.
It is no surprise that Metro bank, which I believe is the first new high street bank to open in this country in a generation, is so customer focused. We need to do far more to ensure that there are more banking start-ups. I will go on to elaborate on what I mean by that. We need to do more to ensure that regulation encourages banking innovation. We must allow the changes that the internet will bring about in banking to happen and ensure that regulation does not inhibit those natural, organic changes.
I am full of praise for the Minister’s magnificent idea in her former incarnation about allowing greater portability of bank accounts. I strongly support that. It is a wonderful scheme. I would love to hear a bit more about it. To put it a different way, since 2008, the percentage of personal current account holders who switch banks has grown. I would love to hear the Minister talk about ways in which we can encourage that. I am not certain what the correct percentage ought to be in a properly competitive market, but I imagine that it would be a good deal more than the current 3%. In any properly competitive market, there ought to be quite a high level of customer turnover. Should it be closer to 5% or 10%? I would love to hear the answer.
I would also love to hear whether the Minister has any sympathy with the idea that the regulatory system needs to encourage more banks to enter the market. The Prudential Regulation Authority has responsibility for that, but is it making it easier for start-ups—the equivalents of Metro bank and Handelsbanken—to come into the market? Are we making sure that capital requirements, although important, do not inhibit change?
On a slightly different note, I would love to hear whether we could review the regulatory system not only to allow new banks, but to allow new kinds of banking. We are all familiar with the idea that we can use our mobile phones to pay for things. That would have seemed like science fiction or magic 20 years ago and perhaps even 10 years ago. Similarly, might we not be able to have banking without banks—without those costly institutions that require big buildings and big bonuses? Might it not be possible to have banking through a company like O2, Google or Facebook? Those organisations have a huge customer base and know a great deal about their customers. Could we have a regulatory system that would allow a Google, a Facebook or an O2 to get a banking licence if they wanted to? It is key that if a company like that wants to acquire a banking licence, we make sure it is able to do so.
I fear that the regulatory system we have is very good at preventing new competition. That is one reason why the existing players tend to have such a close, symbiotic relationship with the regulator. There tends to be a revolving door between the regulator and the big corporate banks. I fear that corporate gigantism is a product of corporatist regulation. The regulatory system that we have is very prescriptive and detailed. It talks not simply about the outcome, but about the process that needs to be followed. I am not sure that that is a good way of regulating financial services. We must bear it in mind that Northern Rock was a highly regulated institution. The model in this country encourages financial institutions to create large compliance departments and to acquire armies of compliance officers, but those people often fail to ask the most basic questions about reserve ratios.
In financial services there is an inevitable correlation between risk and reward, and rather like the laws of gravity, if we try to create a regulatory system that defies the correlation between risk and reward, ultimately it will become unstuck. The basis for the investment industry is that correlation between risk and reward, yet I fear—particularly in the fund management industry—that some regulators try in effect to stipulate the investment mix, which has a big impact on that correlation between risk and reward.
The Building Societies Association and the Association of Financial Mutuals have made sensible suggestions about various aspects of our regulation, and interestingly they seem to recognise that our regulatory system prevents competition—it favours big corporate plcs and established players, and it does not help the mutual funds. They have come up with proposals to remove restrictive barriers to raising capital from mutuals, to change the regulation system that favours big corporate plcs, and to encourage market diversity. I would love to hear whether the Minister has sympathy with those ideas, and if so what we could try to change. The Competition and Markets Authority sounds like a wonderful idea—it is a wonderful name: who could be against it? It investigates cases where competition rules have been breached, and rightly so. Might it be, however, that Government regulation and Government fiat is doing more to restrict competition than any of the providers?
At various times in recent years there have been instances of alleged mis-selling in the financial sector, and people have been sold products on the basis of misinformation or facts that they regarded as misinformation. A constituent of mine was recently involved in the interest rate swap mis-selling scandal. That is not the first incident, and I fear it will not be the last. Every time there is an incident of mis-selling in the financial industry in this country, we ask about changing the rules and regulations, and rightly so, but we should not lose sight of the fact that the best regulator ought to be choice and competition. Happy customers ought to ensure that mis-selling does not happen, and behaviour that leads to mis-selling will be much less likely in a market focused on customer satisfaction, rather than simply compliance. We should not ask, “Are we able to do this?”, but “Does the customer want us to do this?”
I am afraid it is impossible for us to consider competition in the financial industry without considering the EU dimension—it is a sad reflection of how hollowed out our democracy has become that Ministers can really only reiterate the EU’s position on many of these issues. A couple of weeks ago Lord Hill issued a Green Paper on the capital markets union—another incident of further integration—and the Juncker Commission is pushing for standardisation in European capital markets. On the face of it, the aim is noble and it is a good ambition to remove the systemic risk in European capital markets. However, I fear that it has led to an alphabet soup of regulation in the form of the European system of financial supervision, and to unintended consequences. I will therefore touch on three rules that I think introduce such unintended consequences.
The first is the solvency II directive, which was enacted in January this year and regulates insurance companies across the EU. It is important for the House to understand that the insurance model ought to be an inherently stable model in the financial industry. It is no coincidence that during the financial crisis insurance companies tended to be pretty stable, which is because they tend to have a steady flow of income from premiums. Solvency II has the effect of imposing capital requirements on insurance firms, which would favour investment in sovereign bonds over corporate debt. I fear that would mean that there was less capital for companies—less choice, less competition and more homogenous products in the EU.
The second directive having unintended consequences is the markets and financial instruments directive II. Again, it aims to reduce risk, but as so often when one tries to remove the correlation between risk and reward through fiat, all sorts of unintended consequences are created. I fear that this will hinder the allocation of capital in markets in Europe. It will hinder the innovation in financial products.
The name of the alternative investment fund managers directive implies that left to their own devices there would be alternatives. I think the directive would inhibit the development of alternatives: the development of choice and competition in the financial markets. It would make it more likely that there would be homogeneity in the marketplace. I would be interested to hear if the Minister thinks that EU rules will help or hinder the development of competition in UK financial markets.
In conclusion, in most aspects of our lives we take choice and competition for granted. We take it for granted when we go shopping, when we buy groceries and shop around for holidays and entertainment. It is that choice and competition that I think makes life better, that improves standards and makes the world today so much better than it was a generation ago. We need to extend choice and competition into the financial markets too, and into financial services. Ever since the financial crisis, free market popular capitalism has been given a bad name. Free market capitalism needs to be given a good name again.
One key to doing that is to recognise that sometimes in financial services in this country there has been a cartel. One does not have to be Russell Brand or a leftist to recognise that there is a cartel in the financial services industry. We need to respond to that by breaking open the cartel, by allowing choice and competition and, in doing so, giving free market capitalism, the honest market and the financial services sector in this country a good name again.
I am sure the Minister agrees with me on this and I will be fascinated to hear what she thinks we need to do to ensure that we have proper choice and proper competition in our financial services industry once again.
Mr Speaker
Order. That would be the normal course of events. It is possible for another hon. Member to speak if there is time to do so, but ordinarily that is on the understanding that the Member concerned has the agreement of the sponsoring Member and of the Minister. I am not sure whether the Minister’s agreement has been sought. If the Minister were content for the hon. Gentleman to speak, I think he would intend to do so extremely briefly. Is the Minister content?
Mr Speaker
The Minister is an accommodating Minister, and therefore a suitable expression of gratitude I know will be forthcoming from the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood, Mr Mark Reckless.
Mark Reckless
Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I first clarify whether the time limit of half an hour or 7.30 pm applies? It is not entirely clear from the Order Paper.
Mr Speaker
The answer is very straightforward: until 7.30 pm. That is the factual position, but the norm in these circumstances is for agreement to contribute to have been achieved in advance. In this instance, in which the Minister is graciously agreeing to accommodate the hon. Gentleman—and it is a case of graciously agreeing—luck should not be pushed. I am always happy to hear the hon. Gentleman in an orderly way. On that basis, we will now hear his thoughts briefly.
Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (UKIP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have no intention of speaking at any great length or keeping the Minister from her dinner or from her very important duties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) talked about competition and breaking up a cosy cartel in banking. I have heard him use similar language about our political system. I think there is some commonality between what we see in banking and what we see in politics. I would like to add to his remarks on solvency II. As well as the risk of starving corporate sectors of credit they might otherwise receive, I have a concern that if there is a regulatory push to force insurers to hold Government bonds, particularly when they are required to hold those only within the eurozone for certain purposes, that actually may increase risk relative to holding diversified global corporate bonds.
I want to make three brief points. First, the barriers to entry in financial services, particularly banking, so often stem from regulation—in banking, there are minimum requirements in terms of assets, time and other things—and I credit the Minister, the Treasury and our regulators with reducing them in recent years. Will she give an assessment of how that has worked? Have we managed to relax the requirements without problems developing, and might it be possible to relax them further?
Secondly, the extent of competition in banking seems often to be the product of the state of the monetary cycle, whether globally or in a particular country. In the late 1980s, we saw what happened with the Japanese banks that kindly built Eurotunnel for us but made enormous losses in doing so. In the 2000s, we saw the explosion of credit, and particularly in this country, from 2001, we saw what happened in the inter-bank credit market and across Europe. In some ways, there were positives to that—for example, greater cross-border competition between banks in Europe—but it was driven by over-optimism about the eurozone and the state of monetary policy. Since we have retreated from that position, if anything the euro appears to have driven banks back to national markets, and it is the individual sovereign—the taxpayer—who has been required to bail out the banks, which I fear has reduced the competition we were otherwise seeing from that source.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend spoke about the limits and restrictions on the current account market. I am also concerned about the small and medium-sized enterprise market. A constituency case concerning the potential mis-selling of interest rate swaps and a company called Port Medway Marina has taught me that a small business can become so entangled with a bank that, when it gets into a dispute with the bank, even if over only one aspect of their relationship, it can be difficult to disentangle from the bank and move to another one. That is a limit on competition that I fear banks too often exploit. If the Minister could say something about that, I would be very grateful. I concur with my hon. Friend’s comments about her record in the Treasury.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrea Leadsom)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) on securing this debate. I agree with him and the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) that competition and choice are the bedrocks of a free market economy—something that the Government have sought to promote at every opportunity, and nowhere more so than in the financial services sector. Increasing competition means customers have more choice about how they bank and who they bank with, and it means that banks have to work harder to provide the best possible products and services.
More competition will also help to ensure that the industry evolves in a way that meets customers’ wants and needs—and, indeed, predicts them—and supports and harnesses innovation in financial services. It drives home the point that banks work for their customers, and not the other way round. Perhaps if that point had been driven home a little more often in the past, we would not have had some of the mis-selling scandals that have plagued the industry over the past decade. I agree that competition is a key factor in improving behaviour and tackling wrong-doing.
Choice and competition are important across the spectrum of financial services, be it banking, insurance or asset management, and the Government have placed competition and choice at the heart of all our policies relating to financial services, but I want to focus today on competition in personal current accounts and SME banking. The hon. Members will be aware of the Competition and Markets Authority’s investigation into competition in these markets and that the Government wholeheartedly welcome this investigation. We set up the CMA precisely to take action to improve competition where required.
I want to take this opportunity to make clear the Government’s commitment to increasing competition in the market for personal current accounts and SME banking, as in all areas of financial services. We must never again get into a situation where the banks do not seem to be accountable to the people they exist to serve. When we entered office in 2010, at the height of the financial crisis, we inherited a banking system that was broken. It all too easily let the big high street banks consolidate their stranglehold on the market and was far too relaxed about taxpayers picking up the bill when those same banks needed bailing out. There was not enough diversity and innovation, and there was certainly not enough competition. Ultimately, the customer, the taxpayer, lost out.
By making it a key part of the Government’s long-term economic plan to drive far more competition in banking, we have sought to rebuild the UK banking sector and to ensure that customers get a better deal. I have often used a phrase I coined myself—that competition should trump regulation. I genuinely mean that in the sense that regulation can go so far in ensuring that banks that were previously too big to fail are less likely to fail in future, but the real disinfectant is competition. That is what keeps banks honest, keeps them on their toes, keeps them lying awake at night wondering what is happening to their customers.
So what have this Government done? First and very importantly, we have sought to empower customers, shifting the balance of power away from the bank and towards the customer. By driving the delivery of the seven-day switching service, we have made it easier for customers and businesses to switch banks quickly and reliably. That means that they are more able to hold their banks to account and, if necessary, to vote with their feet.
The hon. Member for Clacton asked what switching levels should be. At the moment, it is still true to say that one is more likely to divorce twice than to change one’s bank account, which is an extraordinary fact. I have done neither—neither divorced nor moved my bank account, so I suppose I am a statistic waiting to happen—and, hopefully, I will move my bank account! Switching levels should clearly be significantly higher than that. I hope that will happen through the measures we are taking, and there is already evidence that switching levels have increased.
Very excitingly from April this year—both UKIP Members will be delighted to hear this—the Government’s “midata initiative” will enable customers to review how they use their personal current accounts, and they will receive for the first time a detailed comparison of which bank is best for them. They will be able to download a year’s worth of transactions, upload to a comparison website and see which bank would have been better to use, bearing the transaction flow in mind. It is vital to be able to differentiate between one bank and another bank.
As the hon. Member for Clacton said, I have taken a keen personal interest in an idea that could bring even greater benefit to customers by going further and introducing full account number portability. This is a potential game-changer, and I continue to explore the benefits it could bring and the different ways it could be implemented.
As the House will be aware, I wrote to the chief executives of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Payment Systems Regulator to ask them to consider these issues as part of their review into the effectiveness of the seven-day current account switch service. I look forward to hearing the outcomes of their review in the very near future—within the next week or so—and the PSR will no doubt be keen to take these conclusions on as part of its work on strategy setting in the payments industry, once it formally opens for business on 1 April.
This Government have introduced legislation to enable banks and building societies to introduce “cheque imaging”, which will speed up cheque clearing times in the UK. Again, that is customer-focused and customer-friendly action, so that people will in future be able to photograph a cheque and send it to the bank using a smartphone rather than having to take it into a branch. We saw the introduction in 2014 of mobile payment applications such as Paym, which allows customers to transfer money quickly, easily and securely, using only their mobile phone number as identification. That is the first thing—putting the customer at the heart of innovation.
Secondly and very importantly, we have strengthened the regulatory regime and put competition at its heart. We have created two new stronger regulators—the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulatory Authority—each with statutory objectives to promote greater competition; and we have legislated for the new Payment Systems Regulator to make sure that payment systems will operate in future in the best interests of customers and on fair terms for new challenger banks.
Thirdly, we have made it easier for new players to enter the market and compete with incumbents. That means not just challenger banks, but alternative finance providers. We have pressed the regulators to make it quicker and less expensive for potential new banks to get authorised. About 20 banks are currently going through the new mobilisation process, and several of them hope to enter the banking market within a year. That is big news.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, Metro bank's full banking licence, which was granted in 2010, was the first to be granted in the United Kingdom for more than 100 years. That is extraordinary, but under the present Government five brand-new banking licences have already been granted, and there will be many more. We are seeing old and new brand names, such as TSB, Virgin, Metro and Aldermore, and Atom is on the way. Each of those banks has a different customer offering, which is very important for competition purposes. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, there may be others—not just traditional banks as we know them, but the likes of Google, Apple and other tech firms.
We have supported and promoted the expansion of the credit union movement, and have helped mutuals to raise new capital for their own expansions. We have supported the growth of peer-to-peer lending by allowing such loans to be included in individual savings accounts, and by channelling investment from the British Business Bank towards peer-to-peer lending. Those are small but important and fast-growing markets. We have supported equity crowdfunding by, for example, offering tax incentives to investors who take the risk of investing in smaller companies through the enterprise investment scheme. We are legislating to open up access to credit data to challenger banks, and requiring the big banks to pass on the details of small and medium-sized enterprises whose loan applications they reject to alternative, willing finance providers. That will help to level the playing field between established banks and alternative providers, and will make it easier for SMEs to secure finance.
We have also have done something on which neither the hon. Member for Clacton nor the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood focused particularly, but which is very important. We have opened the door to innovation in banking and financial services to help to make the UK the global centre for FinTech, which is a vital and fast-growing part of the financial services sector. We are already seeing the start of a sea change in the way in which people access and manage their money. It is now possible to send money overseas at the touch of a button, and much more cheaply than before. It is possible to lend directly to small businesses in the local community online, and it will be possible to clear a cheque by sending an online image to the bank.
However, that is just the start. The Blackett review, which was set up by the Government, will look into where FinTech will lead us over the next decade, and how the United Kingdom can reap the maximum rewards. We have already started to position ourselves. In August last year, the Chancellor announced an additional £100 million of British Business Bank funding to support FinTech and a major programme of work on digital currencies. And we have now concluded a call for evidence on how to deliver an open standard for application programming interfaces in UK banking. That will enable FinTech firms, challenger banks and alternative finance providers to use bank data, on behalf of customers, in a variety of helpful and innovative ways.
The hon. Member for Clacton raised the question of whether European Union rules helped or hindered effective competition. The one thing that I can say specifically is that the capital markets union initiative stands to benefit United Kingdom financial services enormously by opening new markets and making access to finance for small businesses in our economy far easier. We are engaging with that initiative within the EU as hard and as fast as we can in order to guarantee real benefits throughout the EU, but particularly for British businesses and British competition.
The Government have done much to increase competition, but there is more to be done. I shall read the Blackett review of FinTech and await the outcome of the investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority with great interest.
I thank the hon. Member for Clacton again for securing this important debate. I hope that it has given him some confidence that the Government are doing all that they can to facilitate better competition and choice in financial services.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Redress and closure of a probate claim
Westminster Hall
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Affordable Housing
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
When the Government introduced the hated bedroom tax, the headline in the Nottingham Post was, “Nowhere to go”. It was spot on, of course. Thanks to the Government’s dismal record on affordable housing, thousands of people are being forced out of their homes or into poverty by the cruel and ill conceived bedroom tax, and millions of people cannot buy the homes they want, or find decent-quality affordable or social homes at all. I do not claim that the shortage of high-quality affordable housing started in 2010, but the Government’s policies have made the situation worse, not better.
Let me begin by setting out how the Government got it so wrong. Their first decision on taking office was to cut the affordable housing budget by 60%, leading to a collapse in affordable house building, and they consistently watered down affordable housing requirements on developers. The Prime Minister rushed out the latest proposals this week in a desperate bid to appeal to first-time buyers, but as Gavin Smart, interim chief executive of the Chartered Institute of Housing, said, the Tory plan
“smacks of building for one group of people at the expense of another.”
As usual with the Government, those on lower incomes are set to lose out, but that should not be a surprise. In London, where the housing crisis is at its most severe, the Mayor has, in his London plan, banned Labour councils from insisting on building genuine social homes through section 106 agreements, against the guidance of the planning inspector but with the approval of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Even developers have warned of the dangers of weakening the affordable homes requirements; the Westminster Property Association described the idea as “deeply flawed”.
My constituency was one of the first hit by the Government’s cuts, when a £200 million redevelopment of the Meadows, one of the most deprived neighbourhoods in the country, was scrapped. Nottingham city council had been working closely with local residents for three years to devise the plans to transform their estate by demolishing unsuitable and unpopular properties and replacing them with new homes to meet existing and future need, including extra care homes for elderly tenants. The then Minister, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), promised to visit the area to see for himself the issues left unaddressed, but that was just another broken promise.
If the Government are allowed to continue, we could sadly see the demise of genuinely affordable social housing. Their affordable rent model is anything but affordable to families on low incomes, and it is pushing up housing benefit bills in the long term. The number of affordable homes provided last year fell to its lowest level in nine years, and was 26% below the 2009-10 level. The number of homes built for social rent is at its lowest level for at least 20 years, and is falling.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this is primarily driven not by finance but by ideology? Leaving social tenants in insecure properties, raising their rents, failing to invest in properties and failing to accommodate people on the basis of need—all that comes from policies, many of them dreamed up by the previous council in Hammersmith and Fulham. Is that not a deplorable way to treat people in housing need in the 21st century?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is right. The Government seem to have no interest in the idea of social homes.
Crisis noted that in England last year, just 7,458 affordable and social rented homes were completed, compared with 9,026 in the previous year. Let us judge the Government by their own standards. In 2010, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield, then Housing Minister, told the Communities and Local Government Committee that building more homes than Labour
“is the gold standard upon which we shall be judged.”
Given that the Government have presided over the lowest levels of house building in peacetime since the 1920s, I suggest that they will be found wanting. House building in every year under this Government has been lower than in any year under Labour. There were 118,000 home completions last year; we are building fewer than half the homes needed to keep pace with demand.
Affordable housing is not just an issue for tenants, although I will return to the issues faced by those renting their home later. Many of my constituents want to own their own home, but if they think that the Tory party will help them to achieve their dreams, they will be sorely disappointed. Home ownership is at its lowest level for 30 years, and there are now 205,000 fewer home owners than there were at the previous election. To put it another way, in 2009-10, 67.4% of households owned their own home, compared with 63.3% now. For the first time, home ownership in the UK is below the European Union average for the pre-accession 15 countries. The number of people with a mortgage has declined, and is now lower, for the first time in more than 30 years, than the number of households living mortgage-free. Rising house prices and the requirement for larger deposits, in combination with low wages and insecure employment, is pushing home ownership out of the reach of many people. The National Housing Federation’s report, “Broken Market, Broken Dreams”, shows that with the average house price in England having risen to more than £250,000, the average first-time buyer needs to find a deposit of £30,000—almost 10 times as much as was needed by those buying a house in the early 1980s, or when I bought my first house in Nottingham 21 years ago.
Two thirds of first-time buyers rely on financial help from their parents, a figure that has doubled in the past five years. It is easy to see the disproportionate impact on those from poorer families. In the past, they may have been able to get on the housing ladder; now, they could be locked out of home ownership for ever. For the sake of the next generation, we need to tackle the housing crisis, and the Government’s plans are simply not up to the task. Their schemes have not helped anywhere near the number they claimed they would. The Prime Minister claimed that New Buy would help 100,000 on to the property ladder, but it has actually helped less than 6% of that target.
It is questionable whether a one-size-fits-all approach is appropriate. Local housing market conditions and local demographics are important factors, and there is huge variation between and within regions. In Nottingham, average house price are well below the national median, although so are wages, and we do not suffer the problems found in London and the south-east, where there are large numbers of buy-to-let, or buy-to-leave-empty, investors.
Help to Buy has not been taken up in large numbers because those on middle incomes have alternatives, so it is those on lower incomes who are still missing out. In contrast, right to buy has increased significantly since the higher discounts were introduced in April 2012. It benefits those who are able to participate, but makes life even more difficult for those struggling to find somewhere to live. Ministers promised at the time that the additional homes sold would be replaced one for one, but that simply has not happened.
Across the country, more than 26,000 social homes have been sold in the past three years, but according to the Department’s own figures, only 2,298 homes were started by councils between April 2012 and September 2014. This month’s Inside Housing reveals that the Department’s original claim of 4,795 had to be revised down after it was challenged by the Chartered Institute of Housing. Even the most recent figures from December take the number of starts only to a total of 2,712. A further 3,285 homes were sold between October and December, up 15% on the previous quarter. The problem is getting worse, not better.
With their route to home ownership blocked, more and more people are living with their parents into their 20s and 30s, and only 36% of 25 to 34-year-olds now own their own home. With the social housing stock being depleted, it is no surprise that the proportion of young people renting in the private sector has risen to 48%. Overall, a record 11 million people—one in five of the population—are now living in the private rented sector. That is an increase of 2.5 million since 2010, and it includes 1.5 million families with children.
Rents rose across England by an average of 8% last year, according to the English housing survey. That has not only had an impact on household incomes, although rising rents are undoubtedly contributing to the cost of living crisis for many families. It goes to the heart of the Government’s failure to reduce the housing benefit bill, as more people—particularly working people—are forced to rely on state support to rent in the private sector.
Although rents in Nottingham have not risen as rapidly as in other parts of the country, there has nevertheless been a dramatic increase in the cost of subsidising private sector rents. In 2009-10, local housing allowance payments totalled £22.5 million. By 2013-14, that figure had risen to £41.6 million—a staggering 85% rise. More people are using the private rented sector, and they need financial help to do so.
Of course, for many people in our city, the private rented sector is not a positive choice. With more than 10,000 households on the waiting list for social housing, the private rented sector is simply the only option available. Nottingham still has a larger-than-average social housing stock, and possibly as a consequence, a larger proportion of the population want to live in a council or housing association home. However, demand outstrips supply. The problem is particularly acute in some parts of the city, such as Clifton, where there is a high demand for social housing and a large number of social homes have been lost as a result of tenants exercising their right to buy.
For families with children, the lack of long-term certainty about their housing is a particular worry. For working parents who have settled their children into local schools, built up support networks and got child care arrangements in place, six-month tenancies and the possibility of significant rent rises do not offer the stability and certainty that they need.
The difficulties have been exacerbated by the bedroom tax, which affects more than 3,000 households living in Nottingham’s council-owned social housing and hundreds more in housing association homes. The policy penalises poorer households, who are forced to cut back on essential items to pay their rent, go into debt or build up arrears that put the future of their tenancy at risk. Some, who genuinely have rooms to spare, would be prepared to downsize to escape this iniquitous measure, but there simply are not the homes to move into, with an acute shortage of smaller properties in some areas, particularly two-bedroom houses.
As the Post predicted, some people are left with nowhere to go. According to “The homelessness monitor”—independent research commissioned by Crisis and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—the combination of a lack of affordable homes, the recession and cuts to social security has led to substantial rises in homelessness in recent years. Department for Communities and Local Government statistics show that in 2014, over 111,000 people in England made an application to their council to state that they were homeless—an increase of 26% in four years—and “The homelessness monitor” found that the true figure was even higher than the statutory figures indicate. Rough sleeping has become noticeably worse, rising 55% in the last four years and by 79% in London.
Once people are homeless, the lack of affordable homes is keeping them trapped. It is increasingly difficult to access hostel accommodation, because there is a lack of affordable rented properties for current occupants to move into. Even for those tenants who choose to live in private rented housing—for many students in Nottingham, that is the case—there are real concerns about quality and suitability. Student unions at the university of Nottingham, Nottingham Trent university and New College Nottingham recently published their “Notts Student Manifesto 2015”. In it, they identified student housing among their top-four priorities,
“with rogue landlords and poor conditions a threat to wellbeing.”
Problems highlighted range from a failure to meet basic safety standards to poor maintenance and issues relating to personal safety and security. International students reported particular concerns.
Of course, positive initiatives in the sector have been put in place since 1997; I particularly highlight action to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. Statutory homelessness fell by 70% under Labour, from 135,000 in 2003-04 to 40,000 in 2009-10. We also took action to improve housing standards. Having inherited a £19 billion repairs backlog, we brought 1.5 million social homes up to a decent standard through the decent homes programme, including by fitting over 700,000 new kitchens, 525,000 new bathrooms and over 1 million new central heating systems at a cost of £33 billion.
Locally, Nottingham’s arm’s length management organisation, Nottingham City Homes, is celebrating its 10th year, and I am proud that tenants are more satisfied than ever with the quality of their home, value for money and the repairs and maintenance service. Over the last decade, the proportion of non-decent council homes in Nottingham has fallen from 44% to around 2.6%, and with work still being carried out to improve the stock—more than 26,000 homes—that figure could be close to zero within weeks.
I have spoken before in the House about the difference that the decent homes work has made to the lives of the people I represent, and I pay particular tribute to the tenants and leaseholders who, in 2010, took their campaign to the front door of Downing street to secure continued funding for that vital work, which has improved the health and well-being of thousands of families in our city.
Nottingham City Homes and Nottingham city council have also led the way in improving the energy efficiency of homes in our city. Again, I have spoken many times about the greener housing scheme; despite the Government’s energy policy changes, which threaten to wreck our plans, that scheme has already delivered solid-wall insulation to thousands of families in Nottingham across all tenures, cutting fuel bills, providing warm and comfortable homes for residents and improving the appearance of our estates.
I am delighted that Nottingham city council and Nottingham City Homes are building new homes and replacing some of the less popular and difficult-to-maintain stock, as the shadow Minister has seen for herself. Some 166 homes have already been completed, and there are plans for a further 327. Small disused sites, such as derelict garages, have provided opportunities for redevelopment, and some of these homes, including five on Eddleston drive in Clifton, were built using NCH’s own labour force, boosting local employment and providing apprenticeships. Housing associations, including Nottingham Community Housing Association, asra Housing Group and Derwent Living, have also built new houses, mainly on sites provided by the council, but we could do so much more if we had a Labour Government with a real plan to tackle the housing crisis. That is the choice that voters can make in 64 days’ time.
Labour has endorsed the comprehensive plan set out by Sir Michael Lyons’ housing review, the first of its kind in a generation. It sets out how we will meet our commitment to build 200,000 homes a year by 2020, and sets a course for doubling the number of first-time buyers by 2025.
We will give local authorities the powers and resources to build the homes that their communities need, ensuring that all councils produce a plan for home building in their area and allocate sufficient land for development to meet the needs of local people. We will provide powers for groups of local authorities to collaborate and form Olympic-style new homes corporations to build on designated land at pace. We will implement measures to drive competition in the house building industry, increase capacity and expand the number of small firms. We will introduce a help-to-build scheme to underwrite loans to small builders to get them building again and fast-track planning on small sites. We will set out Treasury guarantees and financial incentives to unlock sustainable garden city development, and we will give local areas real powers to deliver garden cities through garden city development corporations, based on updated new towns legislation.
Labour councils are already building twice as many affordable homes as Tory-run authorities. A Labour Government will make housing a bigger priority for capital investment in the next Parliament.
Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)
I am sure that the hon. Lady will be aware, through her connection with Nottinghamshire, that the Conservative-controlled Newark and Sherwood district council has built a number of properties in Ollerton and Edwinstowe. In fact, on Friday, I will cut the ribbon in Bilsthorpe on some new properties that have been developed through Newark and Sherwood Homes.
Lilian Greenwood
I welcome any new developments of that sort, but things could be so much better. We will make better use of existing resources through a move to single-pot funding, and by refocusing public expenditure on house building over time, going from benefits to bricks. We will make fuller use of provision for Government guarantees, including for social housing, and encourage more innovative use of public land. We will also introduce a stronger definition of affordable housing in the planning system and tougher rules for assessing the viability on housing developments. We will reverse the Government’s changes, which have watered down affordable homes obligations.
We will also introduce a fairer deal for private renters. We will give tenants in the private rented sector security and peace of mind by legislating for three-year tenancies, giving them a stable home and landlords the confidence to invest. We will end excessive rent increases and ban rip-off letting agent fees for tenants. We will drive up standards by introducing a national register of landlords, and make it easier for local authorities to introduce licensing schemes. We will bring an end to cold homes by setting a new target to upgrade the energy efficiency of properties in the private rented sector, and, of course, we will scrap the hated bedroom tax. With just 64 days to go, those vital changes to our broken housing market cannot come soon enough.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an adviser to Essential Living.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing the debate. Ensuring that people can afford to live in a decent home is one of the top issues for many of our constituents, and rightly so. Despite the suggestion that all the evils in housing started in May 2010, the reality is that our housing markets have been dysfunctional for more than 25 years, so we have built far too few homes, rents and prices have risen, and thus we have this issue of affordability. That means that when the current Government came to power in 2010, they inherited a real mess. For my money, the classic illustration of that is the loss of some 420,000 affordable homes under the last Labour Administration.
Since 2010, good progress has been made, so during this Parliament we should see the fall in the number of affordable homes reversed and an increase of some 170,000. Just as importantly—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will want to refer to this—the Government are now seeking to accelerate the increase in the number of affordable homes so that in just a three-year period we should see 165,000 additional affordable homes being built. That would, I think, represent the fastest rate of building in this sector for 25 years.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is rightly focusing on the idea of affordability. Can he help us by giving his definition of affordability? Does he agree with the Mayor of London’s definition of affordability, which is that 80% of market rent is affordable, or does he agree with me that that is simply nonsense?
Mr Prisk
It actually relates to the ratio depending on where someone lives and what their wages are. One problem for our constituents is that we talk about affordable housing with a capital A—the Affordable Housing programme—but most of them think about it with a small a, in terms of mortgage costs or rents, so we need to be very careful not to get caught in artificial terminology.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said about building thousands more homes, including this week’s announcements on starter homes. That builds on a programme that I was able to start, the Help to Buy equity loan scheme, which has helped some 77,000 people. However, much more can be done, and I would like to make three suggestions. I suspect that colleagues will want to consider issues such as section 106 and planning gain, which I think is an area ripe for improvement and reform, but let me touch now on three other things.
First, we will get a sustained increase in the number of affordable homes built only if we focus on delivering a long-term framework for investment. When I took on the role of Minister for Housing in 2012, housing associations rightly complained to me that the rental and capital policies of Governments of all political persuasions had always been short term. They might be for two years, or there might be an understanding of what the policy framework would be for three years, but housing associations argued that a long-term approach was needed if development was to increase and then be sustained. That is why I pushed for and, I am pleased to say, secured both a 10-year rental policy and long-term housing guarantees from the Treasury to underpin the investment. That means that rental policy is now set all the way through to 2025, and that gives the housing associations and their lenders the confidence to build more and for longer.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech. I completely agree with the point that he has just made, and wonder whether he could extend the same logic to councils. As a result of our self-financing initiative, councils can now start to look forward and build more homes. Does he agree that we need to give them long-term opportunities to borrow more money, perhaps by lifting some of the caps placed on them, so that they can plan well into the future for more council-built houses, too?
Mr Prisk
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend’s point, which is that we need everyone, in both the public and the private sectors, to engage and that will mean that we need to consider greater flexibility for local authorities. I will come on to that later if I can.
With regard to housing associations, now that we have the long-term framework, we need to hold them to their commitment. Many are performing well, but some are not. I hope that I may encourage the Minister to challenge those housing associations that could and should be building many more homes. I will also encourage the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), should she cross the Chamber and take office in May—heaven forfend, from my point of point—not to tinker and meddle with that long-term rental programme, because the result of that would be inconsistency in policy. It would take everyone’s eye away from delivering actual homes for our constituents. As politicians, we have a habit of wanting to tinker and meddle, but consistency is important.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman support the suggested new policy of the Conservative party to open up the right to buy to housing association tenants?
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
My hon. Friend has made a valid point about working with housing associations. Does he agree that councils need to work closely with housing associations to identify sites for affordable housing? The Together Housing Group, which includes Housing Pendle, has recently rescued an abandoned development of 21 homes on Knotts lane in Colne. That development was left partially built a number of years ago, when the previous developer went into liquidation. Now, that housing association, by working with the council, has been able to rescue the development and provide much-needed affordable family homes for the local community.
Mr Prisk
My hon. Friend is a brilliant campaigner on this issue in Pendle. When I was the Minister for Housing, I had the chance to go and see the work that he does. He is absolutely right: we need the collaborative approach, across the sectors and between the different agencies, if we are to get the building of these homes unlocked.
I have spoken about the need for a long-term rental policy for housing associations. My second point is that we need to match that with a long-term commitment to sustained supply for all housing tenures. I recently had the chance to co-chair—with the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who was himself a very capable construction Minister under the previous Administration—a housing commission sponsored by Lloyds Banking Group. That commission brought together an outstanding group of public and private sector experts, who were crystal clear about the key issue. The report states:
“We believe that only a long-term commitment, across the political parties, will deliver the additional homes needed over the next decade. A realistic target is to complete 2 million to 2.5 million homes by 2025. To achieve this there is no single solution, no silver bullet. Rather what is needed is a larger, more competitive and diverse market in the supply of homes.”
As the report rightly says, we must not only expand the house building and private rented sector, but encourage housing associations and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) pointed out, local authorities to contribute more. We need not only the larger contractors, which the hon. Member for Nottingham South mentioned, but more small builders and, indeed, self-building. In addition to more homes for sale, a new professional private rented sector needs to develop. We will need not only to regenerate urban areas but to establish completely new settlements as part of a long-term comprehensive approach.
On that note, I very much welcome the Minister’s statement to the House yesterday on Ebbsfleet. He is making excellent progress on that; I remember the tensions and challenges of dealing with it. That, together with the potential in Bicester and elsewhere, is really good progress. Together—not individually but together—all these different elements can give us a sustained increase in housing supply, an increase not for one year or two years, but over a decade or more.
That brings me to my third and last point, which was a key finding in the housing commission’s report. We need to turn idle public land into affordable family homes. Government, in all its forms, owns a lot of buildings and land that are either underused or, frankly, completely idle.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that it would have behoved the Mayor of London to sell off for that very purpose the fire stations that he has been selling? My local one has been sold for £28 million to an as yet unannounced but no doubt private developer.
Mr Prisk
I am not an expert on the hon. Lady’s constituency, so it would be wiser for me not to wade into that particular parish, but the Mayor is very clear about raising the number of homes built and he has been crystal clear about ensuring that we get land brought into use. The Government have established an effective register within Whitehall, but it has always proved difficult to turn that register into actual homes. The prize is great, as we discover if we talk and listen to some of the people who have analysed this. Savills, for example, estimates that up to 2 million homes could be built on publicly owned land. I welcome the recent announcements by Ministers about engaging the Homes and Communities Agency to drive that forward, and I commend Ministers’ efforts in releasing land, which should result in the building of up to 100,000 homes over this Parliament.
I contend that more can be done, however, and I suggest that we need to overhaul Treasury rules that guide public asset sales in this field. The strict application of best value rules works against long-term development partnership, and it means that we fail to use public assets to provide homes that people can afford. Instead, we need to incentivise Government Departments, agencies, NHS trusts and local authorities to become long-term development partners and to use public assets to deliver homes that are affordable to many more people. There are some good signs, and I draw the Chamber’s attention to the fact that the Ministry of Defence, which is often criticised in that regard, has managed to secure a sensible long-term programme in Aldershot.
More can be done, however. I encourage the Minister, although I suspect that he does not need much encouragement, to be ambitious in this field and to encourage his colleagues across Whitehall to do likewise. Alongside that, I would like other long-term owners of land—such as our universities, which are substantial landowners, many of the large private landowners and many of our large pension funds—to be able to work in a new legal and tax framework that actively encourages them to develop communities for all and, more importantly, homes that most people can afford.
Of all the problems that will face the next Government after May, meeting our country’s housing needs will probably be one of the greatest challenges. Many of the concerns that will be raised in this debate and others are symptoms of the wider problem—dysfunctional housing markets, which have meant that for 25 years or more, we have been building roughly half the homes we need, year in, year out. To break that long-term cycle, we need a long-term commitment across the parties to create a larger, more diverse and more competitive market in the supply of homes. There are no quick answers and no easy solutions, but if we create a consistent, long-term policy framework, we can build the homes that our constituents need.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing this debate on a topic that is important not only for my constituents but for people in the rest of the country. May I also declare an interest? I still own my late mother’s flat, and we have been renting it out to the same tenant since she died.
Many people misunderstand my constituency. It is in one of the poorest boroughs in the country, and 40% of my constituents live in social housing. We have a great mixture of people. The very rich, the very poor and people from all over the world rub shoulders. I have the smallest amount of green space of any constituency in the country. We all live on top of one another, and we quite like it that way. However, the housing crisis is fundamentally changing the nature of my constituency. The average house price in the UK is an outrageous £188,000, which makes it impossibly difficult for the average person to buy these days, but the average price of a house in my constituency is £665,275. Tomorrow, I will see some 12-year-old children at one of my local schools. They were born and brought up in Islington, and they are ambitious and looking forward to life. How on earth will any of them still be able to live in Islington in 15 years’ time? Why are we allowing that to happen? Why are we not doing something about it? It is simply unfair.
These days, not only the children of the poorest but those of the richest will be unable to live in Islington when they grow up, because our house prices have got completely out of control. I do not want my constituency fundamentally to change, and neither do the residents of Islington. We can see no reason why it should, and we think that radical housing change is needed to regulate the market. Some people in this Chamber and in this building will think, “Oh, my goodness. What is this, some form of Stalinism? We can’t start controlling the housing market.” Excuse me, but yes, we can. Most world cities have some form of housing regulation that goes much further than the pusillanimous attempts that have been made in recent years to control the housing market in London. We must start taking strong action to ensure that London people can live in London.
I do not have any problem with people from outside London wanting to come and live here. There is a great tradition of people from all over the world coming to live in Islington. However, do you know what is happening now, Mr Gray? I went to see a woman a couple of months ago who is living in a completely overcrowded council flat. She is busting out at the seams. Her husband runs a local café, and has done for 25 years. They are a good local family, and the kids are doing well. She said to me, “I have no idea where my kids are going to live. They are all grown up now. Where are they going to go? How can I help them to live in Islington? We want them to stay here. We are absolutely overcrowded, and look at that,” and she pointed at the enormous tower block that is being built on the canal nearby. It is called Canaletto, or something equally ridiculous. It is covered in fancy stone, and it reaches up into the skies. We all know that when it has been sold, the lights will be off at night because no one is going to live there. People across the world are investing in our housing market, which is not properly regulated. If they have a choice between investing their money in a few gold bars and saying, “Let’s buy a flat in London,” they will buy a flat in London, because it is nice and secure. They will keep it empty, warm and secure, and they will rob the people of London of somewhere to live.
Emily Thornberry
Personally, speaking as a Back Bencher, yes, I do. I want to see rent regulation. An individual should be able to enter a tenancy agreement with a landlord for a long period of time—three, four or five years—at a set rate, which should increase only in line with inflation. We should not be able to treat people as they are being treated.
I believe that the private sector has an important role to play in meeting our housing need; I am not one of those people who do not believe in the private rented sector. However, we now have an entire generation of youngsters—some of them are our own children and our researchers’ friends—who move into properties and are exploited. They are asked to pay ridiculous amounts of rent. They make a home, but after six months or a year, perhaps because they have complained about the fact that their windows are leaking, they will be chucked out and they have absolutely no rights. We have to strike the right balance, and we must not give tenants so many rights that landlords are frightened off, but we are talking about people who want to be able to make a home in a community. For them to be able to contribute properly, they need some form of security. We should not allow them to be pushed out of our cities and our metropolises because rents are continually being hiked up.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Lady is talking about striking a balance. Does she agree that the acute problems that affect her constituents are of a different magnitude to the problems in the rest of the country? Affordable housing is a difficulty in the rest of the country, but not on the scale that she has outlined.
Emily Thornberry
I completely understand and agree. That is why when the Government talk about localism, I say, “Hooray! Let us come up with some local solutions to local problems.” However, when my local authority starts to introduce innovative schemes to try to address our problems, we are either trampled on by the Department for Communities and Local Government continually changing the rules and tightening up on section 106 agreements, which we are using as imaginatively and laterally as we can to build as much affordable housing as possible—in Islington, that has to be social rented housing if it is to be properly affordable—or we are trampled on by the Mayor.
The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) talked about publicly owned land, and the Mount Pleasant site in my constituency is one such cause célèbre. It used to be a massive piece of publicly owned land, which was owned by Royal Mail. When Royal Mail was privatised, the large site at Mount Pleasant was deemed to be a “car park”, so it was sold for a song. The developers now say on behalf of Royal Mail that, because it is a development site, they should be able to get huge amounts of money back, so they cannot possibly afford to put affordable housing on the land. There is a battle royal going on in my constituency about the matter. My local authority and Camden local authority both say, “We are in desperate need of real affordable housing, and this is one of the largest development sites in the area. Please, please, let us build homes for local people. Please don’t stop us.” And what happened? The Mayor came in and said, “What we mean by ‘affordable housing’ is 80% of market rent.” Guess what? Nobody in Islington can afford that. This is nonsense.
Mr Spencer
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being generous with her time. May I take her back to her comments on property values in Islington? How would she seek to control the market? How would that work in reality? What steps would she like to see a Labour Government take to control the marketplace and control property values?
Emily Thornberry
No, I will not go back to that. I will carry on talking about Mount Pleasant for a minute, because it is a disgrace. The more we talk about it, the more we expose the difference in values between the Conservative party and local people and why the Mayor is trampling on local people’s wishes. The Mayor is the Tory party’s London representative, and he aspires to high places within the party. People should be warned about his agenda.
Some 681 new homes will be built on the Mount Pleasant site, and 163 of those homes will be affordable, at 80% of market rent, but the rest will carry the most ridiculous prices in which only people cashing in their gold bars in China could invest to be able to live there. We have 19,000 families on the housing waiting list in Islington who want to stay in Islington. If we could build 1,500 affordable social rented homes on that site, on the Canaletto site or on another such site, we could unplug our housing waiting list. People would then have a fighting chance of getting themselves a social rented home.
I will illustrate the sort of people on my housing waiting list. I never try to exaggerate. Whenever I make a speech, and I have made this speech many times over the past 10 years, I always talk about the very last person I met. In this case, the last person I met was a woman with three children. She has lived in so-called temporary accommodation for five years. She had polio, so her legs are in the most terrible state. She has 28 steps up to her front door, and she has fallen down twice and broken her leg. She now has to have a knee replacement. She has a child with special needs, and she is stuck in this accommodation. And guess what? She has also been hit by the benefits cap. She is in temporary accommodation, which costs £400 of the £500 a week that is available to her. She and her three children are living on £100 a week in entirely inappropriate accommodation. My local authority is doing its utmost to find alternative accommodation.
Frankly, if someone moves their car in Islington, we have built a flat there by the time they come back in the evening. We are building as much social rented accommodation as possible in the area, despite the Government having cut back the subsidy to local authorities and despite the Government making it so difficult for my local authority to stand up to developers and say, “We need social rented accommodation. That is what our local people say. We are the local representatives. Who are you? What is localism? Let us have our say.”
Emma Reynolds
Does my hon. Friend agree that the potential role of a progressive Labour Mayor would be to drive up the number of affordable homes on these big sites, rather than taking every opportunity to drive down the number of affordable homes, as the current Tory Mayor is doing?
Emily Thornberry
Absolutely, and I will give another example. Clerkenwell fire station is on the other side of the road from the notorious Royal Mail site, which was sold off for a song and out of which a huge profit is now being made. My local authority is attempting to constrain the Clerkenwell fire station site by saying that it must be used for affordable housing. We believe that best value does not just mean that a public body should squeeze as much money as possible out of a site by building as many luxury flats as possible. Best value for the community—this is a public asset in the middle of the community—ought to be what the public want and what will give best value to that community. Providing homes to my local community in Islington is best value as far as we are concerned, which we hope a Labour Mayor would understand. I will always give Boris Johnson the benefit of the doubt, and I will be completely converted if he comes back with this, but I want him to say, “Emily, I understand that ‘best value’ means affordable homes on that site, which means a large proportion of social rented accommodation.” I hope against hope, but I am always an optimist. You never know, Mr Gray; you never know.
I appreciate that I have taken a bit of time, so I will wind up, although there is much more that I want to say, as I am sure people can tell. The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said that there is no silver bullet, but there is. The reason we do not have affordable housing, whether in Northern Ireland, in his constituency or in London, is that we do not have enough homes. We have not been building enough homes, and we did not build enough when we were in government. We did a great deal of good, and we did up all the country’s social housing. We made all social housing conform to the decent homes standard, which was a fantastic achievement that we do not shout about enough, but we did not build enough new homes. We needed to build more.
It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to carp about that, but, frankly, his party should look at the plank in its own eye. How much has his party built during its five years in government? Very little indeed. That is why we are in this crisis, and one thing on which we can all agree is that we must build more homes. We need to be brave and allow local communities to decide on the sorts of places that they need. The solutions that are appropriate for my constituency might not be appropriate for Nottingham or York. Nevertheless, we must drive local authorities and local people, so that we are able to give our younger generation a chance. My youngsters might not be able to live in Islington, and Nottingham youngsters might not be able to live in Nottingham, because they cannot afford to move into the sort of accommodation in which their parents lived. This is all about intergenerational justice, and we, the older generation, either have secure social rented homes or are buying our own places, but our youngsters have no chance unless we grasp the nettle and say, “Yes, we owe it to the youngsters in this country to start building more homes.”
Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing this important debate, because there is a huge affordable housing problem. Whether in the social rented sector or the private rented sector, people are struggling. She and the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) are right that the problem is not new; there has been a problem for a long time. The previous Government did not build enough houses, which leaves us where we are now, and the current Government have not fixed the problem, either.
My constituency of Cambridge has an acute problem, partly because we are a success story. We have a booming local economy and very low unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, but we have not had the housing or infrastructure that are needed to keep up. In fact, in previous decades, there was a deliberate policy of not building houses in Cambridge but only building in the surrounding villages, which increased the cost of housing and worsened traffic congestion. That has now changed, but it takes a long time to catch up, so private sector prices are getting ever higher, whatever the category. Rent for a one-bedroom flat in Cambridge is the highest in the entire east of England. The average house costs 11 times the median salary, which prices many people whom we desperately need—researchers, teachers and nurses—out of the housing market.
We have a shortage of social and council housing. As of September 2014, 2,500 people were on the housing needs register. Many people are waiting two years or longer to find a place. There is huge demand. In November, there were 90 bids for a one-bedroom flat, and there were 152 bids for another property in December. We have a shortage, which is not a new thing. The previous Government managed to reduce the number of social and council houses by 421,000 across the country, which is a big problem—a huge indictment.
What hit us perhaps even worse in Cambridge was the ridiculous negative subsidy scheme, in which council tenants’ money was taken from Cambridge to be spent elsewhere. In Cambridge, £1,300 had been taken from every tenant by the time we got rid of the scheme. Over the 13 years of the Labour Government, the sum taken from Cambridge city council was £120 million. In our surrounding district, South Cambridgeshire district council lost £118 million to the scheme. The money was taken directly from council tenants.
Just think what we could have done with that money if we were allowed to keep it. We could have spent £5,000 doing up every council house and still have had enough money to build about 1,000 more. I am delighted to say that the Government have scrapped the scheme, so the city council has been able to build and improve council housing. When we ran the council, we started a programme to invest £286 million, partly from those savings, to build 2,000 council homes over the next decades. Free from negative subsidy, we can make that a reality: we built 146 council homes before the elections last year.
We got through an ambitious local plan, now being inspected, calling for 14,000 new homes by 2031, 40% of which would be affordable, and the Greater Cambridge city deal with a total of £1 billion of investment in affordable housing and transport. I want to go further and faster. Although we lost control of the city council last May, just last week at the budget meeting we pressed the new Labour administration to invest the council’s own money in housing, rather that speculate on commercial property as it wanted, because we think that people in Cambridge need those houses. We therefore argued for £12 million to be put into 100 affordable homes, but sadly Labour decided to stick with its rather more risky approach. That housing was needed locally and would have generated revenues for the council as well.
We will keep pressing, but we also need to do that nationally. My party has the most ambitious plan among the three parties: to build 300,000 homes a year, because the calculations show that replacement needs 225,000 homes as there are more households. If we do anything less than 300,000, we will not be keeping pace and the pressure will continue, albeit perhaps at a slower rate.
Emma Reynolds
Given that the Liberal Democrats are part of a Government who have presided over the lowest level of house building in peacetime since the 1920s, what is the hon. Gentleman’s party’s plan for those 300,000 homes a year?
Dr Huppert
I am sure that the hon. Lady has heard the discussions. Garden cities would be a large part of that plan, because they are a sustainable way to go ahead. It is no secret that we have wanted to see much more of this, but coalition government is not the same as a single-party, Liberal Democrat Government—I look forward to seeing that at some point.
The other thing we would like to do that we have set out in plans is to give local authorities the ability to suspend the right to buy and the right to acquire. They have played a useful role in many places, but they are incredibly damaging in other areas. They are depleting social housing in places such as Cambridge. A localist agenda would allow councils to decide what is best and ensure that all proceeds are used to build more social housing.
Since we have the Minister here, I would like to pick up another issue quickly.
Dr Huppert
I will not, I am afraid, because other people wish to speak.
On 28 November, new guidance on housing developments and section 106 payments was issued for sites with small developments of fewer than 10 units. We need those section 106 payments. In Cambridge, a 10-unit site is substantial and incredibly valuable. That measure is already costing the city more than £200,000 and the figure is expected to reach £500,000 a year, and that is a mistake. That makes it harder for somewhere such as Cambridge to ensure that housing is available for people on low incomes and prevents the establishment of properly mixed communities, which are the most sustainable kind. I therefore urge the Minister to get rid of that proposal immediately because of the harm that it will do to Cambridge and elsewhere.
I also urge the Minister to look again at the vacant building credit, which is also causing problems, at least in its interpretation, because people can use it to avoid the contributions that they should make.
My last point is that the Treasury still places a tight cap on the amount that local councils can borrow from the housing revenue fund to build new houses. That was true under the previous Government, as well us under this one. Places such as Cambridge need to be able to keep pace, so we need those powers. I know that that is up to Treasury Ministers, not this Minister, but that cap should be got rid of, or at least lifted, so that councils can manage prudentially. For the council to borrow money to invest in housing in Cambridge would be a good investment financially and for the people of the city. Cambridge has been a success story and that has brought problems. We are growing and unemployment is down, but we therefore have more and more pressure on housing. We must deal with that urgently.
Sir Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)
I want to start by talking about the people who have come to my surgeries, desperate—usually as a last resort—looking for somewhere to live. They are people whom, more often than not, I fail: the rough sleepers—[Interruption.]
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) may not leave the Chamber immediately after making a speech. He must remain here and listen to the subsequent speech.
Sir Hugh Bayley
They are the rough sleepers, for example, whose numbers have increased by 55% under this Government; the homeless, whose numbers have increased by 26%; sofa surfers; adult children and grandchildren still living with their parents or grandparents; and families in grossly overcrowded conditions.
York has one of the strongest economies in the north of England. Under the Labour Government the number of jobs grew from 40,000 to 57,000, and that growth has continued, although slightly more slowly, since 2010. However, that has not been matched by housing growth, so a shortage of housing is driving up the cost of both renting and buying.
The problem is getting worse because the gap between top earners and low earners is increasing. Back in 1997, lower quartile housing prices were four times greater than lower quartile earnings, but now they are eight times lower quartile earnings. There are currently 717 homes for sale in York, with an average sale price of £290,000. Of course, that is less than in London, but wages are far less than in London, too. The average price for a one-bedroom, entry-level flat in York is £133,000. The annual income required to buy that is therefore £43,000. By comparison, elsewhere in the region, in Leeds the required income is £33,000, in Wakefield it is £26,000 and in Barnsley it is £20,000.
Who can afford to buy in Yorkshire? In York, a barrister, a GP or a mortgage adviser can afford a one-bedroom, entry-level flat on their wages, but a construction site manager or a police sergeant cannot. In Leeds, an estate agent or insurance broker can afford to buy, but a university lecturer cannot. In Wakefield, a police constable or a schoolteacher can afford to buy, but a paramedic cannot.
The thresholds for private renting are pretty much the same, although in York the construction site manager on £42,000 a year could rent, but the police sergeant on £37,000 could not. In Leeds, a class teacher could rent, but the police sergeant could not. Those are people whom every one of our communities needs: police officers, teachers, estate agents and lecturers.
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend talks about some of the sorts of people who cannot afford to buy, but is the position not so much worse for so many vital public sector workers, such as home care workers and many others, who are trapped on insecure contracts, and increasingly on zero-hours contracts, and do not have any certainty about their long-term income, despite doing vital jobs?
Mr James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, he might bear in mind that I hope to call one more speaker before the Front-Bench Members at 20 minutes to 11.
Sir Hugh Bayley
My hon. Friend is right, although it is not only public sector workers who are on zero-hours contracts; such contracts affect a lot of people who provide essential services. Every time we go into a shop, we are buying something we need from a private sector worker.
During my time, York has never built enough affordable housing, and that is my biggest regret—I might say my biggest failure—during 23 years in this House. I say to my friend, the hon. Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy), who is here, that unless he and my successor, the new Member for York Central, increase the amount of housing we build in York, we will snuff out the economic growth that has been so important to the city in recent decades.
The number of affordable housing completions in York is falling. In 2010-11 we had 282, but in the following year we had 151, then 127 and, in 2013-14, just 50. Why are those numbers falling? The Government have introduced five measures that have reduced the amount of affordable housing built. First, they raised the affordable housing threshold for rural developments, so that affordable housing is not provided on developments of 10 homes or fewer. Since that change, only one rural housing scheme of more than 10 homes has been proposed in York. In the previous 18 months, 11 such schemes were proposed, all of which made contributions towards affordable housing, but that has stopped.
Secondly, the vacant building credit will mean that there is not an affordable housing component when vacant buildings are converted, or razed to the ground and rebuilt, to provide housing. A large part of the Nestlé factory site is available for redevelopment. The plan was to provide a couple of hundred homes, of which a substantial proportion would have been affordable. Now, because of the Minister’s change of policy—will he look up from his phone for a minute?—those affordable homes may no longer be provided.
Thirdly, there is the exemption from the right to convert offices to residential use. That also used to generate a proportion of affordable housing but no longer has to. The council in York estimates that since that change 77 affordable homes in York have been lost. Fourthly, York has a healthy housing revenue account, but the cap on the council’s ability to convert the resources it has into further building is reducing the amount of affordable housing that is made available. Fifthly, of course, the Government have also cut their grant for affordable housing to £23,000 on average per property, which is roughly half of what it was. All these five policies need to change. Of course, the lack of affordable housing is pushing people into the private rented sector, so what the Government are doing is reducing their capital contribution to building housing and instead spending the same amount of money, or more, on subsidising private landlords, which cannot be a good use of public money.
There is a very special problem in York with the broad rental market area, which is used to set the local housing allowance. It is a problem because rents in York are much higher than in areas some 20 miles away that are deemed to be part of the same local market for determining the BRMA rate. For example, the average private rent in York for a one-bedroom property is £564 a month. The BRMA local housing allowance is £430 a month, leaving families to find £134 a month from their own resources. However, in Selby, which is just 12 miles away, the average rent is £391, nearly £40 lower than the local housing allowance. People on the periphery are getting what they need—their full rent is covered—whereas people in York are getting substantially less. There are similar figures for two and three-bedroom properties, but I will not give them now. However, there is a gap of £220 between the local housing allowance and the average rent for a three-bedroom property.
This problem of a single BRMA covering a high-cost city and a much lower-cost rural periphery affects just four places in Britain. One is Cambridge, and I have written to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) about this; some months later, I am waiting for his reply, to find out whether we can do joint work on this issue. The other three are Oxford, York and, in Scotland, Edinburgh. If the Government do nothing else in those four cities, they should split those BRMAs, because then the BRMA would provide something closer to the real cost for people in the centre, and it would stop wasting public money by overpaying, if I might say so, on the periphery.
Dr Huppert
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not received my response. I definitely sent one; in fact, I was surprised that he had not replied to me. Nevertheless, he is absolutely right: the BRMA, as introduced by the last Government, has been a calamity for places such as Cambridge, and I hope that that issue can be resolved.
Sir Hugh Bayley
Right: I will work with the hon. Gentleman in the few weeks that I have left as an MP, and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith).
One thing that the Government and local authorities must deliver is more land for housing. Critically, York needs to agree a local plan to designate where development will be permitted. That has not happened for decades under successive Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat-led councils in York. The current Labour council has submitted a plan; it was rejected by the Government and the council was told to redraft it. Now, there is an argument between the parties. Labour and the Green party argue that the council should plan to build 850 homes a year; the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives are proposing something like 730 homes a year.
In York, 4,200 homes have been built in the last 10 years, which is 420 a year. That is 300 homes a year less than the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are asking for, and 425 homes a year less than Labour and the Green party are asking for. I ask all those parties locally to stop shilly-shallying, to cut a deal and to get the plan approved, so that developers know where they can provide housing and where they cannot. If we do not do that, the housing that is so desperately needed simply will not be provided.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you very much, Mr Gray, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I endorse every comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) in her excellent speech, and congratulate her on securing this debate.
Housing in my constituency is simply in crisis. In my constituency, more people rent privately—30% of my constituents—than own property, and 44% of my constituents rent social housing. Private rents in Hackney are now at 54% of income, and there is a huge lack of certainty about the length of private tenancies, and about rents, which often increase just because they can be increased.
I will give a couple of examples. I have routinely been sending out questionnaires to constituents, because I have so many people contacting me about these issues. Two adults and a child live in a one-bedroom property. One full-time income and one part-time income brings them in £2,100 a month after tax, and they also have child care costs on top of that. When we compare those figures with the weekly median rent in Hackney, which is £330 a week, it does not take much knowledge of maths to work out that their income does not go very far.
I will give another example. Somebody said that a combination of having to pay high fees every time they move, and the fact that they have to move every 12 months due to rent increases and the inability to obtain longer-term tenancies, has seriously hindered their ability to save as well as settle. This issue affects not only private tenants but the community as a whole, because of the churn that we get as a result.
House prices have gone up 124.9% since 2005, when I was first elected, and the average house price is slightly lower than in Islington, at £606,000. Of course, for new social housing, there is now the edict that most social housing should be 80% of local private rents. In Hackney, that is nonsense; the sums arrived at are not affordable. Tenants, often strangers to each other, are now sharing rooms out of necessity. Then, of course, we have the invidious bedroom tax. On Wenlock Barn estate alone, in Hoxton, 74 households are hit by that tax, and they live in fear about what will happen to them. It is not as if there is available housing of the right size for them, because there is such a squeeze on need; even if they were made to move, there is nowhere for them to move to.
I have some specific local concerns. One is about non-domiciled landlords. They do not let slum properties; we do not have that many very, very bad properties in Hackney. However, the appeal of rental yield is what many properties are sold on, off-plan, which means rents go up each year, because the letting agent is on a ticket to increase their profit and that of the overseas landlord, be they in Dubai or Hong Kong. Increasingly, huge swathes of properties are sold overnight off-plan, even when developers have promised the local planning committee that they will not do that. There is no legal constraint on the number of properties that can be sold to someone overseas. I hope that both Front-Bench teams consider looking at this issue.
There is a really shocking case that I have come across recently. A national property developer in the UK employs staff whose job is entirely about arguing with planning departments for additional units of housing and for fewer units of social housing. Those staff members are paid a bonus for every additional unit that they argue up, and for every social unit they argue down. In the process, they tie up days and days of council officers’ time. In one case, nearly a whole year—more than 300 days—of council officers’ time was taken up, because these staff keep coming back, as their income depends on it. I use the word advisedly, but that practice is an immoral way to earn a living, and it is shocking when I consider the impact on my constituents.
Recently, we had a battle over the New Era estate. I will not go into that again, but private landlords there are able to sell property on, forgetting that they are selling not just property but people’s homes, which affects their lives. In London, we see our Mayor caving in to private developers. He wants to maximise luxury flats, which are often sold to overseas buyers. The local fire station in my area has been sold for £28 million, which can only mean luxury flats. That is a scandal, especially with fire response times now more than six minutes in the area. In Bishopsgate in Shoreditch, an area that has not had a social housing unit built in 10 years, the Mayor is again on the drive for a 48-storey tower block with luxury flats.
Hackney is building; it is one of the top two councils nationally when it comes to building new homes. It could do more if the housing revenue cap were lifted, and if we could see a long-term solution to this problem, which is what is needed. Again, I appeal to both Front-Bench teams. We should look at the ballooning housing benefit bill, which is pouring money down the drain when it could be better spent on building new homes that are genuinely affordable. I have a few asks. I go further than my Front-Bench team, because I believe that Hackney’s problems today will ripple out; we are the canary—Islington probably is too, in some respects—showing what will happen in the rest of the country.
We need longer tenancies. The Council of Mortgage Lenders, which I met yesterday, says that that is possible; there is no big block in the system. So why is it not happening? I applaud our Front-Bench team for pushing for longer tenancies. There also needs to be greater certainty about rents; perhaps there could be a rent escalator model. We also need to stop retaliatory evictions. There should be a landlord register, with a quality kitemark, so that tenants know what they are buying, as they would in any other area of business.
We should disbar landlords who are not fit and proper. There should be mandatory installation of fire and carbon monoxide alarms. We should change the definition of “affordable”, to break this ridiculous link with market rents, which does not have any relation to the incomes of the people that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Sir Hugh Bayley) referred to. I agree with the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) that the Treasury rules need to change, to allow the sale of public land for public benefit. St Leonard’s hospital has now gone to PropCo and the NHS, and the fire station is being sold off. All around us in my area, every possible bit of development land is being sold, not for affordable housing for local people, but for overseas buyers to live in luxury flats.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing this important debate.
As a country, we face a severe housing crisis. We are not even building half the number of homes that we need to keep up with demand. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), the former Housing Minister, said, certainly for more than 25 or 30 years, we simply have not been building anywhere near the number of homes that we need. It is regrettable that, under this Government, we have seen the lowest level of house building in peacetime since the 1920s.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South has spelt out, people are being priced out of home ownership, and millions are on the waiting list for a social home. Home ownership is at its lowest for 30 years, and a record number of young people in their 20s and 30s, many of whom are living at home with their parents, are suffering most from this. We had the lowest number of homes in 20 years built for social rent last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Sir Hugh Bayley) pointed out, there has been an increase of 55% in those sleeping rough since 2010, and an increase of 26% in those who are statutorily homeless. As he also said, different people from public and private sector organisations are being priced out of home ownership. They may be cleaners, childminders, office workers, bus drivers or shop workers in some areas. In other areas, they could be teachers, police officers, or university lecturers. The list goes on.
The lack of affordable housing is not only bad for those who cannot afford to live in their communities. It is also bad, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), for taxpayers and the wider economy. Worryingly, there has been an increase in the benefits bill because of people who are in work receiving housing benefit: an increase of two thirds since the Government came to power. It is a threat to our economic growth and competitiveness, with businesses in high-demand areas such as London—but not only London—worrying about where their staff will be able to afford to live. So it is clear that we need many more affordable homes, including council homes. I grew up in a council house, where I spent the early part of my childhood, so this is not just an abstract notion for me.
It is regrettable that the Government have taken every opportunity to undermine the building of genuinely affordable homes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South pointed out, it was an early signal of intent that, within weeks of taking office, the Government cut the affordable homes programme by an eye-watering 60%. They have redefined what affordable means. They changed what was meant by an affordable home when they introduced the 80% affordable rent model. As my hon. Friends the Members for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch pointed out, the truth is that homes at 80% of market rent are very often unaffordable in high-demand areas. According to research carried out by Inside Housing, for a home to be affordable for those in Kensington and Chelsea, a combined income of £80,000 is needed, and for many other London boroughs people need an income of £40,000. That is not affordable for many of the key workers we need to live in our cities.
As though redefining “affordable” was not enough, the Government have watered down the requirement to provide affordable housing and removed the requirement for affordable housing contributions on sites of fewer than 10 units. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central pointed out, this is having a particularly devastating impact in rural areas. The Government have introduced what they call a vacant building credit, which is basically an excuse for developers not to fulfil their affordable housing requirement, and even the developers themselves think that that goes too far. The Westminster Property Association, which includes British Land, Land Securities, Berkeley Homes and the Grosvenor Group, said that the policy was deeply flawed and would lead to a further erosion of the ability of people from a wide range of backgrounds to live in the heart of the capital.
Emma Reynolds
If I cross the Floor of the House, as the hon. Gentleman suggested earlier, we will obviously inherit the current affordable homes programme, but we will make our plans for the future clearer in the weeks to come.
Even Westminster city council’s deputy leader, Robert Davis, has said that the policy
“threatens our capability to deliver much-needed housing in central London.”
His director of planning went even further and called it insane. The Housing Minister claimed that the reforms would not have a significantly adverse effect on the affordable housing programme, even though his own Department admitted that it had not done a formal assessment of the policy’s impact.
Emily Thornberry
There has been a side debate about what is affordable. In relation to house prices in Islington, may I add that social rented accommodation in Islington is set at 40% of market rent?
Emma Reynolds
The City of London has estimated that this policy will reduce its housing budget by a massive £8 million. It is clear that the Tory Mayor, as hon. Members have already suggested, is keen on driving down the number of affordable homes, particularly on big developments. My hon. Friend mentioned the Mount Pleasant development, which used to be public land. It has not been used to provide the number of affordable homes that we need, precisely because Boris Johnson has taken it upon himself to call in that application and force down—not up—the number of affordable homes on that site.
The Government have failed to live up to their promise of replacing homes sold through right to buy one for one. Since 2012, for every 21 council houses sold under right to buy, only one has been built. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South underlined in her contribution, the Government’s bedroom tax is not only a complete failure of a policy that hits the most vulnerable the hardest, but it has led to a rise in rent arrears and, in some cases, homes being left empty.
One or two such changes would have been bad enough, but the cumulative impact of the changes that the Government have introduced has meant that people across the country are struggling to find a home to rent or buy. Tragically, the lack of affordable housing is having a real impact at the sharp end. I have already mentioned homelessness and rough sleeping, but it is worth mentioning again that the lack of affordable housing is, unfortunately and tragically, driving the numbers up.
Housing will be a day one priority for the next Labour Government. It is true that the market has not been delivering for quite some time. There is a huge and pressing need to increase the overall supply of new homes. We have made it clear that, under a Labour Government, housing will be a priority for capital investment. We will reverse the watering down of section 106 and ensure that tougher rules are in place to assess viability, so that developers cannot dodge the rules. We will scrap the Government’s affordable homes avoidance scheme. We will make sure that we use public land to drive the development of affordable housing, and we want to see councils return to their historic role of building council homes. Wolverhampton city council is building the first new council homes in our city in more than 30 years. I am proud that Labour councils are building twice as many affordable homes as Tory local authorities.
There is a crucial role for housing associations. I am always grateful for the wise advice of the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. He suggests that I make sure that they have great stability going forward. I say to him that some of the biggest changes to the way in which housing associations operate have occurred under his Government. There has been a huge cut in funding, and the welfare chaos that we have seen has provided unstable and uncertain conditions for them to operate in. Unfortunately, the story of this Parliament has been an ever-rising need for affordable homes, but we have had a Government seemingly determined to do everything that they can to undermine the building of new, affordable homes.
I know that the Minister will get up and aggregate the numbers over a five-year period, but if the Government are so serious about building affordable homes, why did they cut the affordable homes budget by 60%? Why did they water down the definition of affordable? Why have they watered down the requirements on developers? Why have they changed the way in which viability is assessed? All those measures have led to the number of affordable homes, particularly those for social rent, going down. Only a Labour Government would have a comprehensive plan to tackle the long-term housing crisis by making the market more competitive and making sure that councils have the powers and flexibilities to build and provide the housing that we need.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) made some good points, as he always does, on how we built the foundations for the success we are seeing with house building. He should be proud. One point he touched on, which showed the Government’s ambition, was the public sector land that has been released, which is enough to build 100,000 houses. A few Members made that point, and I am pleased to announce that we have surpassed that target. When Members leave the Chamber, they will see that we have gone past 100,000 and set ourselves a higher target of 150,000 in the next Parliament.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) seems to lack real ambition. The Labour party generally seems to lack ambition compared with us on what can be achieved. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made a fair point on the ambition of what we should be delivering. I have often commented that setting targets can lead to unintended consequences and fictitious outcomes. We should be driving for the right outcome, which is homes that people can afford. The Labour party’s lack of ambition in wanting to hit 200,000 homes by 2020 is clear and evidenced by the fact that this Government’s programme, as we outlined this week, will hit 200,000 homes by 2017.
I hope to work with Jane Hunt in a Conservative Government. I visited her in Nottingham South, where she is fighting hard to ensure that we get even stronger Conservative representation in this place. She wants to be part of a Conservative Government who would build 200,000 homes for first-time buyers. Not only will we offer first-time buyers a chance to benefit from Help to Buy, which has allowed tens of thousands of families to get on to the housing ladder with a reduced deposit following the economic farce and crash that we inherited, but we will go further by giving them a 20% discount, making the achievement of buying a first home more open to more people.
Emily Thornberry
Has the money for those 300,000 homes been explained to us, or does it come from the same pot at the end of the rainbow as the £7 billion of tax cuts that the Conservatives have promised the public?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Members for Nottingham South and for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) and I have spent many times at the Dispatch Box in the past few months in full agreement, so it is probably a healthy return to normal that we disagree today, but I suggest they go away and read some of the documentation before they come to this place and make comments that are absolutely inaccurate. For example, it is worth having a read of the Hansard transcript of the Communities and Local Government Committee sitting last week, where we made it clear that the right to buy programme is delivering on the replacement of homes in the way it was designed. There is an interesting contrast, because the replacement rate was 1:170 under Labour. Opposition Members should be very aware of that. It is important to understand that with the starter homes—it is clear in the documentation that the Government have put out—we are looking at making available land that has not been viable before. We are doing that without section 106 agreements and we are reducing regulation for developers so that they can offer those homes at a minimum discount of 20%.
Brandon Lewis
I will finish the point I am making. The hon. Ladies have made a fair few interventions today and I want to respond to the points raised in the short time we have left. There is no direct cost to buying those homes at that discount. It makes home buying affordable to the very people that the hon. Member for York Central (Sir Hugh Bayley) mentioned. Some of those who have not been able, even with Help to Buy, to get on the ladder will be able to link Help to Buy with a starter home to make house buying accessible. From day one, fixing the housing market and the economy have been top priorities for us in government.
Brandon Lewis
Not at the moment, no. We have channelled new investment into every area of the housing market. We have cut the deficit to keep interest rates low for investors and home buyers. We have introduced a wide range of measures to get Britain building again, and that plan is working. More than 500,000 home have been built. There are 700,000 more homes in England, with house building at its highest level since 2007.
Sir Hugh Bayley
When I talk to developers in York, they say that there are two constraints: one is the lack of land and the other is the lack of building materials. There has been a shortage of bricks. What are the Government doing to ensure that the supply chain delivers enough technically qualified builders and enough building materials to build the number of houses they seek?
Brandon Lewis
I will give way to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch and then deal with her points and those of the hon. Gentleman together.
Meg Hillier
We see in London the effects of an untrammelled Tory Administration. Private developers have free reign. There is less affordable housing. Where it is affordable, it is 80% of private rents. That applies to a number of sites, as we have highlighted. Is that the Minister’s ambition if he is in power after the election?
Brandon Lewis
As I have outlined, the ambition is to ensure that we are building the houses that this country needs. Those 200,000 starter homes will give people opportunities that the Labour party simply cannot match. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford—my predecessor—outlined, we are at the start of a programme that is building affordable housing at the fastest rate the country has seen in more than 20 years.
The hon. Member for York Central made a good point. People often expect the challenge for the development industry over the past couple of years to have been land supply, but it is not, thanks to the changes that we made to the top-down rigours and structures in planning that stopped development under Labour. Through that, our driving of planning locally and because we have kept interest rates low, we are seeing benefits. Some 240,000 homes have been given planning permission in the past 12 months. Members touched on the changes the Government have made to finance for small building projects, which have made that finance available. We went further a couple of months ago. One area that developers consistently mention is the supply chain. I was delighted yesterday to reopen a brick factory that shut down in 2008 during Labour’s recession. It reopened on Monday and will deliver 2 million bricks a year to the industry.
The construction industry is working and hiring at the fastest rate since 1997, and the hon. Gentleman is right that that delivers the second challenge to the industry, which is skills. One thing we can all do—I hope that all parties agree on this—is encourage more people to come into the sector. It is a phenomenally rewarding career, with wide opportunities at home and, potentially, abroad. There are a wide range of careers in the industry. We need to change some of the perceptions of the construction industry to encourage more people into it. That is why I hosted a skills summit with the Minister for Skills and Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) just before Christmas at the fantastic new Olympic park. Developers, apprentices and colleges discussed those issues to try to ensure that we are delivering the skills we need for the future. Construction is no doubt one of the opportunities we have to see more jobs coming to this country, beyond those we have already seen.
Andrew Stephenson
Does the Minister agree that for parts of the north of England, such as the area I represent, it is important that we focus not only on new build homes, but also on bringing long-term empty properties back into use? I thank him for the support he has provided to Pendle borough council. We have done fantastic work to reduce the number of empty homes in the borough from more than 2,000 to just 1,200.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I know from when I visited his constituency that he makes that point passionately and has worked hard with the excellent leadership of Pendle borough council to develop that work. Earlier, Members talked about the work that is often unsung. The work to bring empty homes back into use under this Government has been phenomenal. Empty homes are at the lowest level pretty much since records began. That is a big step forward in replacing and moving forward from that loss of 420,000 socially rented homes under Labour, as Members have touched on.
Brandon Lewis
No, I will conclude, as there is only a short time left. Over the next Parliament, we will build more affordable housing at a faster rate than at any time in the past 20 years. Our first priority has been to ensure that we get the public finances back under control. We knew that public spending had to be constrained. We have to live within our means, and that is part of the problem we inherited with the Labour Government’s fiscal mess.
We have given housing associations the tools they need to build more homes. The changes we have made will from April give certainty and stability to social tenants and landlords alike. We have protected social tenants from large rent increases. Our strong economic record has allowed us to offer housing guarantees to housing associations, which mean that they are borrowing at the cheapest rate in the sector’s history. That has helped to provide more than £1 billion of support to affordable homes across the UK. All sectors need to be delivering, even social housing.
The hon. Member for Cambridge and others touched on the issue of building by councils. We have to be responsible with borrowing, and the borrowing that councils do has an impact on the public sector borrowing requirement, so there are no plans to lift that cap. As part of our long-term economic plan, however, we have incentivised councils to build. The power of competence has allowed them to move forward. We made more money available last summer for those who needed headroom and wanted to borrow more. Councils have more powers and greater freedoms to deliver the housing they need. We need to build more houses in this country. We have a fixed, strong, long-term economic plan that gives us a secure economy to deliver those houses and the jobs that are the benefit from that house building. We are delivering for those who want to buy a home of their own to give security for themselves and their families.
Local Suicide Prevention Plans
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
This debate comes after a report by the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention, as well as the publication of the most recent suicide statistics two weeks ago. I want to start with a quote from someone who gave evidence to the all-party group. It was the most powerful statement that we received. Speaking on behalf of one of the London authorities, the person said:
“People don’t want to talk about sad subjects…I could get dozens of people in a room for mental health but not suicide…I had maybe four or five people in the room for a suicide meeting, out of an invitation list of dozens who had attended similar events on the subject of mental health.”
There is the problem. People do not want to talk about sad subjects. They do not want to look at suicide. It is too painful and too difficult. They avoid tackling a problem that blights the lives of far too many people in this country.
The all-party group requested information from all 152 local authorities in England. Eventually, after some poking with a sharp stick and freedom of information requests, all but two replied. The data revealed a shocking lack of understanding of the basic difference between suicide and mental health. Some people think that if someone is suicidal, surely they have a mental health problem, but it depends on the definition of mental health. They almost certainly will not have a classified mental illness. It is generally acknowledged that three quarters of people who take their own life have never been near mental health services. It would be wrong to assume a close working correlation—that if someone is working to prevent mental health problems, they are helping to prevent suicide.
The most worrying finding of all was that a third of local authorities in England had no suicide prevention action plan whatever. A third did not undertake suicide audit work, and 40% had no multi-agency suicide prevention group. That is totally unacceptable. Mr Gray, you and I have spent some time over the past couple of months looking at the importance of having a strategic plan and knowing what one is trying to achieve and the required outcomes. Across England, a third of local authorities have no strategy—nothing at all. They are doing nothing to prevent preventable deaths, and 40% have no multi-agency suicide prevention group.
This does not require big money. It is not about expensive drugs. It is about putting time and effort into looking at what the problem is locally and how it can be tackled, and then pulling together the agencies that can work together to deliver a plan. That does not seem too big an ask to prevent an avoidable death, yet for a third of local authorities in England it is too big an ask. That is shocking. I hope that the Minister will approach those local authorities and say, “Things need to be better”. All Members whose local authorities do not have such a plan and action group ought to be proactively telling them that they are wrong.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend and the all-party group for their work on this issue. She speaks with great authority about the data for England, but what is her understanding of the situation in Wales?
Mrs Moon
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We are both Welsh MPs, and we know how dire the situation is in Wales. The suicide rate in Wales is 15.6 deaths per 100,000—the highest in the UK. That is perhaps part of what drives me. I know that we have our own problems in Wales, but the matter is devolved to the Welsh Assembly. The all-party group’s work helps to highlight the problems here in England. After Wales, Scotland has the next highest rate, followed by Northern Ireland and the north-east of England. There is a serious problem in Wales that we must tackle as well.
People cannot be complacent if their area has a low level of suicide, because facts change, deaths change, and the figures change. At one point, the Isle of Wight had a very low suicide rate, but now it is higher, and it is considered to have an average rate. It has gone from low to average—that is a rise. We cannot assume that because the suicide rate is currently low it will remain that way.
The report highlighted particular concerns about London. It shows poor levels of suicide prevention planning, but also low levels of deaths. That does not make sense: not only the lack of action planning, but everything about the demographic profile of London and some of its regions would suggest that normally there would be a higher level of deaths in certain local authorities. Something must be done to examine what is happening, because either the data are wrong, and what is really happening is being hidden, or something very special is happening in London that provides some sort of insulation against suicide. We need to understand that. The age-standardised rate of death in London is 7.9 per 100,000, compared with Wales’s rate of 15.6. The gap is huge and must be addressed.
The most active local authorities and those with the highest rates of death from suicide in England are in the north-east, the south-west and the north-west, areas of social deprivation and high unemployment, and where the so-called economic recovery is not being felt. In those areas, the all-persons rates of death are 13.8, 12.5 and 12.3 respectively. On the whole, local authorities in those parts of the country are active, and the report commended their work. However, that raises new questions. We must look at what those active local authorities are actually doing and how they are spending their time and effort. The importance of local initiatives, local focus and local understanding in suicide prevention is recognised—we need to know the terrain, the population and where the pressure points are—but we must also examine the variation in what is being done across England without apparent consistent reasons for the strategic choices that are made.
For example, in some areas, funding is put into helplines, such as the Samaritans and the Campaign Against Living Miserably—CALM. In others, it is put into training, such as applied suicide intervention skills training—ASIST—and in some into better data collection, such as on self-harm, which the Minister and I have discussed often. Other activities will have gone unreported. With wide variability and without clear indication of the evidence on which the various initiatives are based, however, there are questions about which of those initiatives are more effective and why. We need to be able to understand how our suicide prevention work is working and the best way for local authorities to focus their attentions.
The all-party group concluded that both Public Health England and the national suicide prevention strategy advisory group should examine ways in which local authorities can share information about suicide prevention initiatives that have worked, in order to develop best practice. In addition, central funding of research and evaluation studies into the methodologies used is necessary, so that we can drill down to what is effective and why. In that way we can realistically make a difference with any necessary changes even at a time of economic austerity.
The Minister and I have talked about the importance of suicide audits and of timely information, so that people are not waiting for retrospective information to see if a problem is developing locally. Some authorities have a complete lack of clarity about audit work and that needs to be tackled. Much can be dealt with through better co-ordination with coroners and the provision of timely information by them, but I appreciate that the Minister might have difficulties with that, because coroners fall within the purview of the Ministry of Justice, which is perhaps less focused on the timeliness of information from coroners to help suicide prevention work. That is something that I hope the all-party group will come back to in the next Parliament, because the situation cannot be allowed to continue.
The rate of suicide in this country has generally been on the rise since 2008. Last year the number of people taking their own life increased by 4%. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for men aged between 20 and 34. Last year, 6,233 people in England and Wales died by suicide, which you could describe as a small number—
Mrs Moon
You would not—I am glad to hear that, Mr Gray, thank you.
Each death by suicide is estimated to have an economic impact of around £l million. The reverberations across communities, families and workplaces are devastating. The suicide rate is a key indicator for the health and well-being of our country, our communities and our way of life. Suicide is not some niche issue that can be ignored by a local authority in its public health role because the numbers are too small. The issue is critical and indicates how healthy and how vibrant our communities and our society are.
The debate is probably the last about suicide in this Parliament, so I want to take the opportunity to make a few final remarks. The Minister and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), have been active in support of the all-party group and in suicide prevention work. I thank them for their support and acknowledge their work. Despite the failure of local authorities, active third-sector groups such as the Samaritans and individuals touched by suicide have offered support to those struggling to cope with life and to bereaved families. Sports figures and other celebrities have stepped forward to talk about their personal struggles and things that have changed their lives.
The police and other front-line workers are trying to save lives and responding to desperate people on a daily basis. During this Parliament, the role of the police in particular in tackling mental health problems, suicide, missing children and a whole range of other social problems outside their normal crime reduction role has shown their leadership and initiative. The work that the police are now undertaking to draw up a national process for responding to suicide is particularly welcome.
Suicide has not been illegal in this country since 1961, but it continues to carry a stigma, which we need to tackle. We also need to give support to bereaved families; to provide access to services that offer hope and a future for the suicidal; research in order to identify risks, best practice and awareness training that can prevent needless deaths; and local authorities to accept their responsibilities to support the dedicated individuals who already work across the four nations to prevent suicide. Without such individuals, the figures from two weeks ago would have been so much worse. It is time for us to take suicide seriously.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, I think for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on securing the debate and, more importantly, on her leadership on the subject of suicide prevention. Nothing could be more important, and any conversation with those going through bereavement following the death of a loved one through suicide makes us realise just how important it is for us to do better. The impact on those people’s lives is massive—the reverberations that she talked about are enormous. We can talk about the cold economic facts and the cost of £1 million per suicide, but the reverberations and economic impact on the whole family and beyond are incalculable.
The hon. Lady also made a point about the suicide rate varying so much around the country, and said that in some areas it appears to be remarkably low. One of the issues that she and I have talked about is whether suicides are being accurately recorded in inquests. We have a completely shared view on the need, once and for all, to confront the issue of the burden of proof, which is an example of the continuing stigma on suicide. To secure a suicide verdict, it remains necessary to prove the suicide “beyond reasonable doubt”; the only other type of death in which that level of proof applies is unlawful killing. That harks back to when suicide was a criminal offence. It is high time that was changed. I have argued the case in government and will continue to do so—whether in or out of government—in the next Parliament, because the change has to happen.
I congratulate the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention on its work, and from the start I want to pick up on the role of the police. In my work on mental health, I have been impressed by some inspiring leadership in police forces across the country. In London, the Metropolitan police have worked brilliantly with mental health trusts. In many areas, police are taking the lead in ending the scandal of people being put into police cells in the middle of a mental health crisis. I applaud them.
Norman Lamb
I agree. Every person lost to suicide is a tragedy, for loved ones, the community and society as a whole. I was deeply concerned to read the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics, which showed a rise in the suicide rate. Back in 2012, when I launched the suicide prevention strategy for England, we knew that we could not afford to be complacent about suicide, and much remains to be done. The new challenges are now clear, and in the second annual report for the strategy, I called on services, communities and national agencies to be more ambitious than ever before with regard to suicide prevention.
Collectively, I want us to tackle the widespread assumption that suicides are inevitable for a certain proportion of people. That is absolutely not the case. I have had discussions with Professor Louis Appleby, who is the foremost thinker and academic on suicide, and he said that in his 25 years of experience he had never looked at the details of a suicide without seeing ways in which the death might have been prevented. That encapsulates the challenge for public services and, beyond, for society as a whole. Suicide is not inevitable for any individual. We need to get that point across.
In 2014, important steps were taken. In January of that year, we published the consensus statement on information sharing and suicide prevention, signed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Nursing, the British Psychological Society, the British Association of Social Workers, the College of Social Work, the Mental Health Network of the NHS Confederation and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. The statement aims to improve information and support for families—that is critical—who are concerned about a relative who may be at risk of suicide, and to support better those who have been bereaved as a result of suicide.
In January 2014, we also published “Closing the Gap: priorities for essential change in mental health”, which sets out 25 changes that we believe it is absolutely necessary for the NHS and the care system to make in the next few years to improve the lives of people suffering from mental ill health, and to reduce health inequalities. It highlights how we will change the way front-line health services respond to self-harm, an issue that the hon. Lady has pursued vigorously, and how we improve crisis care in mental health.
At the start of 2014, the National Suicide Prevention Alliance was launched, facilitated by Samaritans and supported by Department of Health grant funding of £120,000 over 2013-14 and 2014-15. In July, the Department awarded a grant of £556,000 over three years to a partnership between Samaritans and Cruse, the bereavement counselling organisation, to increase support for those bereaved by suicide. Samaritans and Cruse will offer that support, working with organisations locally.
I know, however, that we can still save far more lives. It is a moral imperative that we take this issue seriously. As the hon. Lady will be aware from our previous discussions, I share her concerns about better suicide prevention. There have been a number of recent worrying trends in suicide rates, such as the rise of new suicide methods, such as using helium. The Government are committed to improving mental health services as a whole and reducing the suicide rate.
As the hon. Lady will be aware, the Deputy Prime Minister also shares my concerns, which is why in January he announced our ambition for zero suicides. That ambition has already been adopted in some areas. I pay tribute to the brilliant leaders, including Adrian James, a psychiatrist in Devon, and Joe Rafferty, the chief executive of Mersey Care, who have got organisations in their areas to adopt the ambition and start developing plans to achieve a dramatic reduction in suicide, aiming for zero suicide. That is of course what we should aim for, but it cannot be dictated from Whitehall. It requires real leaders to grasp the opportunity and to be ambitious.
Together we need to create a culture in our country in which everyone can talk about their mental health problems without fear or embarrassment. For that ambition to be fulfilled, it is essential that every part of the NHS commits to it. As I have mentioned, pioneering work in Merseyside, the south-west and the east of England means that health workers are starting to rethink how they care for people with mental health conditions. The Deputy Prime Minister called on the health service to look at the work being done by those three pioneering areas. Adopting those kinds of approaches across the country, with serious commitment, could save thousands of lives. We need to raise our aspirations for mental health, although we need to be clear that zero suicide is not a target but an ambition for organisations to aspire to. Nor is it about blame—that would be unhelpful for staff, for people using services and for communities and families. It is about constant learning—Louis Appleby has described so many examples from over the course of his career—and, critically, applying that learning to improve the system.
We know that many who take their own lives are not in touch with mental health services, a point that the hon. Lady frequently makes. That is why we need to apply the same ambition to primary care services and the wider community. The zero suicide initiative had its origins in Detroit, where a programme has successfully reduced the rate of suicides in in-patient care, with not a single suicide for a period of over two years. Although the study on the claim has not been peer-reviewed, the programme also claims to have reduced the suicide rate across the wider general population—that is the really exciting thing. That is why we need to be willing to learn constantly. We need to work together to challenge the stigma attached to mental ill health and change the way society as a whole thinks about it, starting in local communities.
I read with interest January’s report by the all-party group on suicide and self-harm. I know that the inquiry into local suicide plans concluded that there are significant gaps in the local implementation of the national suicide prevention strategy. I agree that that is a concern. As I have said in writing to the hon. Lady, I am confident that the APPG report will be of great value at local, regional and national levels. We know that it is at the local level that the most effective suicide prevention activity will take place. I am happy to write to those local authorities that have nothing in place, and to copy her into that correspondence.
Both the Department of Health and Public Health England agree that even the areas with comparatively low levels of suicide should aspire to do better. That is why we have challenged services, communities and national agencies to adopt the zero suicide ambition. I also agree with the APPG report that timely and reliable data are a valuable suicide prevention tool. Public Health England is working with police forces and local support agencies to pilot real-time surveillance of local suicides. The primary aim of the pilots is to provide prompt information to front-line local authority and NHS staff to enable them to respond to potential and real local clusters of suicides, and to provide timely support to people bereaved by suicide. Public Health England’s evaluation of the surveillance pilots will identify challenges to data collection at a local level and identify best practice to overcome them. The evaluation of the pilots will be available by the summer.
The national mental health intelligence network is developing a new profiling tool on suicide for release shortly, which will make available suicide rates and trends for the main age and gender groups at both local authority and clinical commissioning group level, so that there can be much more accountability. The tool will provide data on high-risk groups that can be used to inform priorities for local interventions.
I was pleased to see that the APPG welcomed Public Health England’s guidance for developing local suicide prevention action plans. The guidance will be updated later in the year and will incorporate best practice on data collection from the surveillance pilots. The hon. Lady will be aware that the guidance was published after the all-party group’s audit took place; Public Health England will contact all its centres over the coming months to discuss activity in their areas and track progress. Public Health England will publish further support for local authorities on identifying and responding to clusters and frequently used locations for suicides, and will also support local systems in developing and undertaking effective local suicide audits, a point that she raised.
We are also working with the National Suicide Prevention Alliance to help ensure that information is pulled together on its new website, which has been supported by grant funding from my Department. We know that sharing local case studies is important, which is why we included a number in the second annual report in the suicide prevention strategy.
The annual report was written for people working in local services, to pull together the key information that they need to implement the strategy locally. The second report on the strategy highlights the excellent work being done across sectors to prevent suicides, and sets out where efforts need to be concentrated for the next year. Local action, supported by national co-ordination, is essential to suicide prevention. The messages in the report are designed to help local areas focus on the most effective things that can be done to reduce suicides. The report also highlights the APPG’s findings and encourages local areas to use the detailed information from the inquiry in drafting their local suicide plans.
All our work on suicide prevention is part of our wider commitment to give mental health services parity of esteem and equality with physical health services. Investment and achievements in bettering mental health services inevitably have a positive impact on suicide prevention. If we make crisis response in mental health much better, so that people know how to get help at the moment when they need it, that will do so much to help those people get through a moment of crisis. I thank the hon. Lady for pursing this issue so vigorously.
Broadband
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I welcome the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy to his place, and I thank Mr Speaker for allowing time for this vital debate.
This debate is about the management and delivery of broadband, which covers a multitude of sins that I hope we can examine today. Many right hon. and hon. Members have constituents who are not included in the existing broadband roll-out and businesses that are looking to relocate if they cannot get broadband. Therefore, this is a timely debate. I hope to use it to address some of our concerns about the national roll-out of broadband in the UK and the management of Broadband Delivery UK. I will make some civic remarks about the current broadband delivery programme in Devon and Somerset and the work of BT.
It has been more than 20 years since the UK Government published their first Command Paper that was available on the internet. Today, broadband is vital in accessing public services. Since July 2012, the Government have committed to becoming digital wherever possible. The Government Digital Service, which created the gov.uk website—the single point of entry to online services—has provided firm leadership in the digital age, and it even won the Design Museum’s “designs of the year” award in 2013. Putting public services online is not a cost-cutting exercise, but a vital part of streamlining Government services. It makes services easier for the public to use and more responsive to their needs. I commend the Government and the Minister on their work on leading the digital revolution.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this urgent and important debate. Will he deal in his speech with who is responsible for the fact that some areas are below others in getting superfast broadband? Huddersfield and three other Yorkshire towns and cities, which are centres of this country’s manufacturing economy, are among the worst 10 areas, while the top 10 are mainly, although not all, in the south of England. Who does the hon. Gentleman think is holding back some areas of the country? Will he pinpoint the barriers today?
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Naturally, I do not know his area well. Broadband is delivered partly through the Government and partly through companies. There are schemes in place in areas such as Devon and Somerset to connect rural broadband and rural users, and naturally I have had more experience of that. Certainly, the Government’s programme aims to ensure that the cities he mentions are also provided with broadband, but I suspect that he will be given an answer by the Minister.
Mr Sheerman
The Government and previous Governments have done very well on this issue, so, unusually for me, I am not berating the Government. People keep saying that BT is responsible. Is BT holding things back or not?
Neil Parish
I am not going to get drawn into giving an exact answer to the hon. Gentleman. I shall come on to that issue later. BT is doing a good job in some areas, but it could do better in others; that is what we all want to see. However, we must recognise that, rightly or wrongly, BT is a major player in delivery, and delivering broadband to all our businesses and residents, wherever they are, is essential.
The Government have been ambitious in their plan to transform broadband in the UK, which has been co-ordinated by Broadband Delivery UK. The Government’s roll-out of superfast broadband has reached more than 1 million homes and businesses across the UK. The £1.7 billion nationwide roll-out is firmly on track to extend superfast broadband to 95% of UK homes and businesses by 2017. The rate at which fibre technology is being rolled out under the programme is rapidly accelerating, and up to 40,000 premises are gaining access every week. A key part of our long-term economic plan is to provide the digital tools that people and businesses need to thrive.
However—there is always a however—the move to online services is in serious danger of leaving thousands of people in digital darkness. The current target of 95% superfast broadband coverage by 2017 still leaves behind 5%. We must also ensure that we get to 95% by 2017. “The final 5%” is a misleading term, as it will not be evenly distributed across the country. Some communities—particularly those in rural areas—are disproportionately affected. More than 10% of the countryside is still without access to broadband in any form, and there are 12,000 premises with no digital footprint whatever.
As a member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I took part in the inquiry on rural broadband provision and digital-only services. As our report made clear, the difficult geographical nature of some communities must not be used as an excuse for a lack of broadband or poor broadband speeds. Those challenges should encourage investment and innovation in new types of technology.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I join other Members in congratulating my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He is right to praise what the Government have done so far, but he is also right to talk about the growing digital divide. It is important that we get superfast broadband to the final percentage of rural communities. Does he agree that, to get to those rural communities, we need to embrace new wireless technology? Ultimately, fibre to the cabinet will not deliver to those communities.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Our experience in Devon and Somerset is that new technologies have not been used quickly enough in the roll-out of broadband. BDUK is beginning to pick up and pilot some new technologies, but more should have been done more quickly. One of the purposes of this debate is to say to the Minister and to BDUK that we must deliver broadband faster and look at new technologies. A lot of the technologies are already out there. For example, smaller boxes can be put on to telegraph polls. I am not a technical man, but there are ways to deliver broadband more quickly. I imagine that the problems in Devon and Somerset are similar to those in Yorkshire, so we need to work on them.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. Does he agree that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) is of the essence and that we will not get to 100% without using the technologies that he spoke about? Crucially, those facts were not only predictable and predicted, but were fully known five years ago in 2010, during the discussion about what kind of contract should be let. It was known at the time that the introduction of alternative players is a prerequisite for getting full coverage. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) feel, as I do, rather let down by BT and, to some extent, the Government, given that they did not take account of those important facts five years ago when they contracted with BT?
Neil Parish
I thank my hon. Friend very much for his comments. He is right. What happened is that the contracts—certainly, the Devon and Somerset contract, which I know the most about—were far too secretive, so it was difficult for people to know exactly who was going to get broadband and who was not and for other companies to come in and provide it. We are doing better, and it is getting better—I am not here just to beat up BT—but we need firm and friendly criticism. We need to say, “Get on with it. You’ve got the contracts to deliver, so let’s have it done. If you are not going to be able to deliver it, let’s know about it, and if we can get in competition, all the better.”
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; he is being most generous. I wonder whether he shares my concern that, from my latest meeting with BT, I understand that the universal commitment to a minimum of 2 megabits per second now no longer applies and that some local authorities are trading off more fibre for not having to meet that commitment.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Through some fibre optic systems, it is not possible to deliver the minimum 2 megabits, and we should have known about that sooner and action should have been taken sooner. However, I do not want to be too negative this afternoon; that is not in our interest as hon. Members or that of our residents, wherever they are in the country. We have to say to BT, “You have got behind. Now move forward much more quickly.” I think that it will, but its feet need to be held firmly to the fire, so that it feels pain in order to deliver. It is no good saying to someone that 95% of the country has broadband if they live in an area in which 95% of people do not have it. In some areas, the figures are nearly as low as that. In my constituency, the figure is 22% at the moment, and that is over the whole constituency.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Although the focus of this debate is primarily on rural broadband, does he agree that there is a specific issue with urban broadband black spots? BT and Openreach know where those black spots are, but they will not share them with constituency MPs. County councils often know, but will also not share them, and it would be useful if the Minister tackled that issue briefly later.
Neil Parish
I entitled this debate in a broad fashion, so it is right for my hon. Friend to raise that point. The black spots are not just in rural areas, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) also mentioned. I have a series of questions that I want the Minister to answer at the end of the debate, but I hope that he is taking note of that point; I know that he is working very hard on it. If someone is in an area where they cannot get broadband, they are very frustrated, and when they have heard that packages have been put together to deliver it, that infuriates them even more. We need to be very aware of that.
Mr Sheerman
Before the hon. Gentleman moves off black spots, may I just have one more bite at that? I understand the black spots and the rural dimension, but as this lovely graph shows, nine out of 10 of the top-performing broadband innovations are in the south of England. It is the reverse in the north of England, where the worst-performing areas are. This is not just little black spots in the countryside; they are in major towns and cities. That is why we are so angry.
Neil Parish
I repeat that I am sure the Minister is aware of that, and I hope that he can answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. He is right to raise that issue. My constituency has many problems not only in the Blackdown hills and on parts of Exmoor, but on the edge of towns as well, so this is not just about rural broadband.
Anne Marie Morris
Does my hon. Friend share my further concern that many people in our very rural communities work from home and whether businesses are in the programme is very much in the lap of the gods? As I understand it, in some local authorities, business premises and industrial estates will be connected as part of the programme, and in others, they will not. If the economy and small businesses matter, surely that should not be an option.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Naturally, some areas may have the cables and cabinets, so it is much easier to deliver there. However, if there is a difficult spot to deliver broadband in, with lots of small businesses, we have to find a way to deliver it. This is not just about businesses, but about our residents. Broadband is very much part of our infrastructure, just as railways and roads are. We will be left behind if we are not connected, so that is the purpose of this debate. I thank her for that intervention.
During the inquiry, we heard from BT that it believes that the current target of 95% coverage by 2017 may slip. Given the resources and the free rein that it has been given, I hope that the Minister will impress upon BDUK the need to hold BT’s feet over the hot coals to get the job done. The target for superfast broadband has changed a number of times. The original date for completion was 2012. For our constituents to have confidence that their homes and businesses will get superfast broadband, it is important that the targets for broadband coverage are not changed again. If BT fails to achieve its targets, there should be a mechanism to hold it to account. That is very much what I want to see.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
For my hon. Friend’s benefit, I tell him that we have never changed our targets. We got rid of an unambitious target of 2 megabits at the end of 2012. We had an ambition, which I hope we will reach, of superfast broadband coverage of 90% by the end of 2015, and because of the huge success of this programme, we have added a further target to get to 95% by the end of 2017.
Neil Parish
I have huge confidence in the Minister, but as he can imagine, if someone is living in a constituency such as mine, where about 70% or 80% of people are not getting broadband, those figures do not mean an awful lot. Therefore, I urge him to ensure—I know that he will because he is such a wonderful Minister—that they will immediately get their broadband tomorrow. I am being slightly facetious, but let me reiterate that the purpose of this debate is not just to criticise, but to see whether we can do better. I am not criticising the Government, but when there is a contract from BDUK that has Government money, council money, business money and, in fairness, money from BT, let us make sure that it delivers on its promises.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I briefly intervene to say that there is no such thing as Government money or council money; it is all taxpayers’ money and that is why those responsible have to be held to account.
Neil Parish
I stand corrected by the hon. Lady. It is indeed our money that is being spent and we expect this service to be delivered.
The National Farmers Union has warned that its members do not have the infrastructure connections to enable fast enough broadband to comply with online Government services, including complying with the new agriculture policy, because all the mapping now has to be done online. I can understand that because of the need to map all the hedgerows, but it is essential that we get broadband out to those businesses.
The Federation of Small Businesses conducted research in July 2014 that shows that 94% of small business owners consider a reliable internet connection as critical to the success of their businesses and that 14% of UK small firms view the lack of a reliable broadband connection as being their primary barrier to growth. That has been recognised by the Government, but this is again about delivery. As small firms become more reliant on a high-quality broadband connection to do business, that will become even more significant in future.
As the EFRA Committee’s report rightly noted,
“2 Megabits per second (Mbps) is already an outdated figure, and 10 Mbps is increasingly recommended as a suitable USC for standard provision.”
The Government must reassess whether the current universal service commitment is still valid and right.
I would like to get a little more parochial. The Connecting Devon and Somerset programme that covers my constituency is on track to deliver superfast broadband to 90% of premises across Devon and Somerset by the end of 2016, up from 64% overall when the programme began. The programme is supported by a £32 million investment from BDUK.
I am pleased that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport announced on 25 February 2014 an additional £22.75 million for rural broadband in Devon and Somerset from the Government’s—from the taxpayer, from us all —£250 million broadband fund. However, my constituency of Tiverton and Honiton is ranked as the 611th worst constituency for broadband out of 650 constituencies. Only 33% of premises have high-speed broadband. A large number of communities in my constituency, such as Upottery, Stockland and Rousdon are being left in digital darkness. Some business owners in parts of Dunkeswell have told me that they may be forced to relocate because of the lack of reliable broadband. I have been working with local campaigners, Graham Long in Upottery and Rebecca Pow in Churchinford and Otterford.
CDS has now published its procurement tender for the next stage of the roll-out, to extend superfast broadband coverage as far as possible in Devon and Somerset, with the aim of getting to 100% coverage by 2020. I welcome the progress made in connecting more premises in Devon and Somerset, but I am deeply disappointed that we are not farther along this road. Communities in my constituency should not have to wait until 2020 for broadband delivery. I do not buy the argument constantly put to me by BDUK that, “It’s all too difficult, Mr Parish.” It is not too difficult, because a contract was given and money has been provided to deliver in those difficult areas. The contract is there to provide exactly what we want—broadband in our rural communities. Greater focus is needed on helping hard-to-reach areas and exploring innovative technologies.
Neil Parish
I think that the argument has gone even as far as state aid rules and whether Brussels was involving itself in the letting of contracts and whether being able to extend the existing contract with BT and BDUK was the best way forward. Those types of argument have been used. I am not against BT or what BDUK is doing, but I do feel that not enough competition has been brought into the system to keep BT and BDUK up to the mark.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue in Devon and Somerset now is not so much the delivery of the original contract, which is carrying on at its own pace—we are impatient, but it is happening—but the large areas in our constituencies that will not be covered by that contract and that need to catch up with the rest of the counties? I think that that will not be done through big contracts. It will be done through small, individual contracts, with new technologies such as wi-fi, rather than this approach, which I think will fail many people in rural areas.
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He may well be right. One problem that we have with these large contracts—the situation is getting a little better—is that people do not actually know where the broadband will be delivered. If there is an alternative system—satellite, wireless or whatever—people do not necessarily know whether to put private funds into it, because they do not know whether BDUK will actually deliver it to their area. This is the frustrating part of what we are doing. We have all worked hard across the parties to get money. The MPs in Devon and Somerset all signed the letters to get the money and we delivered the money and have the contract, yet individual residents are not getting the broadband. Naturally, they do not like all these figures being bandied about for how much is being delivered if they do not have broadband themselves.
I understand that Connecting Devon and Somerset chose the route that it did because of the lack of bids and the concern over the state aid deadline, but I believe that more could have been done to open the market. At national level, there should have been more work to prevent one company from gaining such a monopoly on publically funded broadband roll-out as BT has achieved. Given the impact of flooding and sea damage on the west country’s transport infrastructure, the provision of high-quality rural broadband has never been more important to the resilience of the south-west and its communities and businesses.
I have a number of questions that I am sure the Minister will be keen to address. Does he believe that BT is providing value for money? I think that that is a very important question for the simple reason that I want to see everyone get broadband. I accept that some areas are very difficult to get to, but surely that is what these contracts are let for. We have to make absolutely sure that we are getting value for money.
Will the Government re-examine the universal service commitment of 2 megabits? What work is the Minister’s Department doing to ensure that survey information is made publically available and that BT is not hamstringing local authorities with spurious confidentiality agreements? What work are the Government doing to pilot new technology to reach the hardest-to-reach areas? Finally, will the Minister examine ways of making BT much more accountable?
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing the debate. I want to give a different perspective on the issue of broadband coverage, coming as I do from one of the most concentrated urban areas in Scotland. At first sight, it might seem strange that someone from a constituency that has superfast broadband to a degree that colleagues would be envious of would complain about lack of coverage, but the fact is that even in my very urban constituency, many areas, covering thousands of homes and businesses, do not have superfast broadband at the moment and do not seem to have any prospect of getting it any time soon.
The projection is that, by 2017, 98% of people will have superfast broadband. That sounds very good and, if it happens, I will obviously be pleased about it, but many of my constituents who are currently affected are somewhat sceptical as to whether that figure will actually be reached and whether some of the current not spots in my constituency—they also exist in other urban areas—will have that level of provision.
We have the problems that I have described in urban areas such as mine because of a fundamental flaw in the arrangements for the roll-out of superfast broadband. It applies not just in my constituency, but in many other urban areas up and down the country. It is the basic problem that Government schemes and funding arrangements do not apply to areas where, it is believed, superfast broadband can be deployed commercially and therefore does not need to be subsidised. However, what then happens is that BT—it normally is BT—decides that it is commercially unviable to provide superfast broadband in certain areas, and nothing seems to change to make that move a little more quickly. It is Catch-22: these areas are commercially viable, so they do not get the subsidy—the financial arrangements—but we are told that it is commercially unviable for the market to provide in those areas.
I have lots of examples from my constituency. You will be relieved to hear that I will not go through them all today, Sir Alan, but they involve some incredibly densely populated areas. Quite often in new build developments of hundreds of flats, it is for some reason not regarded as commercially viable to provide superfast broadband. Of course, there are business locations in the area as well. We find instances in which the cabinets are there, but there is no indication of when superfast broadband will be provided. Even more frustratingly, we have a number of locations where the fibre-optic cable is in the street, running past particular houses, blocks of flats and blocks of offices, but there is no indication whether those properties will actually get superfast broadband, although someone down the street will obviously do so.
In Edinburgh city centre, the heavy concentration of commercial activity means that the residential properties are relatively dispersed, so again it has not been regarded as commercially viable to provide superfast broadband to those properties. There is something wrong when houses in the centre of some of our most concentrated urban areas still do not have a clear date for obtaining superfast broadband. I have raised the issue time and again with various levels of government—UK Government, Scottish Government and local government—and all I seem to get is an assurance that it will be all right eventually, but the problems persist. I have raised some concerns with the Minister in the past, but I urge him to look again at some of the cases in my constituency. I have had more cases over the past few weeks, and I am happy to provide him with the details.
I also want the Minister and his counterparts in the devolved Administrations to look at ways of ensuring that as many properties as possible in the areas in which contracts are rolled out have the opportunity to access superfast broadband. That should not be beyond the wit of Government, regulators or companies. If the contractual arrangements for roll-out are too far advanced in many parts of the country, as I suspect they may be, it should be the responsibility of Government to look at schemes to fill the gaps. We want to find some way of ensuring that not spots in urban areas, just as in rural areas, get superfast broadband. That is important not only because people enjoy having it, but because it is, in many cases, essential for business, essential for communication and essential in a world in which more and more of the transactions of everyday life—including contact with Government, both local and central—are carried out online. People who do not have access to superfast broadband will lose out, and that needs to be addressed in urban areas as well as in rural areas, which have different problems but which suffer from the issues that affect us all.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)
I am afraid that I do not share the optimism of my colleague the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) about what will happen in Devon and Somerset. The Government’s own figures show that only 41% of residents and businesses in Somerset have access to superfast broadband. That goes nowhere near meeting the needs of local people or rural businesses in my constituency. Effective, reliable and affordable broadband is essential in the 21st century, and it is fairly shaming that we can in no way compare ourselves with places such as Korea, which seems to have magnificent broadband coverage. It is a bit of a shame to have to say that. [Interruption.] Did the Minister want to say something?
Tessa Munt
Okay. Effective, reliable and affordable broadband is essential to keep people connected and ensure that our rural economy prospers. I do not understand how providing superfast rural broadband appears to mean strengthening the broadband in towns, where we have some coverage already, while coverage peters out as we move into rural areas. Surely, the whole point of rural broadband should have been to start in areas where there is little or no coverage and work back towards the places that have at least some coverage. The whole thing seems to be back to front, as far as I am concerned.
The Minister is always very optimistic and loyal about this project, and I would be delighted to share his optimism, but I have no idea how the final 59%, let alone the final 5%, of people in Somerset will be anywhere near getting some sort of decent service by 2020. The idea of getting to 90% by 2015 and 95% by 2017 is an utter dream. I would also like the Minister to tell me what superfast broadband is. Every time I have asked BT the question, it has fluffed the answer. I want to know what people in my patch can expect by way of an upload speed and a download speed.
Mr Vaizey
I am now ready to intervene. May I briefly put on the record that as far as I am aware, 21,000 premises in the hon. Lady’s constituency will be covered under phase 1, which is getting to 90%? That is effectively the same amount as were covered commercially. The figure of 21,000 and the term superfast broadband are audited, so we do not say that those premises are reached unless they are getting speeds of 24 megabits a second.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister for that clarification. If he has information about where that will happen, that leads me to my next question. Every time I have asked where the not spots are, I have been given all kinds of maps showing different colours. Most of my constituency is under consideration, or somebody is looking at the plumbing, or whatever. It seems unlikely that anyone will be able to make any headway in those areas. If the Minister is that sure, however, I am delighted.
I would be very grateful to have that information from him so that people who have no coverage can make alternative arrangements. I have heard reports, from my part of the country and others, of parish councils attempting to find out what is going on, and arranging for their own parishes to go online through some alternative to BT. Just when they have been about to hit the button and go for it, BT has suddenly come back to them and said, “Actually, we are going to do your bit after all.” That is not very competitive. If BT is not going to be up front, it is not fair for it to come back to communities that are trying to make their own arrangements and say, “Don’t do that, because we are coming in anyway.” That is slightly anti-competitive practice, and it does not look good, even if it is the truth.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and various other parts of Government, such as the Rural Payments Agency, have moved to digital. However, according to the figures that we have been given by the Country Land and Business Association, more than 10% of the countryside is without access to any broadband, and 12% has no digital footprint whatsoever. The trouble is that our suppliers expect farm businesses to be fully interactive online. Even though the basic infrastructure is not in place and Government-funded schemes are not delivering to remote and difficult-to-connect communities, they still have to use the various basic internet systems. Farmers find it difficult to innovate and to use new farming technology and software, which has to be downloaded from the internet. They also find it difficult to comply with other Government regulations by, for example, submitting VAT returns, getting vehicles taxed and processing animal tagging.
In my constituency, accessing the internet is also vital for jobseeker’s allowance claimants. Those who are looking for work, for whatever reason, have to show that they have applied for every possible job opportunity online. If they do not have internet access, it is absolutely impossible to meet the criteria, and their benefits may be stopped. Some of my constituents have to travel some distance to use the internet. They have to go to Bridgwater or to Wells, and there is little public transport. For people who are challenged financially and have little money because they have no job, but who are trying to find themselves work, it is incredibly difficult to compete and get the jobs that they need and want.
Mr Heath
Is not much of the problem caused by the hugely deceptive nature of percentages? We talk about a large percentage being covered without realising that in Somerset and the surrounding area, that means the fleshpots of Taunton and Exeter, and probably places such as Tiverton and Honiton. That relatively small percentage of people covers a large area of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend, and they are the people who do not get broadband and do not get mobile phone coverage worth having. In fact, they do not get anything, and it is time that they were properly served.
Tessa Munt
I tend to agree. Rather than looking at percentages, we should look at people. Back in the 1980s—I can remember all of this—we had British Rail trying to move trains from A to B and forgetting that its job was to move passengers from A to B. Exactly the same lack of focus on people has led us to where we are with broadband.
When my children were in senior school, they found the internet essential because they had to access their homework online. When they were at college, they had to send all their submissions online to their tutors, and they have to do exactly the same thing now that they are at university. It is difficult for someone who has no broadband and who lives some distance from the library, if they cannot drive or do not have a car and there are no buses. How the hell is anybody meant to be able to do these things?
I have a wonderful constituent who is 94 years old, who moved into Cheddar and found herself waiting weeks and weeks for some sort of connection. She used Skype, Twitter and Facebook to keep in contact with members of her family, who were all over the world. We must remember that in order to keep older members of the community living in their own homes, it is absolutely essential they can access services such as having their heavy shopping brought in from the supermarket by ordering online. They can still pop out to the shops every day and do the small items of shopping. Using the internet in such a way will help to keep them in their own homes.
Many of the businesses in my area are tourism-based, and if they do not have a reliable online connection and cannot use broadband at the right speed, they do not have a competitive edge. It is also difficult to buy, sell and communicate if the connection drops out all the time. Without a decent broadband connection, life is so much harder.
I wrote to the Competition and Markets Authority asking it to look into BT’s apparent refusal to join an open bidding process to increase high-speed fibre broadband access in Somerset. There is slight confusion over this, but it looks as though BT has held back information that might have enabled other organisations to join the bidding process. By saying that that information is commercially sensitive, it has prevented anybody from being involved in tendering for the phase 2 superfast extension programme.
Mr Bacon
I have no doubt the hon. Lady is right that BT has engaged in anti-competitive behaviour, and broadband is now a regular source of complaint among residents and businesses in my surgeries in Norfolk. However, is the situation not even worse? BT inflated its budgets for the BDUK rural broadband programme, thereby obtaining more state aid than it was entitled to. At the same time, it invested less in the programme than it communicated to the Government.
Tessa Munt
The hon. Gentleman has taken the words right out of my mouth. I hope the Minister will be in a position to address our concerns.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Order. Minister, quite a few Members want to speak, and the debate should not be turned into a question and answer session between you and one Back Bencher or another. It is much more important that we have as full a debate as we can. In the generous amount of time that remains, you will get an opportunity to reply to all the questions put by Members on both sides of the Chamber.
Tessa Munt
I am pleased that the Minister is so keen, but I take your point, Sir Alan.
My next point relates to the consequences of using the closed tender option in the Connecting Devon and Somerset bid. It is likely that all the confidentiality clauses required by BT, which shrouded the phase 1 programme, will carry straight over into phase 2. There can, therefore, be no demonstration of value for money to the public. BT will not invest in the programme to take coverage above 95%. Its focus must be on shareholder value, so there is no incentive for it to do that. People will not know whether they will get faster broadband under phase 2 until BT sees fit to tell them. Businesses and individuals cannot plan their futures on that basis.
Another aspect is the number of constituents who contact me about the allied organisation, BT Openreach, and I have spoken to the Minister before about my dismay at its pretty appalling service. In my village, lines went into an office and shop connection, but giving the broadband connection some life seems to require a bloke coming 20 miles across Somerset to flick a switch. When he fails to turn up, and businesses are not online, as they need to be, that makes things difficult, because there is no way for people to contact someone who can tell them what is happening.
We have been talking about digital darkness, and I will finish on a slightly lighter note—actually, it is not a lighter note, but something that filled me with horror. Last week, I asked the Prime Minister what he was going to do about the 41% coverage in Somerset. He told me:
“All local councils now have searchable websites”—[Official Report, 25 February 2015; Vol. 593, c. 318.]
He said people can therefore see when they can expect to get broadband in their area by going online, which is brilliant—if they are online.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing the debate.
I have been very focused on this issue in the last five years, first as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which has looked in detail at the rural broadband programme and made a number of criticisms of it. I have also been to a series of debates—in fact, so many that I have seen more of the Minister this last fortnight than I have of my husband. That is not a joke, sadly, much as I like the Minister.
In my constituency, I have constant complaints from businesses and residents about connection times, speeds, unreliability of service and, of course, cost. I represent one of the most urban areas of the UK. We are a powerhouse for the future of the tech economy. We have frequent visits from the occupants of Nos. 10 and 11 Downing street. The Prime Minister has dubbed my area tech city. There is, therefore, great Government pride in the area, but we have pretty poor broadband. When I complain, I am told, “It’s okay: two thirds of businesses in Shoreditch have a connection.” However, that means that a third of businesses in this critical area do not.
The House of Lords Digital Skills Committee has now joined the cacophony on this issue. Given that the Committee is in the other place, it is worth putting on record its very first recommendation, which is about hard infrastructure:
“We are concerned about the pace of universal internet coverage and the delivery of superfast broadband. In particular, we find it unacceptable that, despite Government efforts, there are still urban areas experiencing internet ‘not-spots’, which is hampering universal coverage and the UK’s international competitiveness.”
It goes on to say, and I agree, that broadband should be seen as a utility—something that is necessary, just as water and electricity are.
A report by Digital Business First says that 10 million UK premises—homes and businesses—are unable to access superfast broadband. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) rightly highlighted, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. A few percentages here and there do not reveal the real trouble and pain that many businesses and residents face.
Let me give just a couple of examples. A resident in the Victoria park area, on the edge of Hackney, near Tower Hamlets, worked from home. However, his broadband service was so poor that he moved out of Hackney to get better coverage. I will not go into the numbers of businesses that have had problems, but I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) about the poor quality of service. It takes a long time to get an Openreach engineer to visit. The Perseverance Works on Hackney road is a consortium—a co-operative, in effect—of businesses, and it took ages to get an engineer to visit it. When an engineer does visit, they do a survey, but it does not seem to belong to the customer, even though they paid for it. It is really difficult to find out exactly what is happening—the lack of transparency about the service is poor, and it really needs to be improved.
The Public Accounts Committee is now seeing the next phase of rural broadband being rolled out. Some real alternatives are being proposed. Finally, to pick up the point from the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), alternative technologies are being promoted, albeit very late in the day, and only, of course, after the bulk provision has been cherry-picked. The cost envelope for the more difficult-to-reach areas is that much higher, which makes it much harder to deliver services.
I said I represent Shoreditch, which is an international hub of tech progress, but we are falling behind. Shoreditch is, frankly, a national embarrassment, when we consider the place it occupies in the world. It is second only to silicon valley in terms of the investment going into tech businesses, but broadband speeds, and upload speeds in particular, are very poor.
Tech City News does a weekly video round-up, which I recommend to the Minister, as it discusses cutting edge digital technology around the world and in Shoreditch. I have mentioned it before, but it is worth emphasising that the former editor, who has just moved on, says that it would be filmed and taken to his house to be uploaded, because the speeds around Old Street roundabout were too slow, and it took too long. If that is not a national embarrassment I do not know what is. I am always embarrassed to repeat that story in Parliament, as I do not want to dump on my area, but it is time the Government took that seriously. Perhaps the next time the Prime Minister and Chancellor visit, they will be able to celebrate success, rather than tripping over failures. In South Korea the aim is a national 5G wireless network. We need to look for the same. We should aim for more one-gigabit cities. There is some progress, and some companies are keen on achieving it.
I have some questions for the Minister and would welcome answers in writing if he cannot answer now. As part of the approach to improving access to and roll-out of superfast, the Government have put out an advertising programme, which—paraphrasing only slightly—says, “Superfast broadband: it’s coming—would you like it?” I would like to know the cost of the advertising programme, given that the Government have made great play of cutting back on advertising. How are they measuring success? What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Communities and Local Government on planning rules to make it easier for other technologies to get into urban and rural areas and deliver superfast speeds, where the cable and fibre optics will not deliver?
More one-gigabit cities should be an aspiration of both the Government and the Opposition, so that things do not fall apart upon a change of Government. I hope we can be united in our aspiration. We need more collaborations such as that in York between the far-sighted Labour city council and TalkTalk, which wants to roll out superfast in its own way. It is important to give local authorities power over such contracts. More could be done to strengthen the arm of councils that want to follow that lead.
We need more competition in the market. That involves planning issues. Changes are needed to planning law to require landlords to provide what I would describe in simple terms as reasonable access for the installation of technology, particularly on high buildings. That would allow satellite and mobile superfast, for example, to fill the gaps. That might be more challenging in rural areas, and there might be other planning issues to do with rights of way across land, particularly agricultural land. Certainly in urban areas, however, it would be a fairly simple solution. All that it would require would be joined-up Government action and real will, not just on the part of the Minister, who, as the hon. Member for Wells said, always comes to our debates very optimistic about the programme, but on the part of his colleagues in other Departments. They also need to take the matter seriously. Will the Minister outline what conversations he has with Ministers in other Departments? Can he reassure us that they take the issue at least half-seriously? Are they, as I hope, stepping up to the mark to make sure our constituents no longer have to suffer the ignominy of the supposed superfast broadband programme, which is not delivering?
Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Mr Meale. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing the debate. The roll-out of superfast broadband has been a priority of his since his election to the House in 2010, and it is to his credit that he has been pushing it on behalf of his constituents, and businesses in his area—and talking about the national issue as well.
The debate has been excellent and is very important. We have heard that broadband roll-out is an issue that affects not only Devon and Somerset, and rural areas, but urban areas, too. We have heard about problems in Edinburgh, Hackney and Huddersfield. However, I want to mention the most important place of all—Hartlepool. I live in the town of Hartlepool, and not in an outlying village. Given that Hartlepool is the centre of the universe, it strikes me as odd that it takes me 10 minutes to download something from iTunes. The idea of watching the new series of “House of Cards” on Netflix is a pipe dream that I could not possibly think about. BT has said it is because my neighbours and I are too far away from the cabinet—therefore it is not acceptable for us to have superfast broadband. That cannot be right for constituents and households in an urban area. However, things can be even worse than that: this morning I was speaking to my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about this debate, and she said that businesses in Trafford Park, the largest industrial estate in Europe, are still waiting for superfast broadband. Someone from one of the businesses there told her that they were paying 10 times the price, for a fifth of the average speed.
That cannot be the right approach, because broadband is essential for the future competitiveness of the country. We are in the midst of a third industrial revolution based on digital technology. The digital revolution is already transforming the way commerce is transacted, social interaction conducted, and public services provided to citizens. It will continue to do that—indeed, its impact on society and the economy will accelerate. It will affect skills, employment and other things. It is not sufficient for firms to say, “We will have an add-on digital strategy.” Digitisation and technology will be intrinsic to everything that the economy, Government and society do. If we in this country are to enjoy rising living standards and improved productivity, and to maintain and enhance competitiveness in the global economy, we must have the ambition of being the leading digital nation, both in skills and in hard infrastructure, which is crucial.
In many respects the UK is well placed to achieve that. We are presently ranked ninth among the leading global digital economies by the World Economic Forum’s global competitiveness index. We have a culture of innovation and invention, and we have a digitally savvy population, in many respects, but we must go further, and we could do more. It seems to me that in 2015 the country is at a tipping point with respect to what we need to do to enhance our competitiveness in the digital world. The countries that rank higher than the UK are Switzerland, Singapore, the US, Finland, Germany, Japan, Hong Kong and the Netherlands. All of those are our competitors.
In a telling speech, the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) mentioned South Korea. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) mentioned, too, it announced last year that it would deliver a national 5G wireless network offering speeds of 1 gigabit per second by 2020. It is striking that the nations I mentioned have all invested in digital skills as a priority, but have also prioritised digital infrastructure, with a particular emphasis on driving universal access and usage. We have heard time and again that digital businesses can locate anywhere in the world, and that they will often go where connectivity is amenable; but we have also heard that 10 million UK premises are unable to access superfast broadband.
For all the much-vaunted notion of London as a tech hub and Shoreditch as tech city, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch said in her excellent and knowledgeable contribution, there are connectivity problems in a place that is often seen as the national centre of the digital economy. The city’s average broadband speed ranked 26th out of 33 European capitals. London has an average speed of 25.44 megabits per second, whereas Bucharest, at No. 1 in Europe, has speeds of 80.14 megabits per second. As we have heard in the debate, and as I have mentioned, the UK suffers from internet not spots, in which businesses cannot connect and therefore cannot compete and grow.
The country suffers far too much from patchy coverage. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch has already mentioned last month’s excellent report of the Digital Skills Committee in the other place, but it is worth referring again to such an excellent report and recommendation. It made it clear that the pace of universal internet coverage and the delivery of superfast broadband should be a matter of concern; universal coverage and the UK’s international competitiveness are being hampered. Yet as the National Audit Office set out, the Government’s rural broadband project will be delivered 22 months late. Only nine local projects will, it is estimated, meet the programme’s target of supplying 90% of premises with superfast broadband by May 2015. The Government now say that the date could be December 2017, but BT has stated that the programme may
“end up being in 2018”.
Why has that been allowed to happen?
That question was also asked by the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, is an excellent member of the Public Accounts Committee. Why have the Government structured the policy and the institutional architecture in that particular way? What did the Government do to ensure that the targets were achieved? Why was action not taken sooner to ensure that delivery times were met?
On phase 2 of the rural broadband roll-out, why did the Government not prepare a comprehensive and separate business case, based on the findings of phase 1? The Minister will be aware of the NAO’s progress update on the delivery of the programme, which was published some five weeks ago. Is he concerned about the NAO’s comments that phase 2, currently at the procurement stage, will face limited competition, given that BT is the only participant in the BDUK procurement framework?
We have heard time and again about BT’s role in the process. The Minister will be aware of the remarks by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee following the publication of the Committee’s report on the roll-out of the rural broadband programme:
“The Government has failed to deliver meaningful competition in the procurement of its £1.2 billion rural broadband programme, leaving BT effectively in a monopoly…BT’s monopoly position should have been a red flag for the Department. But we see the lack of transparency on costs and BT’s insistence on non-disclosure agreements as symptomatic of BT’s exploiting its monopoly position to the detriment of the taxpayer, local authorities and those seeking to access high speed broadband in rural areas.”
On that basis, and given the comments made by hon. Members this afternoon, does the Minister really think that we have a healthy, competitive market that promotes good competition and encourages new entrants, who will drive down costs, drive up quality and access, and improve our country’s competitiveness?
Given the structure of BDUK, and given the structure of the process introduced by the Government, why were options other than that monopoly position not considered? Is the Minister concerned that the Government’s handling of the process means that a single private company will be able to reinforce its already strong position in the market, to the detriment of new competition? What will he do to ensure that the excellent local initiatives that we have heard about—the City of York council and TalkTalk initiative being a particularly good example—are encouraged as much as possible? We need local, innovative solutions that address specific local circumstances.
I am interested in the important question of who owns national infrastructure assets. What happens to the £1.7 billion public sector investment, in terms of BT’s assets and infrastructure? Is the Minister content that, in this case, vast amounts of taxpayers’ money has been used to improve a company’s balance sheet? We have heard about the importance of transparency. What is he doing to improve the transparency of data, access and cost base? I fully respect “commercial in confidence” agreements, but why are non-disclosure requirements allowed? How do they promote competition? What will he do to change that?
I have specific points about individual funds established by the Government. How much of the £20 million rural community broadband fund has been spent, and what has it achieved? Similarly, what proportion of the super-connected cities programme has been allocated, and what take-up has resulted from that programme?
This has been an important debate, because connectivity for our businesses and homes will be crucial in the 21st century economy, which will be led by a digital revolution. We should see broadband as a national utility, just as electricity, water and transport were in previous decades. Does the Minister need to think in a wider and more co-ordinated way across Whitehall to ensure that happens? Do planning and access to land also need to be altered to ensure that we can highlight and prioritise this important function of future competitiveness? Other countries are speeding ahead with connectivity, at the cost of our own competitiveness, prosperity and social inclusion.
Time and again, we have heard questions from hon. Members about value for money, accessibility, connectivity, availability and the services that businesses and constituents have received. I hope that the Minister will take on board the serious questions that have been asked today, and I hope he will be able to address them in the time remaining.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I apologise for my Tigger-like behaviour when I kept intervening earlier in the debate. As you rightly predicted, I now have plenty of time to set out the Government’s stall in response to the excellent contributions that we have heard.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for securing this important debate and for making his points in such a fair and balanced manner. I also thank the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) for her usual forthright remarks. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) for his long contribution, and I thank the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for spreading the rumour about us, which will no doubt spread like wildfire thanks to the availability of 4G in and around Westminster. I am grateful for the interventions by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), to whom I am paying homage with my extensive facial hair. Of course, I am always grateful for the response by the spokesman for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), a man for whom I have the utmost admiration, even if I do not always agree with him.
To utter that terrible phrase that tends to kibosh Tory Ministers, I will begin by going back to basics. I will set out in some detail exactly what the Government set out to achieve, and I will try to do that in as non-partisan a fashion as possible, despite the fact that this may be our last broadband debate before Dissolution. We came into government with the previous Government having set a target of 2 megabits of universal broadband by 2012, which was perhaps a perfectly respectable target at the time. The then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), looked at that target and said that it was not ambitious enough and that 2 megabits was not the kind of speed that people would expect to receive as the programme rolls out, and it is fair to say that his prediction was absolutely right. Indeed, one or two of the rural lobbying groups, possibly including the Country Land and Business Association, are now effectively asking for a universal commitment of 10 megabits. Most people now regard 7 or 8 megabits as the kind of broadband speed they need to do what one might call the basics, even though some people argue that 1 or 2 megabits is what people need to use the iPlayer.
We had to find money for the programme and get state aid approval before letting the contract. We found £530 million from the TV licence fee, some of which was originally set aside for the digital television switchover, on which there was an underspend. We knew the core figure, and we decided that it should be match funded by local authorities, obviously not just to increase the available pot of money but to give local authorities ownership of the programmes. That was a conscious decision, and some people might say that it was a wrong decision, but I think it has proved to be right that local authorities will own and co-fund the contracts and will be partners in delivering in local areas.
We can dip into other pots of money. European money, for example, has been important in certain areas, and let us not forget the contribution of the company that eventually won the contracts—BT. This morning I looked at figures showing that some £410 million is being spent on delivering rural broadband in Scotland, with £120 million of that coming from BT. BT is not simply an open mouth into which taxpayers’ gold is being poured; BT is making its own contribution.
I agree with all hon. Members representing rural areas who have spoken today—the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch and for Edinburgh North and Leith represent urban constituencies—and recognise that leaving broadband delivery to the marketplace is not enough. It does not make commercial sense for a private company to invest many millions of pounds upfront when it is unlikely to get a return on its investment because, frankly, there simply are not enough people in rural areas to take up broadband services. A subsidy was needed. We made it clear from the outset that, with that money and this scheme, we thought that superfast broadband speeds could reach 90% of the population. Again, with the benefit of hindsight, people might criticise us and ask, “Why didn’t you go for 100% from the very beginning?” However, we went for 90%. In effect, we thought that was achievable and realistic; it was a promise that we could keep. The programme has gone well.
Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)
I pay tribute to the Minister for his commitment to the project and the investment of £57 million in the Welsh roll-out. However, there were always people who were not to be connected to rural broadband and in Wales that was set out under postcodes. In the rural areas, postcodes cover communities that are spread widely and some people have not been able to get broadband even when it was said that it was available. A £1,000 grant has been offered—in England I think it is called the voucher scheme—for those who cannot get broadband, but people in postcodes that were told they would get rural broadband now cannot apply for the £1,000 to get access through satellite or some other technology. Does the Minister see how that is frustrating for constituents of mine and, indeed, many other people?
Mr Vaizey
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration. As he knows, I was recently in his constituency, sitting in a digger, trying to do my bit to deliver superfast broadband to his constituents. From looking at the figures and as I understand it, no commercial coverage of any kind was planned for Brecon and Radnorshire, but under this scheme some 26,000 people should get superfast broadband by the end of 2016 who otherwise would not have done. However, I will come to the issue of people who feel as though they are in one category and cannot self-help, as it were, or apply to other schemes.
Neil Parish
One of my questions—the Minister may get on to this in a minute—is not whether BT is providing the money as well as the taxpayer, but whether we are getting value for money out of the contracts.
Mr Vaizey
I can give my hon. Friend an unequivocal answer—yes. Our latest audit found that the scheme cost is, I think, £92 million below what we expected. With clawback provisions—if more people take up broadband than expected and, therefore, more revenue comes in—we find that we can go further. In Cornwall, for example, a scheme started under the previous Government had a target of 80% coverage, but with the same money we will now reach 95%.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool quoted the National Audit Office report from, I think, 18 months ago, which was when I had to tour the studios with the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) to contest her conclusions. That report got wall-to-wall media coverage, but last month’s NAO report, which gave the scheme a clean bill of health and said that we had made a lot of progress, got absolutely no coverage at all. In fact, I wrote down a quote from the right hon. Lady. She said that there
“does seem to have been some progress, which we…welcome”.
Coming from her, that is a massive vote of confidence.
Tessa Munt
Will the Minister answer a simple question for me? He has already talked about return on investment. If people have contracted with a company to receive broadband at a certain speed but they then suffer slow speeds, poor connections and constant drop-out, they receive no return on their investment. How can they get their bills adjusted to reflect what they receive, because there is a definite variance between what they contracted for and what they get?
Mr Vaizey
That is an interesting point. If I wanted to dodge the hon. Lady’s question, I would say that that was a contractual matter between BT and its customer, or indeed any other provider and its customer, but it is an important point that I shall take seriously. We have already tackled relatively straightforward issues, such as stopping companies from advertising their speeds as the fastest speed that could be possibly received. We have asked them to advertise only the average speed that people are likely to receive. However, I want to look at whether we can have different levels of contracts for people who clearly receive slower speeds.
Tessa Munt
I thank the Minister very much indeed. Will he do that in the next few weeks, while he has still got the power?
Mr Vaizey
I know that the hon. Lady has nothing but admiration for my abilities. That is certainly something that I want to look at and, given that I said that in an open debate, she can be assured that we will look at and discuss that with BT and others.
Let me go back to basics—it is good to see one of the leading members of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), returning to his seat, as I have already prayed in aid the National Audit Office. No doubt, he will seek to correct that position.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
While the Minister is going back to basics, I want to applaud him and the efforts in Cornwall on superfast broadband. He rightly points to some good results. However, I would really like him to address the point, which he mentioned, of the people who will not get fibre. What will we do to ensure that they have access to alternative technologies? Where those technologies are satellite, which—as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) rightly pointed out—are much more expensive than BT packages, what will we do to enable them to have equality of access and ensure that they are not priced out?
Mr Vaizey
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. Time is pressing, but I will answer her question now. We were clear about 90% coverage. People can question whether that target was ambitious enough, but when the programme was going well enough, we found more money—the Treasury gave us an additional £250 million—to go to 95%.
I stress that that was not us moving or revising the target. We said, “Phase 1 is going well. We think we can go further. Here is £250 million and we think we can go to 95%, again by 2017.” To answer the question from the hon. Member for Hartlepool, yes, some of those contracts extend beyond 2017. I used to be a lawyer. Thankfully, I am no longer, but, if he has ever met a lawyer, he will know that if they could write into a contract a completion date in 2117, they would do so to give themselves enough wiggle room. However, the end of the contract does not signify when the project is likely to end.
Of course we want to get to 100%, and all the advice we received said that getting to that last 5% could cost £2 billion. Those were, to put it bluntly, back of a fag packet calculations—they were by sophisticated people and on sophisticated fag packets, but that is what they were—so the previous Secretary of State, my Friend the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who deserves a lot of credit for the work she did across a range of issues, found £10 million from the Treasury for some pilot schemes, which are now well under way. Some of them are delivering superfast broadband and we are auditing them at the moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) is quite right that satellite is quickly emerging as one of the key solutions for the last 5%. We now want to do an analysis of what that is likely to cost, go to the Treasury with an evaluation, and think how best that can be delivered. That will probably involve some of the smaller providers. That is the plan and hopefully by 2018-19 we can be close to 100% superfast broadband access.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton said that he wants the pace to be picked up. We have passed the 2 million homes mark under the programme and we are adding 40,000 homes a week—50,000 a week in some instances. However, this is an engineering project and it cannot be delivered overnight.
I want to talk about competition. We had an open competition: we put in place a state aid approved framework contract and anyone could have bid for the contracts. At the beginning, a consortium led by Fujitsu did indeed bid against BT. However, there are constraints when bidding for such contracts. To take Connecting Devon and Somerset, for example, the aim is to try to connect 360,000 homes, but there are not many players in that space, much as I would wish there to be. If a company takes money from the taxpayer—I think it was the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome who asked who owned the assets—there will be open access, so the TalkTalks of this world will provide their retail services on such networks, built partly by the taxpayer and partly by BT. That is open access. That is why, for example, a player such as Virgin Media, which some might think has the scale to compete against BT, did not want to play in this space, because it does not want to run an open-access network. I again give credit to the last Government for the structural separation of Openreach from BT. Openreach is an open platform to which others are allowed access, at prices that are regulated by Ofcom—
Mr Heath
Can I bring the Minister back to his “fag packet”, because one of his problems is that he has raised expectations? In Somerset, we may be a bit rough and ready; we are certainly very rural. However, we do not have big mountains, we are only under water part of the year and it was entirely predictable that the rotten old copper cables that ran three and a half miles from my house to an outhouse in Upton Noble were not going to be sufficient, so I do not understand why that was not factored in originally. Why was the contract not let on the basis of delivering fibre to those communities, rather than on the basis of some notional figure, which has failed to be met?
Mr Vaizey
I really fail to understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, and I will not invite him to make it again or we could be here all night. In his constituency, 26,000 homes will get coverage under phase 1 of the programme, and nearly 2,500 more homes will get it under phase 2, so we are talking about 28,500 homes in his constituency that will get coverage.
The programme is run by the local authority. To make a blunt point, we are seeking bang for our taxpayer buck. To pluck a figure from the air, if it will cost £50,000 to connect a village of 20 people and one of 200 people, which group will be chosen? That is potentially a political decision as well. One might take a view that connecting those 20 people is better, in the sense that they are at the end of the queue, so let us bring them forward. However, that is something that we also left to local authorities, because we wanted them to partner this programme. It was not for us in the centre of Whitehall to decide between village A and village B.
Tessa Munt
Can the Minister comment on what appears to be utterly anti-competitive behaviour? I have written down in my notes some fairly serious allegations, and this story has been covered in both the Western Morning News and the Western Daily Press. It is claimed that BT said it would withdraw from the tender process for the contract for Connecting Devon and Somerset if CDS did not use the Broadband Delivery UK framework and run a closed tender process in which BT was the only bidder.
Mr Vaizey
I will happily look at evidence the hon. Lady has of any anti-competitive practices by BT. I will try to unpack what she is alleging. First, BT is free to bid or not to bid for these contracts. We should remember that when we are busily kicking BT, which we do in all these debates; for a quiet life, BT might not bid for any of these contracts.
Tessa Munt
As I understand it, in the national parks, parts of Exmoor and Dartmoor have been parcelled off, so that the contracts for those areas can be tendered competitively. Ironically the suppliers there have to confirm that they are not participating in any “anti-competitive activities” and they have to sign a “certificate of non-collusion”—
Mr Vaizey
I get the point. I am running out of time, so let me simply say that BT is free to bid or not to bid, and it is free to say to a contracting authority that it wants to use the framework contract to save time and make life more efficient, and that if the authority is going to use a different contract it will not bid. That is entirely up to BT and I do not think that is anti-competitive behaviour.
Obviously, we have a debate—a constant to-ing and fro-ing—with BT, because we audit its figures and invoices. Again, it is worth making the point that BT invests this money up front; it does not receive any money from the Government or the taxpayer until it has done the work. It is not handed a cheque to meander kindly down the road and do the work when it feels like it, and if there is some good football on the telly on Wednesday night, it will not do the work. It does the work and then it gets paid.
As I say, we audit those figures and they show value for money. BT is a national provider, and therefore it was in a very good position to win those contracts. However, there is competition throughout the country.
Mr Bacon
Interestingly, the Minister said earlier that Fujitsu bid against BT. No, it did not. It bid to be inside the contract, even though it had told the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), that if it got inside the contract it would not bid for any work. She got down on her hands and knees and begged it to be inside the framework contract, because otherwise there would be only one successful bidder inside the framework contract. That is what happened, even though the Department knew that if Fujitsu entered the framework contract, it would not be bidding for any work.
Mr Vaizey
That is not my understanding, but I will happily write to my hon. Friend and explain what I think happened. However, I still fail to see the point that he is trying to make. The point I have just made is that these were quasi-national contracts—big contracts, to cover 360,000 homes—and very few players were willing to participate in that competition. Nevertheless, it was a competition—
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister is not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Vaizey
As I was saying, you want this to be a debate, Sir Alan, and not a question and answer session.
There are competitors. Virgin Media, for example, has just announced £3 billion worth of private investment to reach 4 million homes in cities. I think the hon. Member for Hartlepool mentioned York, where TalkTalk, with Sky and CityFibre, is planning to build a network, but that will not be delivered overnight. Again, those involved must get investment to do that.
I will say this again and again and again—I make no apology for working for what BT is doing. We can argue about its customer service, and I am not BT’s representative. As a constituency MP, of course I deal with my constituents’ tales of woeful customer service from BT—I do not know how many millions of customers a week, or a month, BT deals with regarding faults on the telephone line, or whatever. I do not seek to be an apologist for BT’s poor customer service when it comes across my desk.
I will, however, stand up for BT as a great British company, which has worked tirelessly on this project and for which it seems to have received an endless supply of grief. BT has provided value for money; it has delivered what we have asked it to deliver; and it is working at pace. I was delighted to meet some BT engineers during the Christmas period while they were installing a cabinet in my constituency.
I am also pretty fed up with people doing down Britain in terms of our comparison with the rest of the world. The hon. Member for Wells talks about South Korea. Well, South Korea is a very different country to the UK. It is densely populated, with a lot of tower blocks that can be connected pretty easily. Nevertheless, its average speed is about 21 megabits, whereas our average speed—[Interruption.] Please stop heckling. As I was saying, South Korea’s average speed is 21 megabits and ours is 18 megabits.
Also, of course, when people talk about the speeds in other countries, they never talk about what that speed costs; they never talk about the equivalent of hundreds of pounds that people would have to spend every month to get these 1 gigabit speeds. And they also never talk about take-up. The fact is that some of this superfast broadband in South Korea, which people are so pleased to talk about, is used by very few South Koreans, because South Koreans do not want it as it is too fast and too expensive.
That brings me neatly to London, where the very misleading survey that was used in the Evening Standard does not come close to showing how competitive London is. The survey cited a company that said, “Oh, we couldn’t get any broadband. It’s terrible. We’re in the centre of London.” In fact, that company actually has superfast broadband running past its door, but it does not want to pay the price for it. However, thanks to the publicity that has been generated, I gather that it has been offered free superfast broadband by a local business provider.
When we launched our voucher schemes—more than 10,000 businesses now have these vouchers—we had around 500 suppliers on our books. There is no shortage of business broadband in London or in many other cities, but there is a shortage of businesses willing to pay the price for it. That is why we have asked Ofcom to review the price of leased lines and the business market. We want to see those prices coming down, and indeed BT’s prices have come down.
I have taken rather too many interventions and perhaps not put my points as forcefully as possible. However, I will say that I am proud of this programme; I am delighted that 2 million premises have received superfast broadband as a result of the programme; I am delighted that 40,000 premises will get superfast broadband this week, and that another 40,000 premises will get it next week; I am delighted that the programme is being delivered by a great British company; and I am delighted that that company is delivering massive value for money to the great British taxpayer.
Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital (Stanmore)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, in this vital debate that is important not only locally in my constituency, but nationally. The Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in Stanmore is a national and international institution par excellence. I will use a quote that I gleaned when doing some research. The RNOH delivers
“Outstanding clinical outcomes for patients”
in premises that are
“not fit for purpose—it does not provide an adequate environment to care and treat patients.”
I and the staff of the hospital could not have put it better. That is a direct quote from the most recent inspection by the Care Quality Commission in August 2014.
The hospital premises were built during the second world war to house airmen who were defending our shores and to ensure that facilities were available to treat our brave soldiers, airmen and seafarers returning home. Sadly, we still have the same premises that existed during the second world war. I want to put on the record my tribute to the brilliant work that is done by all the medical staff, all the clerical staff and the entire team who provide facilities and services at the hospital. Many charities that are associated with the work of the hospital also operate from the site.
I wanted this debate today because I took the then shadow Secretary of State for Health to Stanmore in January 2010 to see the hospital at first hand. He gave a commitment to the board, the staff and everyone associated with the hospital that, were there to be a Conservative Government after the election in May 2010, the hospital would be rebuilt.
Just before the election, in March 2010, the then Secretary of State for Health, who is now the shadow Secretary of State for Health, announced funding for the redevelopment. It is fair to say that immediately after the election, when hon. Friends discovered there was no money left at the Treasury, I had to work very hard with civil servants and elected politicians at the Treasury to ensure that the promised funding for the rebuilding of the hospital was safeguarded in the emergency Budget that took place immediately after the election.
Here we are now, four and a half to five years on, and there has been very little progress on the rebuilding work. The trust that runs the hospital—I have worked with the board of the trust and others—has responded to every question posed by the trust development authority. It seems almost impossible to get through the positively Kafkaesque process of repeated reviews. The only beneficiaries of that process are the management consultancy firms. Patients and the medical staff have not benefited one iota.
I believe—I stand to be corrected if this is not so—that some £75 million has been spent on management consultants. It has not been spent on the consultants who treat patients, but the people who come and do management studies. I think that that is a disgrace and a waste of public money. All 13 independent reviews have concluded that the orthopaedic hospital offers excellent, high-quality, world-class care. The CQC has rated outcomes as “outstanding”, and the trust is regularly in the top 10% of all hospitals in respect of infection control and friends and family tests.
All independent reviews concerning the hospital’s geographical location have concluded that there are no better alternatives to having the hospital on the Stanmore site. All independent reviews concerning the financial risks associated with the redevelopment have concluded that the Stanmore site development offers the best value for money and that no “more affordable” option is available.
In the meantime, the future of the trust continues to be reviewed, debated and deferred. As I have said, more than £70 million of costs have been incurred, with a severe waste of money on project fees of £20 million, maintenance costs of keeping these rotten buildings going of some £15 million and the lost efficiency opportunity of some £35 million. In this modern day and age, that cannot be right.
By way of background, the hospital is a centre of international expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of neuromusculoskeletal conditions, which include acute spinal injury, bone tumour and complex joint reconstruction. This centre of expertise is not replicated anywhere else within the national health service. It has the largest spinal surgery service in Europe, with a third of UK spinal scoliosis surgery and two thirds of specialist nerve injury work being carried out on the site.
Some 95% of patients rate the care as “good” or “excellent”, and 90% of staff and patients would recommend the hospital to their friends or relatives. The hospital was the longest-standing in London with no MRSA infections in the past five years. Without question, this hospital delivers services and medical treatment that are the best in class. The clinical excellence and innovation are beyond doubt. The problem is that the buildings were built to last for a limited period, but that has stretched to 70 years. It cannot be right that we insist on brilliant medical staff operating in substandard conditions that would shame the third world.
We need to ensure that the rebuilding takes place. I understand completely that the health service has a process for business cases and has to offer value for money. We would all support that in principle. However, as this is a specialist hospital of international renown, it has a special place within the national health service. Successive Governments and the health service have prevaricated on the future of the RNOH for decades—literally 30 years. We have to have a different, more proactive approach to resolve the problem. It is clear that the board that runs the trust will have to conclude at some stage that it can no longer offer safety to patients in the substandard conditions in which it operates.
The creditability of the Government, the national health service and everyone involved is on the line here. Political leadership is required to ensure the best interests of patients and taxpayers. I look to my hon. Friend the Minister for some suitable answers, because this has been going on publicly and privately for the past five years that I have been involved, and, before that, for the past 30 years.
So the RNOH has a track record of delivering financial and performance targets. It responds time and again, updating and revising financial plans and risk assessments and refreshing commissioner support. Every time the board responds, it appears that we do not move forward, but backward. That cannot be allowed to continue and we must reach an appropriate arrangement. We need an innovative and alternative financing option—that is not encouraged through the current NHS process—to ensure that the hospital is delivered.
We should be clear that the key to resolving this matter is the top-up of public money by capital or a loan of some £20 million. It should be understood that the board will build a private hospital alongside the NHS hospital, and that will generate income. The board will also sell off land for housing development, which the area needs, but the board takes the sensible view that it will realise the land receipts gradually as the need arises for the programme’s funding. That will maximise their value and provide a decent level of housing in the local area. Both those things have been positively embraced. The RNOH and the trust development agency have been developing the outline business case since September 2014. In March 2015, we are still waiting to see whether it will be approved and action taken, so that the redevelopment can take place.
It is time that the Department of Health acknowledged that highly specialist hospitals and providers such as the RNOH need a different approach from that taken with the generality of NHS providers. It cannot be right that a super, specialist organisation with such excellent results is denied facilities for the want of a relatively small amount of public money.
In summary, the RNOH is a vital national provider of treatment for the most complex orthopaedic conditions and the rehabilitation for people with life-threatening conditions, such as spinal cord injuries. It does vital work on the innovation of new treatments, leading-edge research and development, the manufacture of state-of-the-art prosthetics and the training of future orthopaedic specialists. The hospital has treated many famous individuals, including Lord Tebbit’s wife after the Brighton bombing and Princess Eugenie. Moreover, the RNOH recognises the financial constraints it operates within and has continuously demonstrated that mitigations to affordability risks are available. Demand for services grows every day. Major land sale receipts will be available. Planning permission is in place; there is no hold-up on that. Housing and employment for the local population will be increased by the proposal, and major private patient income will come in.
The RNOH has a track record of delivery against every target that it has ever been set. It has responded time and again to the requirements of the TDA and every other aspect of the health service. It is clear that every time there has been a step forward, there have been two steps back. Every time proposals have come forward on alternative financing options, we have just ended up spending more public money. If that £75 million had been invested in the project, we would now be looking at new hospital facilities on the site. We would have first-rate, world-class facilities for world-class medical professionals.
No one believes that anyone wants to see the facility closed down, but the reality is that the Department of Health has to move forward and instruct the TDA to abandon the position that it has adopted, so that the RNOH can move forward to development. If we do not do that, we might as well close the hospital. That would be an absolute tragedy for all the specialists, medical staff and patients. By bringing those services together, the medical professionals have developed world-class techniques and an ability to cure individuals of very serious problems. Indeed, the medical staff of the RNOH provide national and international services way beyond the bounds of the hospital. I urge the Minister to give us some good news and to ensure that we get the funding required for the hospital to be rebuilt and for facilities to be provided for the brilliant staff, who do a brilliant job for the patients.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Before you begin, Minister, I want to pass a message on. Generally when debates are answered in this place, the Parliamentary Private Secretary is present. There was not a PPS in the last debate or this debate, and that might happen in the next debate, because I see the Minister for it standing by. When a PPS for the Minister is not present, it is usual for someone from the Whip’s Office to be involved. Sometimes mysterious pieces of advice appear from other places and have to be passed forward to the Minister. When those people are not present to do that, we have to rely on House of Commons staff. They have enough to do, and we should try to help them where possible. I am not saying that it is anything to do with the Minister, but I would be grateful if he could pass that expectation on to the Whips or the PPSs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)
I will of course pass that message on, Sir Alan. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for, I think, the first time in the almost three years I have been a Minister. I heed and take note of your comments. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate on an issue that is important to him and his constituents—and, more broadly, to many others. As he rightly outlined, Stanmore is a centre of national excellence in orthopaedic care. It has an international reputation. With the care it provides to its patients, it is one of the best centres in the world.
Before I address the issues my hon. Friend raised, I pay tribute to all those who work in our NHS—not just in his constituency, but right across the country—for their dedication, determination and commitment in providing first-class services to all whom they care for. I know that he made his remarks in that spirit. First-class, dedicated NHS staff need to be supported with the right facilities to provide that level of care. That is exactly why he raised the issue today, and I hope my remarks will bring him some reassurance.
One issue I wanted to pick up on was consultancy spend. I agree with my hon. Friend that hospitals spending money hand over fist in that way on consultants is completely unacceptable. I hope he will be pleased to know that the consultancy spend in the NHS has been reduced by £200 million since the previous Labour Government were in power, which is a strong step in the right direction. Many of the issues that he raised on that are historical. We have introduced new section 42 guidance for trusts that are in deficit to ensure that they are much more rigorous in how they spend their money when they want to receive additional Government cash. Looking at consultancy spend and ensuring that money is not wasted in the way that he outlined are important parts of the new criteria.
As we have heard, the RNOH is the largest orthopaedic hospital in the UK and is regarded as a leader in the field of orthopaedics in the UK and worldwide. It provides a comprehensive range of neuromusculoskeletal health care, ranging from treatment for acute spinal injuries to orthopaedic medicine and specialist rehabilitation for those who suffer from chronic back pain. The range of specialist treatments provided by the trust includes: the rehabilitation of people with life-threatening conditions, including spinal cord injuries; the innovation of new treatments, which is increasingly important, particularly in the areas of care provided by the hospital; leading-edge research and development; the manufacture of state-of-the-art prosthetics; and the training of future orthopaedic specialists. The trust is a national provider of health care: 45% of the trust’s patients live in London, a further 22% are from the remainder of the south-east, 31% are from further afield in the UK and 2% are international, which shows the hospital’s outstanding reputation.
The RNOH plays a major role in teaching. More than 20% of all UK orthopaedic surgeons receive training there, which is testament to the desire of the surgeons of tomorrow to ensure that they train and have experience of providing care at an outstanding centre of excellence. Patients benefit from a team of highly specialised consultants, many of whom are recognised for their expertise both in the UK and abroad. As my hon. Friend outlined, according to the friends and family test, Care Quality Commission inspections and many patient indicators, Stanmore is a centre of excellence and produces the very best possible care and results for patients.
The RNOH’s proposed redevelopment of the Stanmore site is key to ensuring that it can continue to improve the care it provides. I am aware that most of the buildings at Stanmore date from the 1940s, and many are no longer appropriate or fit for purpose for the high-quality care and excellent clinical outcomes that the RNOH provides for its patients. The plan is to rebuild the hospital so that it can continue to provide its specialist orthopaedic care to thousands of patients, young and old, with conditions too complicated for other larger general hospitals to handle. The new hospital will be a state-of-the-art facility that reflects and enhances the medical excellence that already exists at the RNOH. It will provide 124 beds, the majority of which will be in single rooms, thereby greatly enhancing patient privacy and dignity and helping to reduce the transference of infection, the incidence of which, as my hon. Friend outlined, is remarkably low at the trust.
Patient experience will be enhanced through a number of en-suite single rooms and modern, spacious and well-equipped communal areas. Improved facilities for staff will give them a better environment in which to work, enabling them to provide the best possible care. The RNOH is renowned worldwide for its clinical excellence, and manages to maintain high standards of outcomes despite the condition of the estate. The trust looks forward to continuing that high standard of care in the new hospital, which will provide an enhanced setting both for patients, and for support staff delivering the highest possible quality of care.
I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed. My hon. Friend called some of the challenges Kafkaesque, and I share his frustration at the difficulties experienced in developing and improving the facilities at the trust. It has taken a long time to get the proposed redevelopment to this point. Nevertheless, it is important that the business case is affordable. We know some of the historical dangers and challenges of unaffordable private finance initiative deals. In fact, a PFI deal crippled the South London Healthcare NHS Trust; that serves as a reminder to us all of the challenges that hospitals will face in achieving sustainability and delivering high-quality patient care if they take on unsustainable and unaffordable PFI deals.
I know that it has been frustrating, but we must ensure that the financial arrangements for the loan, as well as those underpinning the new development package, are sustainable, in order to ensure that the future provision of services is not jeopardised by a rush into an imprudent financial arrangement. It is in that spirit that there has been a lot of due diligence, although I accept that it has been frustrating.
In April 2013, the NHS Trust Development Authority took over responsibility for approving business cases for estate redevelopment. Between April and December 2013, the TDA worked with the trust to address the additional assurances required on the draft appointment business case. Both the trust and the TDA are clear that the right solution must enable the provision of excellent services to patients, be affordable, and offer value for money.
In December 2013, the RNOH trust board determined that it was unable to give its continued support for the draft appointment business case, because the trust concluded that the risks to affordability and flexibility associated with continuing with the scheme as then proposed were not sustainable. At that point, recognising the importance of the proposed redevelopment, the TDA committed to supporting the trust in working up alternative options for funding. The TDA has been supporting the RNOH to develop a business case that offers value for money and stands a good chance of securing the necessary funding to enable important improvements to be made for the benefit of patients. Serious consideration must also be given to the impact on the long-term sustainability of the trust.
In January 2014, when the financial modelling was complete, the trust concluded that a PFI scheme was unaffordable and that it wished to pursue an alternative scheme. In May 2014, the trust presented to the TDA an outline of its new preferred option for the redevelopment of the Stanmore site. It is a smaller-scale capital redevelopment, costed at around £40 million, as my hon. Friend said. The cost is to be met jointly through public funds and the proceeds from land sales.
Hospitals and trusts sometimes have surplus land that is not used for patient care, and that it costs them money to maintain—money that does not go to front-line patient care. It is of course right that, if they would like to redevelop facilities for the benefit of patients, they should use some of the capital receipts from the sale of that land to contribute to any planned redevelopment. It is in that spirit that the new package was put together. Indeed, it is in that spirit that the section 42 guidance for trusts in deficit that require finance, which I outlined earlier, was drawn up. Where trusts have surplus land that they could release because it is not required for patient care, that land can be freed up in order to provide affordable homes for local people, support the construction industry and, of course, reduce the overall cost of running a trust’s estate. That is a win-win situation for the NHS, as well as for the local economy and, often, young families in the area. I am sure that that will be a benefit of the proposed new scheme, as my hon. Friend said.
The TDA supports the approach that has been put together as part of the £40 million package, and will advise and support the trust on the development and submission of its application for public funding and its business case for the sale of land.
Looking to the future, I understand that the TDA received the trust’s revised outline business case on 29 January. The TDA is now assessing the business case with the aim of making a decision at the earliest opportunity; its board meeting will be held on 19 March—in less than three weeks’ time. This morning, I spoke positively to the TDA about the business case. I have every hope that the outline business case will be strongly supported. We must obviously wait for the outcome of the meeting, but I hope that my hon. Friend and his constituents will hear good news later this month.
The TDA recognises the unarguably poor quality of the Stanmore estate, and the great challenges that that presents to the delivery of high-quality health care and a positive patient experience in the months and years ahead. It is mindful of the need to make a swift decision, so it is committed to working alongside the trust to agree a business case for clinical quality reasons. It is vital that that is done in a way that safeguards important services for patients. Now that the TDA has received a formal business case to review, the process will continue at pace. Once the business case is approved, the TDA will support the trust in developing a full business case and finalising any outstanding assurances that might be required, in the shortest time possible.
I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured that a very active process is now in play, with the Trust Development Authority proactively supporting the trust to progress its business case, which I am optimistic will be approved in its outline form later this month. I hope that my hon. Friend’s constituents will then receive some very good news that will be welcomed not only at Stanmore and by his constituents, but by orthopaedic patients in this country and elsewhere in the world who receive the best possible care from the trust.
Urban Food Growing (Planning)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I secured this debate partly to highlight a constituency issue and to ask the Minister how the planning system can better protect food growing in urban areas. There are obviously many pressures on land in our towns and cities. We need employment space, public spaces, and, above all, we really need to start a systematic programme of house building again. But our green spaces are also important.
The Wildlife Trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds found in their “Act for Nature” campaign that the most deprived communities are 10 times less likely to live in the greenest areas and that access to green space helps to reduce health inequalities. The creation of green corridors in urban areas helps to avoid habitat fragmentation, reduces the urban heat island effect, better harvests rainwater and improves air quality.
As the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) noted in the main Chamber a few weeks ago,
“increasing the amount of ‘green infrastructure’ by 10% could entirely offset the impact of rising temperatures in such high-density urban centres.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2015; Vol. 590, c. 981.]
Urban food growing is very much part of that picture.
People have become much more concerned about the provenance of their food. They are keen to see more sustainable food and farming practices and they want to protect urban biodiversity and wildlife. Urban agriculture should be seen very much as part of a strategy to tackle food poverty and the public health challenges associated with poor diet.
As recent reports by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have highlighted, the issue is also one of food security, food sovereignty and the UK’s declining self-sufficiency in food. Achieving food security is about building environmental and economic resilience in the face of climate change, using resources more sustainably in the production and supply of food, reducing food waste, lowering high emissions from the food supply chain and promoting healthy and sustainable diets. I am pleased and proud that Bristol is in the vanguard of that movement.
Back in 2009 Bristol council commissioned a report by Joy Carey, “Who feeds Bristol? Towards a resilient food plan”. We became one of the first cities in the UK to establish our own food policy council, which drives forward policies to increase the amount of land available for growing food and to safeguard the diversity of retailers. We launched the good food plan for Bristol, which has the ambition of ensuring that everyone has access to good, affordable, healthy food. The Bristol Food Network helps to connect up all those people and businesses with a shared vision of transforming Bristol into a truly sustainable food city.
A study by the university of Gloucestershire-based countryside and community research institute found that for every £1 of investment in community food projects, there was a sevenfold social return on that investment to the community. There are far too many such projects in Bristol to name them all, but I want to mention a few. The Severn Project provides horticultural training to people recovering from drug and alcohol dependency. It is a successful social enterprise, acting as a hub for satellite growers and providing access to land, equipment, sales and distribution. It estimates that every kilogram of its produce is worth £15 to the local economy.
Elm Tree farm is based on a 35-acre site in my constituency and offers vocational training to about 60 people who have autism or learning disabilities, illustrating the therapeutic value of food growing projects, as well as offering them a route into work. Incredible Edible Bristol advocates guerrilla gardening, taking over grass verges and other underused land to plant seeds and grow food. The Matthew Tree Project’s FOODTURES initiative helps long-term unemployed people back into skilled work through training in horticulture, food processing and supply. It brings the best nutritious food to the poorest areas of the city.
Last but not least, Feed Bristol is an exemplary study of the social, environmental and economic benefits of community food growing. Over the past three years, it has directly helped 36 people back into employment, and in acting as an incubator site for businesses related to food and to wildlife, six new businesses have been launched. Feed Bristol engages many thousands of disadvantaged people and school children in activities on the site, from helping to educate children in the value of food and where it comes from, to developing horticultural skills. Sadly, however, we are now engaged in a last-ditch attempt to alter a new MetroBus route that will involve the building of a bus-only junction on prime agricultural land, which includes the Feed Bristol site.
Since the MetroBus scheme was first designed more than five years ago, the area planned for the junction has become a new hub of Bristol’s urban food growing movement. If the scheme goes ahead, which we fear it will, the junction will pass through not only the Avon Wildlife Trust’s award-winning community food growing project, Feed Bristol, which I have just mentioned, but the long-standing Stapleton allotments, the Sims Hill Shared Harvest organic community-supported agriculture market garden and the Edible Futures educational market-gardening co-operative.
The land under threat is part of what is known as the “blue finger”, which is highly fertile, food growing soil, predominantly grade 1—coded blue on maps, which is how the area gets its name—and some peripheral areas of grade 2 and 3, collectively known as “best and most versatile” land. Less than 3% of soil in the UK is grade 1, so the blue finger land is a valuable asset not only for Bristol, but for the whole UK. The land is also designated green belt and includes the Frome valley conservation area, as well as a wildlife corridor and woodland, but none of that has protected it from development.
The transport scheme received planning consent back in August and is now with the Department for Transport for final funding approval. Meanwhile, the council, in its eagerness to start felling trees, has applied to the High Court to clear the site of protesters, who have been camped for the past month on the land, high up in the treetops in tree houses. The protesters have a tremendous amount of support from local residents and from further afield. I do not know whether the Minister can do anything to help us in our fight to protect the site. I have written to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and met and written to Transport Minister Baroness Kramer. We have not yet given up hope.
On the broader issues raised, national planning policy includes the aim to protect best and most versatile agricultural land in recognition of its role as a precious national asset, essential to our future food security. Once land is lost to development, it is extremely unlikely that it will ever be returned to agricultural use. In 2011, however, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs reported a huge loss of BMV land to development over recent years, although we do not really know the extent, as such data are not collected systematically.
Furthermore, there has been a weakening of the protection given to BMV land, most recently as a result of changes to the national planning policy framework in March 2012. Will the Minister discuss with her DEFRA colleagues the feasibility of monitoring the loss to development of our most productive soils—a process that is vital to understanding the scale of the problem? What plans does her Department have to strengthen the protection of our best soil in national planning policy as critical to our food security? That was promised in the Conservative party’s “Open Source Planning” policy green paper in 2010. Then, in the natural environment White Paper, the Government said that they wanted
“to protect our best and most versatile agricultural land.”
Another problem is that while the planning practice guidance supports space for growing food, the national planning policy framework does not include local food growing, which tends to mean that local plans do not include it either. Promoting local food may be put into a local plan—in Bristol, it is included in both the local plan and the core strategy—but it does not have to be. At the national level, no link is presumed between sustainable development and supporting local food. Food production is missing, yet it is a major land use. It thus falls to experts at the local level to show that local food meets the core planning principles of the NPPF.
Will the Minister acknowledge that including local food in the NPPF and demonstrating how it meets sustainable development objectives would make a big difference? Will she say something on the value of food growing to the achievement of sustainable development inherent in the planning system? The economic strategy of the West of England local enterprise partnership also does not mention food production. Will the Minister comment on the relationship between that strategy and the core strategies and local plans of the west of England local authorities?
In a recent speech, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs talked about the creation of
“Food Enterprise Zones to kick-start local food economies and join up farming, manufacturing, distribution and retail firms”,
which sounds to be very much along the lines of what we want to achieve in Bristol. I appreciate that the Minister is in a different Department, but it would be good to hear more about how such plans can be protected by the planning system and the Minister’s Department.
The MetroBus bus-only junction project has caused serious concerns about how allotments are sold off for development—a process that requires the consent of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. Last year, Labour’s shadow Communities Secretary found that the Secretary of State had rejected only two out of 83 applications by English councils to sell off allotment sites for development between 2010 and 2013. So is it simply a rubber-stamping exercise by the Secretary of State, or can we rely on the process to protect our allotments?
The council’s application to move the Stapleton allotments for the MetroBus junction did not mention that the site to which the allotments would be relocated had considerably inferior soil and was already home to a beautiful wildflower meadow and wildlife corridor. Subsequently, the soil on the new site was discovered to contain levels of lead too high for community gardens, but the Minister’s Department was not made aware of that. The council proposes to take topsoil from the BMV land and use it to replace the topsoil in the new location, but like biodiversity offsetting, the science of how well the soil will work in the new location is unclear. A number of experts have expressed doubts.
Turning to the green belt, under the planning system large transport systems should only be developed on green belt in exceptional circumstances and the potential harm caused should be clearly outweighed by other considerations. In the planning application, however, those exceptional circumstances seemed to rest on fairly unsubstantiated claims that it would “unlock employment”, while the “potential harm” to the area was not assessed. To be fair to the Minister, I do not intend to go into details of the MetroBus scheme, which I appreciate is a matter for her colleagues in the Department for Transport, but I flag up the frustrations felt by people that the planning system was not adequately considering matters that it should have been considering when the scheme went through.
I will finish by expressing my concerns about how local people were consulted about the scheme, how the situation was handled by the planning committee on the night of the decision and just how difficult it has been throughout the process, which has been going on for several years, to challenge it. The Minister’s boss is a great advocate of localism, but it is clear that not enough local power was in local people’s hands.
When the planning committee met to consider the application in August last year, it was told by officers that it was an all or nothing situation and that funding for the whole £200 million bus rapid transit 3 scheme would be withdrawn if the application was not approved there and then. That does not square with what I was later told by the Transport Minister, Baroness Kramer, but with that threat hanging over the committee’s head, the application went through.
All along, we have found it incredibly difficult to get information from the council about whether alternatives to the bus-only junction had been considered, what the benefit-cost ratio of those alternatives was, what discussions, if any, there had been with other stakeholders, what rules ought to be followed and whether the correct applications had been made and permissions granted. The balance of power is weighted against local people, and the Government’s recent clampdown on the right to judicial review, which was already out of reach for most community groups, has made it even worse.
I do not know whether the Minister can do anything to help us save the blue finger. I hope that I have managed to persuade her that this is a serious issue and that, even if we cannot protect the blue finger in this instance, it would be good if her Department—or a future, Labour Department for Communities and Local Government—would look at how we can change the planning system to make sure a situation like this one does not happen again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on securing this debate on a topic on which I have a great deal of sympathy with her. I am from Portsmouth, the most densely populated city in Europe—we are also an island—and so very much understand the importance of green space and of allotments in particular.
The Government recognise how important allotments and other open spaces are for local people. They provide people with the opportunity to enjoy regular physical exercise, meet new people in their neighbourhood and benefit from a healthier diet, regardless of income. It is only right that the law reflects that importance.
Local authorities must provide allotments where they see there is a demand for them, and cannot sell or change the use of such land without first getting consent from the Secretary of State. Both the mandatory statutory criteria, set out in section 8 of the Allotments Act 1925, and the additional policy criteria ensure that allotment holders will not lose their plots or have nowhere left to garden. Those criteria make sure that unless there are exceptional circumstances, a site that is fully or mostly occupied will not receive consent for disposal. The criteria also ensure that, before consent is given, the local authority must show that it has promoted allotment gardening and made residents aware of the site it plans to dispose of. Where an allotment site is mentioned in the local plan—perhaps as a designated local green space—the local authority will not get consent unless it can show it is not acting contrary to the plan.
Last year the Department published “Allotment disposal guidance: safeguards and alternatives”, a new set of guidance clarifying the legal and policy safeguards in place to ensure that disposal is properly and thoroughly handled, which is available on the gov.uk website. The process for handling disposal applications is now wholly transparent and sets out each factor that will be taken into account when deciding whether each of the criteria has been met.
We recognise that demand for allotment plots still outstrips supply, but the situation is slowly improving. A survey of allotment waiting lists carried out by the National Allotment Society in 2013 indicated an average of 52 people waiting for every 100 plots, compared with 57 per 100 plots when a similar survey was carried out two years earlier. In addition, the survey indicated that in the two years before it was conducted, 65 new allotment sites had been brought into use by 51 councils, covering 30 hectares, creating nearly 2,000 new plots.
Before I turn to areas of regulation and policy that can assist communities, I will address specific points raised by the hon. Lady, who has asked for some practical help. As she recognises, my limited brief does not extend to either the Department for Transport or the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I am here to be helpful. I am happy to consider whether there could be more encouragement for local food growing when the NPPF is next revised, but she obviously also needs help now.
Metrobus required planning permission from the three local authorities that cover stretches of the proposed bus route, as well as an order under the Transport and Works Act 1982 from the Department for Transport and separate consent to dispose of the sites, which technically are allotment land—the application for that consent is still under consideration by the Secretary of State. It is true that now the planning permissions have been granted only a court could set them aside. We are also beyond the stage at which the Secretary of State can exercise his powers to call in a planning proposal.
As a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government, it would not be proper for me to comment on precise aspects of planning permissions, the handling of an application or any planning conditions imposed. Those are a matter for the local planning authority. As I have said, one aspect is still under consideration by my Secretary of State. The merits of the scheme have been outlined to the hon. Lady in a letter from the local mayor. I should clarify that the council is free to submit a revised planning application that would be determined in the usual way; I put that on the record now for her benefit.
An important part of localism is ensuring that councils and communities can protect the green spaces that are precious to them. Local people know their areas better than Whitehall does, and are best placed to make decisions about their planning needs. Local plans, supported by neighbourhood plans, are the best way to steer development to the appropriate locations and decide where planning restraint is essential.
The planning system is led by the policies in the local plan. Those policies are adopted only after public consultation, followed by independent examination by a planning inspector who will check and report on the soundness of each draft plan. Planning law requires that specific planning permissions be obtained before any material change of land use occurs. Planning permission is also necessary for any building or engineering works affecting the land.
Planning policy also puts local communities at the heart of planning. In our NPPF we ask planners to assess the needs of the food production industry and resolve associated planning barriers. Planners should be no less keen to support people in our towns and cities who wish to grow their own food, whether on an allotment or in a domestic garden. The framework also asks local planning authorities to insist on high standards of design, including when it comes to the layout of our towns and cities and the provision of green space within them.
Allotments, along with community gardens, urban farms and other such land uses, are open spaces of public benefit. That should always be recognised by local authorities when preparing assessments of need and audits of existing open space and recreational facilities in their areas, or when considering the impact of new development. Some allotments are on the outskirts of towns, and may fall within the protections given to the green belt or other types of designated area. There, the local planning authority should refuse planning permission for inappropriate new building that would harm the openness of the land. Moreover, in conservation areas, any gardens, parks and other green spaces between the protected buildings may be identified by policies in the local plan as part of the characterisation of the area and preserved for that reason.
The phrase “green infrastructure” may be jargon, but it helps to make the point that the provision and retention of high-quality green open space and tree planting are not only vital to the well-being of communities, but should be part of the strategy to mitigate the effects of climate change. In all our towns and cities, the provision and enhancement of green space is important. The Government have introduced a range of new powers to allow individuals and communities to protect the spaces of most value to them. Those powers include the power for communities to create local green spaces—a designation made as part of a local plan or a neighbourhood plan that enables communities to identify green areas of particular importance and impose protection as strong as that applied to green-belt land. That will be of interest to the hon. Lady.
Neighbourhood planning is capturing the imagination of communities across the country. About 1,400 communities have started the neighbourhood planning process, and more are joining them each week. Neighbourhood plans have a legal weight prior to being adopted through a referendum. The fact that a plan is being written and is in place, subject to a referendum, gives it legal weight; it does not have that status only after a referendum.
I am pleased to see that a number of policies on allotments are coming forward from neighbourhood plans. In some instances, they are about maintaining existing provision, and in other cases they seek to promote the creation of new allotments. If the hon. Lady is interested, I suggest that she look at the neighbourhood plans for St James in Exeter, Thame and Cringleford, which have done some trailblazing things on allotments.
There is also the community right to bid. More than 300 green spaces have been listed as community assets, which ensures that groups can pause the sale of land for up to six months to give them the opportunity to raise the money to buy the land. There is also the community right to reclaim land, which enables community groups to acquire vacant or underused land and bring it back into beneficial use.
The hon. Lady has clearly been active in campaigning on this issue for her constituents. She has spoken to other Departments, and I encourage her to carry on speaking to the Department for Transport, although most of the levers are clearly in her local authority’s hands. Although she will not want to consider failure in her campaign, if she is faced with the option of a plan B, my Department may be able to do some things to assist her, given its remit. The hon. Lady said that Bristol is a trailblazer on this issue, and it is also a trailblazer in recognising the importance of social enterprise. The local enterprise partnership recognises the importance of social enterprises, and it is focused on providing opportunities for economic regeneration, getting those who are in long-term unemployment back to work and so forth. Although I am not completely au fait with them, there are clearly a number of enterprises and ventures that are of value to the community that are contingent on the piece of land in question. If the hon. Lady were faced with that situation, we would not want those enterprises to be placed if jeopardy. If they need help relocating, finance to assist them or any other support mechanism, officials in my Department will be able to help with signposting, and I will be able to talk the hon. Lady through the support and options that are available. If she were in that situation, I would encourage her to get in touch with me. Obviously, her aim is to prevent that from happening. I hope that my outlining of some of the policies available has left her better informed.
Kerry McCarthy
I sense that the Minister is about to draw her remarks to a close, but she has not yet addressed the issue of soil quality and the protection of the best and most versatile land in the planning system, which is one of the key things that we have been pushing for.
Penny Mordaunt
That is on my list; I was trying to find it. As the hon. Lady said, that is not within my Department’s remit; it is very much a DEFRA issue. However, I will undertake to write to her about the prospects, and about what is done currently and what may be done in the future to monitor what is happening to high-grade land.
Kerry McCarthy
I appreciate that the issue of farming, soil quality and so on falls primarily within DEFRA’s remit. However, I asked the Minister’s Department a year ago whether this could be a special category that is protected within the planning system, and the answer was that it could perhaps be dealt with in the local plans. However, as I have outlined, it is not on local authorities’ radars yet. Could the Minister undertake at least to talk to her officials about whether that is possible? [Interruption.] I think a note is winging its way towards her.
Penny Mordaunt
Yes, certainly. I have said that I am happy to look at those things when the NPPF is revised. The clock is clearly ticking for the hon. Lady on this issue, and I hope that I have been able to count her through some of the levers that are available to her. She said that it has been difficult for her to get to the bottom of certain facts. Clearly, the process that should be being followed is transparent. It is on the website if she has any technical questions. If she has had difficulty in getting certain facts and pieces of information, I would be happy to follow that up with her.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
When I was a councillor in the London borough of Barnet, I was responsible for allotments, and the big fear for many of the allotment holders was that the council wanted to sell off the allotments for development. The Minister said that under section 23 of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 local authorities have an obligation to provide allotments. If the Minister cannot answer me now, will she write to me later to confirm that that may not be the case in London, because of the London Government Act 1963, so the same obligations may not apply to the London borough of Barnet?
Penny Mordaunt
I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend on that issue. I will also write to the hon. Member for Bristol East about her ambitions for greater monitoring when the policy framework is revised, and about soil and further things that can be done to encourage local food production. I would be happy to look at that.
In conclusion, I encourage the hon. Lady to maintain dialogue with my Department and others to see whether we can do anything further if she is not successful in her campaign, and if those social enterprises need support in relocating or developing their business plans. I will follow up with a letter, and I encourage her to keep talking to my Department and others.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Statistics Authority (2011 Census)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)
The UK Statistics Authority has published the general report of the 2011 census.
The general report is the official, and comprehensive, account of the 2011 census in England and Wales. It reviews the entire census operation and provides a wealth of detail about how the census was carried out and what lessons have been learned.
It is aimed at both the experienced and occasional user of census data, but it is hoped the wider public may also find the report useful and informative.
This general report is being laid before both Houses of Parliament pursuant to the Census Act 1920.
[HCWS341]
Infrastructure (Sale of Eurostar)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)
I am pleased to inform the House that the Government have agreed the sale of their entire interest in Eurostar International Ltd (“Eurostar”) for £757.1 million.
The autumn statement 2013 and “National Infrastructure Plan 2013” set out the Government’s ambition to achieve £20 billion from corporate and financial asset sales by 2020. Eurostar was identified as a possible candidate for sale and following a competitive auction process which started in October 2014, the Government have now reached final agreements.
A consortium comprising Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ) and Hermes Infrastructure has agreed to acquire Government’s 40% stake in Eurostar for £585.1 million. In addition, Eurostar has, on closing of the sale of the Government stake, agreed to redeem HMG’s preference share, providing a further £172 million for the Exchequer.
Eurostar is the high-speed train service linking London, Ebbsfleet and Ashford with Paris, Brussels, Lille and other French destinations. Established in 1994 as a partnership between three railway companies: SNCF, SNCB and British Rail—subsequently London and Continental Railways (LCR)—Eurostar became a single, unified corporate entity owned by three shareholders: SNCF, SNCB and LCR in September 2010. In June 2014 the ownership of the UK holding transferred from LCR, a Department for Transport owned company, to HM Treasury.
The sale receipts will be paid on completion of the contract, which is expected to happen in the second quarter of 2015. SNCF and SNCB—the other shareholders in Eurostar—have the option (the “Pre-emption Right”) to acquire HMG’s 40% stake for a 15% premium to the agreed price of £585.1 million. Closing of the sale to the CDPQ and Hermes Infrastructure consortium is conditional on SNCF and SNCB not exercising the Pre-emption Right. The transaction is also conditional on certain regulatory approvals including EU merger clearance.
[HCWS340]
Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, has made the following written ministerial statement:
I am today announcing key performance targets that have been agreed for the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre for the period 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016.
The agency’s principal financial target for 2015-16 is to achieve a minimum dividend payment to the Department for Communities and Local Government of £1.7 million as proposed in the business plan for the year.
The agency also has the following targets to achieve:
Room hire—to achieve a capacity utilisation ratio of 53%.
To generate secondary revenue from audio visual and information technology services and catering royalty which in total equates to a ratio of 90% of room hire revenue.
To achieve an overall score for client satisfaction of at least 90%.
To receive less than two complaints per 100 events held.
The centre is forecasting an increase in its annual dividend payment to the Exchequer from £1.5 million in 2014-15 to £1.7 million in 2015-16 which is projected to rise further over its corporate plan period.
I am also delighted to announce that the centre has delivered significant improvements and enjoyed considerable success over the course of the last two years.
For the year ending 2014-15 the centre delivered a growth in room hire revenue of 17.3% in comparison to the previous year, a substantial achievement.
For 2014-15 the centre also delivered the best trading results across all income streams since 2009-10 and in one month, June 2014, delivered the highest occupancy level and revenue generating month since it opened 29 years ago.
In economic terms it is estimated that the centre delivered an economic impact to the London and UK economy of £122 million in 2014-15.
The centre remains fully self-funding and has invested wisely in improving its facilities and services and as a result was awarded the 2014 gold award for best large venue by Eventia, the UK’s largest event industry association.
The centre is an increasingly successful profit-making agency, paying an annual dividend which is forecast to increase again in 2015-16 and in each of the years covered by its corporate plan.
I would like to offer my congratulations to the centre’s management team for their proactive and determined efforts in modernising and improving this agency and its performance.
[HCWS342]
Returning Officers (Indemnity)
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Sam Gyimah)
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
Returning officers for UK parliamentary elections in England and Wales are appointed under section 24 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (“RPA 1983”). The post is an honorary one, held by the sheriff of a county or the mayor or chairman of a local council. However, in practice, under section 28 of the RPA 1983, the returning officer discharges functions through an acting returning officer, who is usually a senior officer in the local authority.
In Scotland, under sections 25 and 41 of the RPA 1983, returning officers for UK parliamentary elections are appointed local authority officers.
For the purposes of UK parliamentary elections, returning officers and acting returning officers throughout Great Britain—referred to below as “ROs” and “AROs”—are independent officers. They are separate from both central and local government. As a result, they are exposed to a variety of legal risks varying from minor claims for injury at polling booths, to significant election petitions and associated legal costs.
ROs and AROs make their own arrangements to insure themselves against any risks they face in taking forward their statutory duties at local and UK parliamentary elections. The cover obtained usually forms part of the local authority’s own insurance arrangements.
In a small sample of AROs from the Cabinet Office’s electoral policy coordination group, all provided details of existing insurance cover in place with the local authority that extended to cover the AROs conduct in relation to UK parliamentary elections.
The upper limit of [Professional/Officials Indemnity] cover in the sample ranged from £5 million to £15 million, with excesses ranging from nil to £500,000.
This insurance mainly sought to cover:
liability for damages arising out of wrongful acts in the performance of official duties;
reasonable legal expenses for defending any proceedings; and
costs arising out of holding another election.
While this insurance, coupled with local authority’s employers and public liability insurance, will cover the great majority of risks to which ROs and AROs will be exposed to at UK parliamentary elections, they could ultimately be liable for claims of a type not covered by insurance policies. They could also be liable for claims that exceed the insurance limits in existing cover.
In light of this, the Cabinet Office proposes to provide ROs and AROs with a specific indemnity for UK parliamentary elections to supplement the insurance policies that have been arranged locally. The indemnity will fund ROs and AROs for costs—including reasonable legal costs and reasonable expenses—incurred in connection with a UK parliamentary election, which arise in relation to their discharge of responsibilities as RO or ARO but fall outside of the scope of the insurance cover which they have arranged locally, and where all other forms of recourse have been exhausted.
The indemnity will be limited to the extent that:
it will not cover any costs which arise in whole or part from any deliberate or wilful negligence by an ARO/RO;
it will not generally cover any excess costs which the ARO/RO has negotiated on his/her insurance policy—although individual claims for excess costs will be judged on their merits;
it will not cover situations where the ARO/RO’s insurance policy offers an alternative means of cover;
it will not cover any reduction, under section 29A of the Representation of the People Act 1983, in the amount to which the RO or ARO is entitled for his/her services;
it will not cover any penalty imposed in relation to a criminal offence;
it will not cover any claim relating to the carrying out of electoral registration duties; and
it will not cover any claim relating to the use of a motor vehicle where such use should have been covered by a valid insurance policy but was not.
The indemnity will cover costs arising in relation to UK parliamentary elections, including by-elections, where the date of the poll is on or before 31 March 2020. Any claim must be made within 13 months of the poll at the election to which it relates.
The Government gave similar indemnities in relation to previous UK parliamentary general elections.
The likelihood of the indemnity being called is very low. The volume of claims which have been made at previous national elections has been very low. So far there have been no claims against the indemnity given in respect of the recent European parliamentary elections on 22 May 2014. The largest claim met under previous Government insurance or indemnity arrangements for a national election was £24,035.75 at the 2009 European parliamentary election. Minor injury and damage claims met under Government insurance or indemnity arrangements at national elections have amounted to less than £10,000 over the last decade.
However, the possibility of a successful claim in the future cannot be ruled out. The potential risk associated with election petitions could be significant. For example, the costs for the Winchester election petition in 1997, following the general election of that year, amounted to £250,000. If a petition involving an ARO or RO went to a full trial and ran for several days it is conceivable that the bill for legal costs could run into millions of pounds. It is also conceivable that there could be more than one occurrence associated with a single election. The costs of an election petition might not be completely covered through existing insurance arrangements and may require the indemnity to be called upon.
The indemnity is therefore unlimited. If the liability is called, provision for any payment is likely to be met from the Consolidated Fund.
The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before Parliament—or, if there are fewer than 14 such sitting days in this Parliament, the period ending with the last sitting day in this Parliament—a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS338]
Concessionary Coal
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Matthew Hancock)
I want to update the House on matters concerning the provision of concessionary fuel entitlements to the miners of UK Coal Production Ltd (UKC).
On 15 January 2015, UKC submitted to Government a request for additional public sector funding to extend the life of its two deep coal mines. Under the company’s current plans, Thoresby is due to close in August 2015 and Kellingley in December 2015. The support requested constitutes state aid to the coal sector, which is governed by Council decision 2010/787/EU, and is restricted to facilitating the safe and orderly closure of loss-making coal mines by 2018 at the latest.
The company’s request is for total additional support of £338 million. Of this, £244 million is to cover the mine’s operating losses prior to closure in 2018 (“closure aid” under article 3 of the coal decision) and £94 million is aimed at mitigating the social and environmental impacts of mine closure (article 4 aid for “exceptional costs”).
I wish to announce now that the Government will ensure UKC miners receive their concessionary fuel entitlements.
[HCWS343]
Energy Council
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Matthew Hancock)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Baroness Verma, has made the following written ministerial statement.
Today, in advance of the forthcoming Energy Council in Brussels on 5 March, I am writing to outline the agenda items to be discussed.
Under the first item on the agenda the Latvian presidency has suggested an exchange of views on the strategic framework for the energy union, with a view to contributing to the discussion and conclusions on the energy union expected at the European Council on 19-20 March. The UK broadly welcomes the Commission’s communication setting out a strategy for a “resilient Energy Union with a forward looking Climate Change Policy” and considers it a promising start to delivering the EU reform needed to strengthen Europe’s energy security, decarbonise cost-effectively and deepen the internal energy market. The UK will be arguing that the scale of the challenges ahead requires further ambition and flexibility and that member states need to be able to draw on the full range of low, and lower, carbon technologies to deliver secure, low carbon and competitive energy, including renewable, energy efficiency, nuclear, CCS and gas.
The Council will then hold a policy debate on energy infrastructure, focusing on measures to promote the efficient implementation of an interconnected cross-border energy market, including ending the energy isolation of member states. The UK agrees that more needs to be done by member states to complete the single market and that particular priority needs to be given to the facilitation of new interconnection and investment projects.
The Commission and presidency will then report on the current situation in relation to European energy security.
Finally, the Czech delegation is expected to present proposals on the European Nuclear Energy Forum.
[HCWS339]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Andrews) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Single Use Carrier Bags Charges (England) Order 2015
Relevant documents: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, Schedule 6 to the Climate Change Act 2008 enables Ministers to make an order to bring in charges for single-use carrier bags. I shall explain the main elements of the charge but, first, I should like to remind the Committee why the Government are legislating for a modest charge on single-use plastic carrier bags.
We are committed to reducing the number of these bags in distribution. This will in turn reduce the environmental impacts of the production of these oil-based products. It will also reduce the impact of plastic bags at the end of their lives, particularly on the visual environment and wildlife when they are littered. Similar charges in other countries have demonstrated how effective this simple measure can be. Customers are encouraged to reuse their bags, rather than incur the charge. When bags are charged for, we expect the profits to be directed to good causes.
There are currently too many single-use bags being needlessly distributed. Efforts to reduce the number of single-use plastic bags without resorting to legislation have led to a good deal of success in the past. Such voluntary initiatives by retailers saw a reduction in the distribution of single-use plastic bags by 48% between 2006 and 2009. This was significant progress, but the number of single-use plastic bags given out is on the rise. In England between 2010 and 2013, there was an increase of 18%, which is just over 1 billion bags. In 2013 alone, England’s main supermarket chains issued more than 7 billion single-use carrier bags to their customers. As we all know, far too many of these bags made their way on to the streets and into the countryside as unsightly litter. They were also discarded on beaches and in the sea, where they can cause harm to wildlife.
Plastic bags also have a negative impact on the environment through their production and disposal. The oil that is used in their creation and the tonnes of plastic that go to landfill mean that we must take action to reduce the use of plastic bags. Where they are used, these bags should be reused as often as possible and then recycled.
The Environmental Audit Committee’s report on plastic bags last year was carefully studied by the Government. There may be some details of the scheme on which we agree to disagree, but we are all in agreement that reducing bag use has real environmental benefits. It will mean lower carbon emissions, more efficient use of valuable resources and less litter.
The order introduces a requirement to charge for single-use plastic bags. There has been a largely positive response to the announcement of the charge, which is a proven tool. In its first year, the Welsh charge resulted in a decrease of 76% in the number of single-use plastic bags distributed by the seven big supermarkets. We have been able to use the experience from the Welsh charge to help shape our scheme. A similar charge was introduced in Scotland last October. The English charge will commence in October 2015. It will require retailers to charge a minimum of 5p for every new single-use plastic carrier bag—the same as in Wales and Scotland. Bags used for deliveries will incur the charge, as well as those used to carry purchases away from a store.
Small and medium-sized businesses will be exempt from the charge in England. We recognise that some wanted SMEs included but we concluded that we need to avoid administrative burdens on start-up and growing businesses in England at a time when we want to support new growth in our economy. It is also worth bearing in mind that the current UK retail market is dominated by a comparatively small number of large stores with over 500 employees, employing 65% of people working in retail with 69% of all annual turnover of retail businesses. Any retailer that is not covered by the legislation will of course be able to charge for bags voluntarily.
As in Wales and Scotland, we hope—indeed, expect—retailers will give the proceeds of the charge to good causes. The Climate Change Act does not give the Government the powers to determine what retailers do with the proceeds of the charge. However, we will require them to report to the Government the number of bags they give out, the amount raised by the charge and what they do with the proceeds. We will then make this information public and expect that pressure from customers will ensure that the net proceeds—once reasonable costs have been deducted—go to good causes. Many of the large retailers have already stated that they will be giving the proceeds to charities or community groups and will publish details on their websites.
It would, of course, be fitting if some environmental causes were to benefit from the charge in England. In Wales, charities such as the RSPB, Keep Wales Tidy and Save the Children have benefited from the proceeds of the Welsh charge. Keep Wales Tidy has used the funding to support a Routes to School project, which aims to address litter problems on school routes by engaging and educating children and their families. It is not only charities that stand to gain from the charge. When littered, carrier bags cost taxpayers in England about £10 million every year in clean-up costs.
Of course, there will always be a need for some plastic bags. People may forget their reusable bags, or they may require a new bag—for example, to avoid contamination if they are buying raw meat. At the same time, we should aim to reduce the visual impact and harm to wildlife if these bags were littered.
A bag that biodegrades into harmless products is clearly desirable. That is why we are working with industry and academic experts to review existing standards and will report to Parliament before the charge comes into force on 5 October 2015. The report will state whether it appears that there is an existing industry standard or standards appropriate for excluding biodegradable bags and, if so, how that exclusion is to be implemented. We are keenly aware that the success of a biodegradable bag will also depend on more sophisticated ways of separating plastic waste. We need to ensure that the quality of recycled plastic does not suffer as a result of contamination with biodegradable bags.
We are focusing the charge on plastic bags as part of a targeted and proportionate approach to this issue. Plastic carrier bags take the longest to degrade in the natural environment, can harm wildlife and are extremely visible when littered in our towns, parks and the countryside. Paper bags make up less than 0.1% of carrier bags distributed in the UK by the seven major supermarkets and can biodegrade naturally in the open air. Of course, paper bags should still be reused a number of times before being recycled and should never be littered.
There are a few specific circumstances described in the legislation in which bags will not incur the charge. These include, for example: bags used solely to carry uncooked meat or unwrapped food and goods contaminated by soil, where there would be issues with food safety from contamination; bags for prescription medicines, where pharmacists have an obligation to protect the privacy of patients; and reusable bags for life. Purchases made on board planes and boats and in airports will also not incur a charge as it would be unreasonable to expect people to be carrying reusable bags in those transit places. The charge will be enforced by local authority trading standards officers. It will be light-touch, pragmatic and complaints-led. We are funding training for local authority officers.
A full assessment of the costs and benefits has been carried out. The total net impact of the scheme over 10 years is calculated to be a positive benefit of more than £780 million. That figure includes savings from reduced costs associated with littering and carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions.
Although consumers may incur an initial cost in purchasing reusable bags, these are designed to be reused many times and the supermarkets will replace them for free. Although single-use bags will now cost 5p, anyone who wants to avoid paying the charge will be able to do so by taking their own reusable bags to the shops. We encourage people to do this.
We expect that there will be an increase in sales of bin bags, as there was in Wales, as people currently often reuse single-use plastic bags to line their bins. However, even when this is taken into account, the impact of the charge in Wales has been a dramatic overall reduction in the amount of plastic used. We anticipate that the charge will reduce plastic bag distribution in supermarkets by between 70% and 80%, and overall in England by between 50% and 60%.
The order includes a review of the legislation to be carried out within five years of the charge coming into force. It will be at that stage that the reporting requirement will prove essential in assessing the effectiveness of the charge. Any changes to the legislation could also be considered at that time.
We are pleased that the European Union has reached agreement on a robust plan for tackling the blight of plastic bag pollution, with each member state doing what works best in its own circumstances.
In summary, the Government consider that the approach set out in the order provides a fair means of charging that supports the Government’s aims of minimising waste and resource use. I therefore commend the order to the committee.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister began his speech with a ringing declaration: “We must take action”. He set out a very convincing case on financial and environmental grounds for the action that the Government propose to take.
I recall the dedication in the magnum opus of a regius professor: “To my wife, at last, at long, long last”. The key observation is on the process of government and why there has been such a long delay on what is clearly an overwhelming case for action. It is not as though this is some startling brave new initiative on the part of the Government. No, as the Minister said, the proposal is already in force in Wales and has been since 2011. There has been ample time to see the results. It is not some laboratory experiment. We can see the results in Wales already; in Northern Ireland, since 2013; and in Scotland, since last October. It is not as if the results are uncertain. If we have eyes to see, we can clearly see the results. Given the very close nexus between Wales and England, do the Government seriously think that the response of the public and retailers would be different in England? All this vast expenditure on research and consultation in England is surely otiose. The views of the Welsh public are already well known. Do the Government have any strong indication that Welsh public opinion is different? The effect of all this is further cost and degradation.
I recall that in my Parliamentary Question on 14 May 2013, I asked,
“the pilot scheme in Wales has lasted for several years. Will the Minister spell out very clearly the objections to the implementation of the scheme in England?”.
The Minister answered:
“My Lords, as I just said, we are monitoring the charging scheme in Wales and data from the first year will not be available until the summer”.—[Official Report, 14/5/13; col. 264.]
That response was given in May. Now almost two years have passed and, even for the limited scope of the Government’s plan, they have been two wasted years. Since we know that 7.9 billion bags were given out in 2013, the two wasted years effectively amount to almost 16 billion bags. There was a successful test in Wales, which was clearly accepted by the public.
To give my personal position, I shop in supermarkets and retail stores in both Wales and England. There were no concerns in Wales when the charge was introduced. People fall quickly into the habit of taking along shopping bags to the supermarkets. When I shop in London, I do so with exactly the same habit and take along a shopping bag. I am sure that the bulk of people in Wales would do the same.
I note also that in Article 1(d) the Government have suggested an end date of 5 October 2022, as though they are not wholly convinced. What is the purpose of having an end date for this long experiment? It is something that is already working successfully in Wales. Does this mean that the Government are not wholly convinced? We know that a Government can review or end such a situation at any time if they choose to do so. Why include a sunset clause when the evidence is so clear?
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
In speaking, I declare an interest as a non-executive director of BPI, which is one of Europe’s largest manufacturers and recyclers of polythene film. However, I stress that BPI has no interest in single-use carrier bags. I welcome this order and its overriding purpose is admirable. However, it is of concern that some of the details of the order go against the unanimous advice of the Environmental Audit Committee, the advice of the British Retail Consortium and a number of other retailers outside the BRC, and the advice of a number of industry organisations. I should stress that it is the detail of the order, rather than its overriding purpose, which has caused a number of organisations and the Environmental Audit Committee some concerns.
In addition, I believe that the detail of the order is, in parts, at odds with the Environment Agency’s own life cycle analysis. Therefore, it is regrettable that, while there may have been—as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson suggested—a delay in bringing forward the proposal, the order itself has been rushed as regards the opportunity to discuss with other parties what the detail of the order should contain.
The EAC held exhaustive investigations into the proposals, and concluded by flagging a number of concerns to Defra in its report, including the fact that the exemptions proposed in its charging scheme for small retailers, and paper and biodegradable bags, would make the scheme too complex. More specifically, the Environmental Audit Committee ruled that an exemption for biodegradable carrier bags was not viable because of the damage such an exemption would cause to the UK plastic films recycling industry. I will focus on the exemption relating to biodegradable bags, because of its unintended consequences.
The summary of the EAC’s report states:
“The options for disposal and recycling of bags are complex, with significant risks around contamination, and must be coherent with the Government’s wider approach to reducing and managing waste. The proposed exemption for biodegradable bags risks damaging the UK plastics recycling industry, could undermine the reduction in bag use, and is not necessary. It should not proceed”.
The Packaging and Films Association agrees, pointing out that if biodegradable or oxodegradable plastic carrier bags are used, they will result in an adverse impact on the recycling process of plastic, rendering recycled plastic totally unusable for certain applications and severely reducing its performance for others.
It is not just the PAFA. Studies by universities have proved that with inclusion rates in recyclate of biodegradable and/or oxodegradable materials at very low levels—between 2% and 5%—the quality of the recyclate is severely impaired. There are also concerns, incidentally but not unimportantly, that such an exemption would send a confusing message to consumers, whom the industry wishes to encourage to reuse and recycle products at the end of their life.
The industry is wholly committed to the reuse of its products, and many in the industry have no problem with the proposed levy and support this order. However, they are widely concerned about the scale of the impact that an exemption for biodegradable and/or oxodegradable products would have on the UK’s existing plastics recycling industry. Those concerns have been recognised in Europe, where oxodegradable technology has now been recognised by almost every major European retailer and every other major western EU member state as not being a suitable alternative to biodegradable materials.
The UK polythene film recycling industry, which supports thousands of UK manufacturing jobs and is an excellent example of advancing the circular economy, has no financial or business interest in the manufacture or sale of single-use carrier bags and thus has no competitive interests in those products. The oxodegradable manufacturers’ association, which I understand is promoting such an exemption, supports just 32 jobs in the United Kingdom.
It is inevitable that if an exemption for biodegradable or oxodegradable single-use carrier bags is included in any regulation at a future date, as anticipated by this order, it will result in an increase in these products becoming included in the UK plastics recycling waste stream. My noble friend pointed out that more sophisticated methods are needed for separating biodegradable from non-biodegradable materials—he is right. Not only are more sophisticated methods of separation needed, but we have to be economically realistic. This difficulty is likely to play into the hands of exporters, whose recyclers can hand-sort, and would undermine the UK recycling business, which has been driven towards automation and cannot afford to add labour to hand-sort.
To allow those products to enter the UK plastic films waste stream would have other regrettable consequences as regards the existing reuse of plastic and plastic films. I will give noble Lords just one example. One of the major uses for recycled plastic pellets is the manufacture of building films and membranes used in the construction of all new housebuilding. From June 2015, all materials supplied to the UK housing and construction markets will be required to include a lifetime guarantee. To give such a guarantee will not be possible if the raw material used in the manufacture of these products could include bio or oxodegradable content, which could cause product failure within the lifetime guarantee. This will result in the manufacture of these products reverting from using recycled sources to using prime or virgin raw materials, and thus reduce the available market for UK-manufactured recycled plastic pellet. It has been suggested that this is a small price to pay for the inclusion of a biodegradable exemption. However, with so many UK manufacturing jobs at stake, such a suggestion is viewed as being incomprehensible. I could cite plenty of other examples of similar unintended consequences.
I must restate that the UK plastic films recycling industry does not have any interest in the manufacture or sale of single-use supermarket carrier bags and supports the Government’s purpose in introducing a charge on single-use bags. However, the proposed exemption for bio or oxodegradable bags will have a detrimental impact on the UK plastic films recycling industry and will lead to immediate problems and unintended consequences. Also inherent in such an exemption are real difficulties in terms of policing and the opportunities for fraud. I do not know whether Defra has considered this inevitable dimension and the resourcing of this oversight. Can the system be properly administered? I am not sure.
The chairman of the British Plastics Federation’s recycling group said recently:
“Over the last three years, the UK has seen the emergence of significant infrastructure to support plastics recycling. This is at a critical stage where it is necessary for these investments to demonstrate profitable growth and to meet the needs of higher overall recycling targets. This policy exemption could undermine these businesses due to the potential for contamination”.
The director-general of the British Plastics Federation, speaking on behalf of the wider industry group, Plastics 2020, said:
“All this will spell a loss of jobs in what has been a potentially thriving plastics recycling sector and put paid to further progress in meeting Government’s ambitious recycling targets”.
Let me finish with a quote from the British Retail Consortium. It stated:
“Biodegradable bags can be really confusing for the consumer and very challenging for the retailer to be able to communicate how to dispose with these bags correctly. Biodegradable bags cannot currently be recycled along with single use carrier bags—a challenge for those supermarkets providing front of store carrier bag recycling points. There are serious doubts about the environmental benefits of oxo biodegradable plastics. They cannot be composted, they add nothing to incineration, there is mixed opinion about their fate in landfill, and reprocessors do not want this material because their customers have doubts about the effect on the longevity of constructional plastics”.
I strongly urge the Minister to think carefully about how the review that the order requires to be carried out by 5 October 2015 is carried out. The requirements of that review, which are set out in the order, should include a cost-benefit analysis of the effect of implementing an exemption for bio or oxodegradable plastics.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
I am sure that one would not want a bishop to put himself forward as a paragon of virtue, but I have in my hand a bag that I have used for the last 20 years, which my Danish mother-in-law bought in Copenhagen. It is a shopping bag, and I walk around your Lordships’ House with it. There it is. I have two of them, which I treat as one might treat one’s pet cat or dog.
I welcome the order and hope that cathedral shops, which do not employ anything like 250 people, and other such places involved in the life of the church, will join the spirit of the change, make the charge and not just pocket the benefits for their own charitable purposes.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Will the exemptions in this order parallel exemptions that apply in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland? If not, why are some greater than others? It would be helpful to have that information and the logic of that. Also, the figure of 250 seems quite high. How easily would the Government be open to a reduction in that figure? Indeed, what is the equivalent figure in the other parts of the United Kingdom? Are other materials used in packaging single-use? Lots of vegetables are presented in plastic packaging that is essentially single-use. As I look around the roadsides at this time of year, when you especially see all the plastic debris before spring comes, the litter is by no means only single-use plastic bags from supermarkets.
My final question relates to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. If a plastic bag biodegrades, what does it biodegrade into? I had a misspent youth as a chemist and my guess is that the bag biodegrades into carbon dioxide, inasmuch as there is carbon in the plastic. Other people here will probably have greater scientific skills than me, but that is what happens. When plastic biodegrades, the carbon in the plastic becomes carbon dioxide—as I understand it and unless I can be corrected. Why make this order under the Climate Change Act and provide an exemption for biodegradable bags when they biodegrade into carbon dioxide? That is, if I have got my primitive chemistry correct, some decades on from when I last practised. I want to welcome this but some broader questions should be asked around the order.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I rise to raise a number of issues with the order. I do not think anybody would disagree that plastic bags, when chucked out of car windows or off cliffs, are unsightly, dangerous to marine life and wildlife, and generally a bad thing. However, the bags themselves do not find their way off the cliffs or out of car windows. It is a person who throws the bag out of the window. When a murderer stabs somebody to death with a Stanley knife, it is not the Stanley knife that kills the person but the murderer who pushes the Stanley knife into them.
There is a great deal of inconsistency, incoherence and muddle with this rushed order. I turn to the material itself. Plastic comes up pretty favourably in terms of overall impact as against paper, unless paper is considered to be used multiple times, which for shopping bags is highly unlikely. First, how can we have an order that applies to one material while discriminating against many other materials? Secondly, how does it fit in with EU law to single out one material for special treatment while leaving other materials unfettered? Similarly, on the 250 employees point, that is an interesting figure but pity the poor seagull choking to death on a plastic bag, only to be told, “I’m really sorry, pal, but it came from a local store of only 50 employees in the overall chain”. Or imagine the same seagull on another occasion, choking on a supermarket plastic bag only to be told, “It’s not great for you, pal, but someone did pay 5p for it so at least we have moved on there”.
Similarly, and on a point previously raised, how do these regulations sit alongside those already made in the devolved nations? If we are to have an approach to single-use plastic bags, it would seem sensible to have coherence across the country. We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This really could be one small measure to connect across that United Kingdom.
Another point that has already been raised but is worth reiterating is the one about oxo- and biodegradable. What is the Minister’s view on how this can be effectively transitioned into the overall plastic bag policy and approach, and what will this do to the recycling process, apart from throw it into complete and utter chaos?
My noble friend the Minister described the 5p charge as a modest charge. He set out eloquently in his introduction the magnitude of this problem, but we have a modest charge. If you pay 5p, you can carry on with this behaviour quite happily. A 5p entry fee to chuck a bag out of a window—whatever you choose to do with it—is not really a high price. Does it really go to the heart of the stated aim of this order?
With regard to the redistribution, as set out by Defra, there are no powers for Defra to say anything about the redistribution of these funds. Who can say where they will go and what they should go on? Why should we create something that effectively gives businesses of more than 250 employees the right to set up a brand new branch of their corporate social responsibility policy, where they can choose wherever these 5ps go? They are not their 5ps, they are the 5ps of the customers who have been having to pay this to get the groceries they have already paid for home from the supermarket. It is a 5p tax on carrying your stuff home rather than having it in your arms or other bags because you happened to turn up with no bags. Those 5ps will be multiplied to give supermarkets and other businesses the right to set up virtue funds on whatever they choose to spend them on. Who will decide, who will determine and who will measure? Who will say whether these are good charities or organisations to have this money spent on? Who can say whether the so-called environmental causes that a lot of this money is likely to go to have a positive impact on the environmental aims so stated? Who can say?
Who can say whether the money even gets redistributed at all? As set out in the Defra paper, there is an “expectation” that that is where these 5ps will go. An expectation—what a marvellous concept. I apologise for coughing: a single-use bag got stuck in my throat to highlight the problem we are discussing. What sort of impact does an expectation have? We can save a lot of money with the new super-prisons and other institutions we are building by not putting any walls around them because we can have an expectation that the prisoners will stay within the grounds. An expectation—what oomph does that really have?
In conclusion, we are talking about single-use bags but what we have as currently drafted is a ragbag of an order that is incoherent and inconsistent. Does it really go to the heart of any environmental matters? I ask the Minister: what percentage of overall landfill is made up of single-use plastic bags? I hope my noble friend will be able to consider some of these points and get the order into a more coherent shape by the time it is laid.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I broadly welcome this proposal. Some of us have been arguing about it for years and years. I remember that when I raised it with another Minister, I was slapped down and told that the Government had no intention of doing this, even though I pointed out that it was a benefit and the Government might even raise some revenue. At the time we were talking about a tax on the bags rather than a donation to the supermarkets.
This is a good idea. I think Ireland started this even before Wales and it seems to work pretty well there. Despite the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, the system works pretty well where it has been in used in Wales, Ireland and Scotland. But I welcome the Government as a repenting sinner. The Government were against this in the past, but it is pretty good that they are in favour of it now.
Some supermarkets—Sainsbury’s or Marks & Spencer or both—charge 5p already. But, of course, they do not publicise the fact at the till. It is only when one does a self-service transaction, by putting one’s purchases against the barcode—you see, I go shopping myself; how many others go shopping?—that, occasionally, it asks you to indicate whether you have no bag or that you should be charged for the bag. Sometimes, for very small bags, there is no charge. The system needs more publicity, both at the point of sale and more generally. If people know that they are being charged—sometimes it is easy not to notice, they might pay more attention.
I remember some years ago, when Ireland introduced the scheme, I was at a conference with Irish politicians in Oxford. We looked out the window and saw somebody walking along the street with 15 plastic bags—I think they were the orange Sainsbury’s ones. The Irish politicians said, “That wouldn’t happen in Ireland any more”. They have stopped it, and it works there. We are following on a bit late, but we are doing it.
My other specific point on publicity is this: I am trying to interpret the exemptions. If, say, somebody buys six loose oranges, does that enable them to have a bag without the charge or would the charge apply? It is not clear to me. Sometimes fruit is packaged and sometimes it is sold loose. It is slightly less expensive if it is sold loose. I wonder how that will be handled.
I understand that there is higher energy content in making a paper bag than a plastic bag but there is a good argument against plastic bags.
A lot of us were brought up to go out with a shopping basket—I am old enough to remember that—or bag and would not dream of expecting the shop to provide the packaging. There is no harm in going back to that.
I add one other plea about the amount of plastic wrapping on products, which is not directly concerned with the order. Buy a simple toothbrush and try to open it without a pair of scissors or a knife; it will be too firmly packaged. The Government should move on from this to look at other forms of packaging, which are totally excessive and add to the amount of plastic in the environment.
Baroness Golding (Lab)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak, but I think I should, following my Welsh cousin’s contribution. Some time ago, I went on holiday to Wales and found myself being charged 10p for a plastic bag. I made some inquiries among my Welsh friends. It cost 10p in north Wales, 5p in mid-Wales, 2p in south Wales and nothing if you knew the shopkeeper well. I had my doubts about the whole system already, but I remembered that, in north Wales, I had looked at where the money from the plastic bags was going—into the shopkeeper’s till. There was no way that you could tell where the money from the plastic bag went eventually or how the shopkeeper paid it. There was a little box on the counter where you put the money for the plastic bag, but the shopkeeper took the money and put it in the till. That was my experience in Wales. When I went back home to England, I had a good look around for these plastic bags that the Welsh had been tossing around on the seashore, in the streets and everywhere else—supposedly. In one month, I found one plastic bag blowing around in a car park. That was the only sign I had that plastic bags were being thrown around.
I think the whole idea is nonsense. It is the customer who is paying again, and paying twice. The shopkeeper has already paid for the plastic bag and covered that in the cost that he is charging for whatever you are buying. You are paying twice, and the shopkeeper is getting back the money that he has already paid for the plastic bag. Everybody should be happy but the customer should never be happy about being charged for plastic bags.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I want to make a couple of quick points and press a couple of questions similar to ones that have already been made. What we are talking about is known in economics as a Pigovian tax. I know this is not a tax but Pigovian taxes are intended to discourage activity. The one thing economists say about them is that they should be as technology-neutral, as transparent and as even as possible, otherwise they simply push down something that pops up somewhere else. I worry that we are talking about dealing with what is a very small part of the amount of plastic litter that ends up in the countryside. The point has been made that there is an awful lot of litter on roadsides, particularly at this time of year, and relatively little of it consists of supermarket plastic bags. I have heard the figure of 1%, although I do not know if that is right. Is it not possible to come up with something much more neutral about plastic technology generally across the board, to see whether we can discourage it without picking on this one bag?
I find it very hard to believe that the savings in littering and CO2 will be in the region of £780 million— I think that was the number I heard. This is only a relatively small part of the litter that is around. I cannot believe that 10 minutes less spent picking up litter on the side of the road because there are no plastic bags there will add up to £780 million. On the CO2 point, I echo what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester said. It is not at all clear that the alternatives will produce less CO2—unless we all use the equivalent of the right reverend Prelate’s bag and I am not sure that everybody will. We know that more energy often goes into making paper bags by the time that transport and everything else is taken into account, whether or not, as my noble friend Lord Holmes said, that paper bag gets reused. We also heard from my noble friend Lord Lindsay that oxydegradable plastic bags will have an impact on the recycling chain. Can we make absolutely sure that, when we quote figures for the amount of carbon dioxide that will be saved by this measure, they are honest and properly audited? One hears some claptrap in this area and it would be nice to be sure that the figures are right.
The hypothecation of taxes—that is, when a tax automatically goes to one use rather than just into the Treasury—is something that the Treasury has always resisted. I know that this is not a tax—it is a charge—but none the less it has been hypothecated to certain good causes. On the whole, that is quite a good idea, as long as the customer is allowed to direct where it goes. I hope that that becomes a slightly more general point across government.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I suspect the Minister was hoping for full approval for this government initiative. I am gratified that the Government have finally got around to it. I have been campaigning on this front for at least 15 years, so I am glad that, 13 years after the Republic of Ireland, and then following the devolved Administrations within the UK, we have at last reached this position. To continue the scriptural allusions of my noble friend Lord Dubs, there is always much joy in heaven for a sinner who repenteth, and we should all appreciate that. Nevertheless, we could have had a much clearer policy announced today—one that would have been better understood by the public. I was struck by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, that it is people who litter, not bags. That is absolutely true. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, said, the whole point of this tax is effectively to change behaviour. It is not a tax; it is a levy.
My noble friend Lord Anderson referred to the experience in Wales. I happened to be in Tesco in Dundee on Sunday with a young lad. I would not say that he had great green credentials nor that he was always affected by prices, but he had already—this is relatively new in Scotland—changed his behaviour and brought a bag with him. That is the point. Yes, in the end, it is people who create litter and, by using these plastic bags, not only cause unnecessary carbon emissions but bring desecration to our countryside, wildlife, marine life, beaches and many of our city centres. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Golding found only one plastic bag in her car park, but I must say that that is not the general experience in either urban or rural car parks, or in other open spaces. It has been reported that some 2,000 of them can be found on every square kilometre of beach. That is atrocious from the aesthetic as well as the environmental and economic point of view.
I welcome the principle, but it has been unnecessarily curtailed, and in such a way that it does not do what it alleges it intends to do. The big exemption is for retailers with fewer than 250 employees, which exempts quite large retailers and represents around a third of all retail outlets. These exemptions do not exist in the devolved Administrations, but the exemption for very small retailers from completing the reporting mechanisms—the real red tape and administrative burden—is set at 10 employees. That seems to be a sensible approach. The exemption should be from the reporting and administrative burden, not from the requirement to impose the charge.
The exemption makes a big difference to the figures in the Government’s own impact assessment. The net present value of this over 10 years, according to the impact assessment set out on page 7 of the Government’s report and as indicated by the Minister, is £782 million. However, it would rise to more than £1 billion if all retailers were included. The Government’s position would be understandable if the retailers themselves were strongly pressing for this exemption, but I am sure that other noble Lords have seen the representations from a number of organisations that represent retail outlets, all of whom are saying, “This is daft and will actually impose a burden on retailers that will put them at a competitive disadvantage in certain respects”.
The British Retail Consortium has said that it is unfair to put smaller retailers in a position where they have to choose whether to charge. There are doubts about having an inconsistent position across the UK. The Association of Convenience Stores has said that some 60% of its members support a single-use carrier bag levy being applied, and in Wales, where it has actually happened, more than 80% of convenience stores support it. The association would strongly support its own membership being covered by this in England as well as in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The British Independent Retailers Association, which is the voice of the independent retailer and is often critical of the red tape of government regulations, has said that this should cover businesses of all sizes and that the only exemption should be on the administrative burden, to which I have referred. The Government do not have the support of those who would allegedly benefit from the substantial exemption this order provides for.
There are other exemptions or potential exemptions which can also be queried. The noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has spelt out comprehensively why the issue of oxo-biodegradable bags is not worthy of being considered as an exemption because of their knock-on effect on waste management and the reusability of plastics in general. Others have queried whether other sorts of bags that are being exempted should have that exemption. The big issue I refer to in that respect is: why should non-reused paper bags be excluded when they themselves have a very high carbon content and are a significant part of the litter around our towns and countryside?
Given, therefore, that there is now a general acceptance of this approach, and that the alleged beneficiaries of the exemptions do not seem to be in favour of the Government’s position, why do the Government persist in doing this? Why, in particular, do they do so when the rest of the United Kingdom does not provide for those exemptions, or most of them, and when we may well be faced with a European directive at some point, which will probably not have those exemptions either?
As I say, we should give at least two cheers for the Government for coming forward with this at last. Nevertheless, it is a pity that they have botched it a bit, and I hope that maybe they will fairly rapidly rethink this, and that, even if we adopt this statutory instrument today or when it is considered in the Chamber, they will come back and say, “Actually, these exemptions are pretty much a nonsense. Let’s make it straightforward so that everybody can understand it, and it will have the effect on everybody, whether they are a customer of a small or large business, whether they have a plastic bag or a paper bag, and whether they are in the country or the centre of our towns”. I hope that the Minister will take that at least as partial support, but some rethinking would be appropriate in his department.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their comments, but in particular I thank those noble Lords who have given at least the partial support that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, offered. I will see how many of noble Lords’ questions and comments I can address, bearing in mind that our process may shortly be interrupted. However, I will see how far I can get.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, asked why there had been a delay in getting to where we have. I know that I will not satisfy him entirely, and I suspect that he may have heard me say this before. However, I will say again that we carefully considered the situation and looked at the effect of the scheme in Wales to enable us to design what we considered to be the most appropriate scheme in England. As he knows, we first used voluntary industry initiatives to reduce bags, which proved successful up to a point. The other point it is worth making is that we needed to work with retailers to give them time to prepare. I know that I am not satisfying him entirely, but he will allow me to make that point.
He also asked what the purpose of an end date to the legislation is. It is standard practice from the perspective of Better Regulation to include a sunset date. It gives the Government of the day the opportunity to review the legislation to decide whether it is fit for purpose, and indeed to amend it if they wish to do so. Seven years is standard practice in that regard.
The noble Lord raised the exclusion of SMEs, as did a number of noble Lords. I am aware that some SMEs wish to be included within the scheme, but we have chosen to exempt small and medium-sized businesses from the charge to reduce the administrative burden on start-up and growing businesses at a time when we are supporting new growth in our economy. It is important to remember that the large majority of single-use plastic bags are distributed by the large retailers, and the seven major supermarkets gave out more than 7 billion of those bags in 2013. Small and medium-sized businesses are able to charge on a voluntary basis if they wish, and we have been told about some that already charge voluntarily and are generating significant financial benefits from a reduction in the number of bags they supply. I thoroughly encourage that. There is a requirement in the order for the system to be reviewed within five years, and the scope of the review will be set by the Secretary of State at the time, but I am confident that the SME exemption will be one element of the policy that will be considered as part of that review.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked a related question. The impact assessment also states that there is an overall net benefit to society when SMEs are excluded from the scheme. The Government have therefore chosen to exempt them from the plastic bag charge to avoid placing an administrative burden on them at a time when, as I said, we are supporting growth in the economy.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, will the Minister confirm for the record that biodegradable bags degrade into carbon dioxide from their carbon content?
Lord De Mauley
Yes, I am quite sure that the right reverend Prelate’s chemistry is still current in that regard.
Lord Dubs
Perhaps I may ask a couple of questions. One is on unwrapped fruit. If one goes shopping, one normally buys a lot of things, including, say, four oranges. That means the shopping will be automatically exempt from the charge. That seems to be an inconsistency and, to my mind, not all that sensible. My other question is about publicity for the scheme. Surely one needs to encourage supermarkets to have publicity at the point of sale and wider so that people know what they are about. That will encourage people to take reusable bags.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, my experience when buying oranges in the same way as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is that supermarkets tend to offer a very light bag specifically for that purpose. We are talking about a very light bag, not one into which he could put the whole of the rest of his bottles and other heavy items. I hope I made that as clear as I can. He also asked about publicity and I entirely agree with him. We very much hope that retailers will do as he suggests.
Public Bodies (Abolition of the Advisory Committees on Pesticides) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord De Mauley
That the Grand Committee do consider the Public Bodies (Abolition of the Advisory Committees on Pesticides) Order 2015
Relevant documents: 17th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 21st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, this is an order to be made under the Public Bodies Act 2011. As detailed in the explanatory document accompanying it, it delivers one of the outcomes of the Government’s programme of reform for public bodies. The order will abolish the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and the equivalent body for Northern Ireland as statutory non-departmental public bodies. The Government will then establish a new expert scientific committee.
I wish to make it absolutely clear that this is not an attempt on the Government’s part to stem the flow of impartial and independent scientific advice on pesticides—in fact, quite the reverse. We are very clear that the Advisory Committee on Pesticides has several strong features that must continue. These include: expertise, independence, impartiality, transparency, a direct line to Ministers, and the ability to initiate its own lines of inquiry. We will retain these qualities, but we see an opportunity to make improvements. I firmly believe that there will be benefits from the successor committee operating in a different and more flexible way, while of course retaining its independence.
We need new arrangements to reflect wider changes in the regulatory landscape for pesticides since the Advisory Committee on Pesticides was set up nearly 30 years ago. We need to establish a broader, more strategic and proactive role for the successor committee while meeting the continuing need for independent expert scientific advice in this area.
Over recent years, Defra has taken steps to improve its management of the wide range of scientific advice and evidence that underpins its work. As an expert scientific committee, the successor body to the Advisory Committee on Pesticides will work in a more co-ordinated and peer-reviewed environment. This is overseen by our chief scientific adviser and science advisory council. They do not interfere in the work of experts but provide valuable co-ordination, challenge and support.
We have consulted widely, as required by the Public Bodies Act, on the future of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. As we have reported, there was clear support for our proposals. We also have the full support of other UK departments and the devolved Administrations. We have secured the required clearance from the devolved legislatures for the order. I believe we have gained this support because we acknowledge that these other parties have a strong interest in the future arrangements. We have worked closely with them and with the committee itself to draft the terms of reference for the new expert scientific committee. The input of the committee members is particularly important because they will transfer to the successor body.
The draft terms of reference have been discussed at two meetings of the committee and small but important adjustments have been made. These changes have satisfied members that the draft clearly sets out a shared vision of the independence of the committee, its right to initiate work and its right to communicate directly with Ministers. This text has now been put to departments for final agreement.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report on the order highlighted several issues to be captured in the terms of reference. These included addressing the comments by the Advisory Committee on Pesticides in the earlier consultation about independence and proactivity. It also mentioned the importance of the Principles of Scientific Advice to Government and the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees. The report also called for the establishment of escalation routes to ensure that advice from expert scientific committees can be submitted directly to Ministers, as appropriate.
In flagging those points, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee nevertheless concluded that the Government have demonstrated that the draft order serves the purpose of improving the exercise of public functions as set out in the 2011 Act, in line with the considerations contained in it. The committee was consequently content to clear the order within the 40-day affirmative procedure.
I am glad to be able to confirm that the issues raised by the scrutiny committee are all carefully and fully addressed in the draft terms of reference for the successor body. I can also confirm, as outlined earlier, that the members of the current Advisory Committee on Pesticides and all the relevant departments have been closely involved in this work. The existing Advisory Committee on Pesticides has provided real value over a number of years and the Government are determined to carry over its strengths to the new body. However, the new structure will be more flexible and efficient. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for spelling out the content of this order. Clearly, with the passage of the Public Bodies Bill—four years ago now—the authority to abolish this committee, provided the Government followed the appropriate procedure, has been there.
In Committee on the Public Bodies Bill, I queried the wisdom of abolishing this committee, and my noble friend Lady Quin queried it on Report. The significance of that for those who are not all that familiar with the history of Defra is that my noble friend Lady Quin was the last MAFF Minister to have responsibility for pesticides and I was the first Defra Minister to have responsibility for pesticides. We relied very heavily on the objectivity of the statutory committee, as well as the operations of the pesticides department—PSD—within Defra, because there are always some very difficult, if not controversial, issues arising about pesticides.
The difficulties and controversy have, if anything, increased in recent years. A number of bans at European level have been contested by the industry and some others in crop protection. There has recently been a serious disagreement between the Government and our European colleagues on neonicotinoids. There are always concerns for wildlife and, in particular, the bee population, the effects of various pesticides on them and therefore on their ability to fertilise a whole range of cultivated and wild plant life.
Within what is a no doubt objective and highly scientific area, there are quite often serious disagreements between experts. One of my main memories of my time as a Minister in this area was one huge row where—I will not go into the details—somebody was appointed to the committee whom the crop protection industry was not particularly keen on. It was always important to ensure a balance on the committee, with a range of people. Of course, that is quite difficult for government appointments. Almost everybody with a scientific background in this area, whether at university or in industry, has at some point in their career been employed or had their research sponsored by companies within the industry. It is therefore very important that transparency, accountability, independence—from industry as well as from government—and balance are clear in the advice that the Government receive.
Actually, the non-departmental public body requirements help to ensure that. My concern about the abolition of the committee was that we might lose that balance. The Government have gone through the correct procedures to ensure that there is understanding of the new way of carrying things out. I appreciate that and have every faith in the Government being very diligent in ensuring that that balance and independence are still there. They put it within a wider context where, effectively, this is an expert committee reporting to the science advisory council, which oversees the whole of Defra’s scientific work. That makes sense to a degree, provided that that is well resourced and that the expert committees covering specialist areas maintain the balance and independence I referred to.
I accept the Government’s good intentions within this area but they have to recognise that it is one where, publicly, media-wise and in the scientific community, controversy can jump out at Ministers who are without great expectation or, frankly, much knowledge of the balance of understanding on the scientific argument. That means the Government must be able to defend whatever future, more flexible arrangements are put in place. The Government refer to flexibility of advice. That should not be too ad hoc or Ministers would be open to the accusation that they have chosen the advice from those people most likely to favour their or the industry’s position. That would be unfortunate in an area where a degree of objectivity has generally been respected over the years.
Pesticides used in our agriculture and horticulture have an important effect on the countryside, wildlife, bystanders, rural communities and the productivity and economic structure of our agricultural sector, so this is an important issue. I hope that the new arrangements work as well as the old ones. I dug out the latest annual report. It is clear from even the summary of the activity—where there were 12 important authorisations of pesticides, some more authorisations of equipment and some serious discussions about the regulatory regime of pesticides in that very year—that that intensity is unlikely to diminish.
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I agree with him about the complexity of the issues that arise. He said that the intensity of activity is unlikely to diminish and I am sure he is right. I agree with him, too, that objectivity is crucial and I accept much, if not all, of what he said. We absolutely respect the need for that objectivity, for independence and for the transparency, accountability and balance that he referred to. I further agree with him that the effect of the Public Bodies Act should be to ensure that these qualities are safeguarded, but, more than that, there is a strong will across government, both at ministerial level and—as has been strongly impressed on me—within the Civil Service and within Defra, to ensure that they are.
The noble Lord wondered whether there was a danger that scientific expertise might reduce and referred specifically to Kew. On Kew, we have seen in the press all the bad news that the Science and Technology Committee chose to air. If he was to review the detailed evidence that the committee heard, he would read the evidence from the Chief Scientist at Kew, who has completely rewritten its science strategy so that it is much more focused on Defra’s business, to help us achieve what we want to do, and on the good that can be done for the country’s biology and botany and so on. I think that the noble Lord would be hugely impressed with what they are doing at Kew, which reflects what we are trying to do elsewhere with our science.
The maintenance and even improvement, where possible, of our scientific advice are a top priority for me. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his words and I hope that the Committee will approve the order.
Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013 (Consequential Provision) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
That the Grand Committee do consider the Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013 (Consequential Provision) Order 2015
Relevant documents: 21st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)
My Lords, the order was laid before this House on 21 January 2015 and is made under Section 150 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, which allows for amendments to be made to primary and secondary legislation in consequence of provisions made by an Assembly Act. The order is made as a consequence of the Welsh Government’s Human Transplantation (Wales) Act 2013, which was passed by the National Assembly for Wales on 2 July 2013. I shall refer to this as the 2013 Act.
The 2013 Act changed the way in which consent for the purposes of transplantation is to be given for the donation of organs and tissue in Wales. From 1 December 2015, after death, a person’s consent will be deemed to have been given in most cases, unless they had expressed a wish for or against donation. The notion of “appropriate consent” from the Human Tissue Act 2004, which I shall refer to as the 2004 Act, is therefore replaced by two concepts in Wales: “express consent” and “deemed consent”.
The order makes provision to amend the 2004 Act to allow for organs and tissue donated in Wales under the deemed consent regime of the 2013 Act to be used in transplantation procedures undertaken in England and Northern Ireland. It will also ensure that a person appointed to act as a representative for the deceased, under either the 2013 Act or the 2004 Act, will be recognised whether the transplantation activity takes places in Wales, England or Northern Ireland. Finally, the order also amends the Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation Regulations 2012, to make reference to the deemed and express forms of consent that will soon take place in Wales.
In preparing the order, the Wales Office has worked closely with the Department of Health as well as the Welsh Government. We are all agreed that the provisions in this order are necessary to ensure that the new Welsh organ donation regime interacts with the existing regime in other parts of the UK. The order is therefore important to the UK. Without the order, when the deemed consent system comes into force in Wales at the end of this year, it would not be possible to use organs, tissue and cells donated under deemed consent in Wales for the benefit of patients in England and Northern Ireland. The order does not extend to Scotland. The Scottish Government have confirmed that no amendments are required to Scottish legislation for organs, tissue and cells taken under the deemed consent regime of the 2013 Act to be transplanted in Scotland. Deemed consent is not being introduced in England or Northern Ireland as a result of this order.
The order demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to work with the Welsh Government in order to make the devolution settlement work. I hope noble Lords will agree that the order is a sensible use of the powers in the Government of Wales Act 2006 and that the practical result is something to be welcomed. I commend the order to the Committee.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for the way that she succinctly introduced this important order.
I must declare an interest as president of the BMA. Since 1999, it has been BMA policy that we should move to what is often called an opt-out or deemed consent process. Indeed, I was also part of the move to create the opportunity for preferential donation to a relative in the event of there being a family member in need of an organ when there was a tragedy within that family. I understand from NHS Blood and Transplant that that is now being used approximately three or four times a year and actually working very well. My other interest is that I tried to introduce a Bill for a single kidney deemed consent, which did not get anywhere but did, I think, push the process further down the road.
The order is obviously important. We know that, every day in the UK, three people die waiting for a donated organ. The change under the 2013 Act should hopefully change the situation in Wales. But of course there is concern that Wales may become, if you like, a net donor of organs to the rest of the UK. My questions relate to that possibility.
First, what steps are the Government taking to increase the number of donors in England? Secondly, are the Government planning to review the Human Tissue Act 2004? Given that we now have these developments in the legislation in Wales, are the Government willing to facilitate an informed public debate about opt-out in England?
My other concern relates specifically to the cost, which will be borne by Wales. For the 2013 Act in Wales to work well, it will increase pressure on intensive care beds and it has been predicted that there will be a need to increase intensive care provision as a result of pushing up the number of donors and holding patients while the processes are gone through. That cost will be borne by NHS Wales. Is that increased cost going to be considered by NHS England and reimbursed in some way to NHS Wales? The cost-saving of somebody receiving an organ for transplant will be a cost-saving to NHS England, not NHS Wales. We know that there are significant cost-savings, quite apart from quality of life and life expectancy, if there is a successful transplant. I am grateful to the Minister for having met me and discussed this previously and understand that the cost of restructuring the donor register will be shared between England and Wales. But that is a one-off cost and will be quite small, whereas the relative cost to Wales for organs may be much higher and ongoing over many years, until such time as England and Northern Ireland follow suit.
Can the Minister also confirm that there will be no adverse effect on the use of organs donated in England, Northern Ireland or Scotland for patients in Wales if there is a very good match? Will the fact that we will have a different consent procedure, which will allow organs to go from Wales, also allow organs to come into Wales? That will become particularly important in paediatrics, where the size of the organ is important, as well as the tissue match of the organ.
Finally, last week I was privileged to host the signing of a memorandum of understanding between NHSBT and the MOHAN Foundation from India. The MOHAN Foundation has been working to push up the consent rate when families are approached and has done it very successfully. It has consent rates consistently over 60%, whereas in the black and minority ethnic community, particularly the Asian community—which has a very high demand for organs because of damage from diabetes; there are a lot of Asians on the transplant register awaiting transplant—the number of organs donated is remarkably low and at best hits 40% at times of agreement; in many areas it is much lower than that. Will the lessons that have been learnt over recruitment be supported and actively rolled out in a campaign aimed at those communities in England and Northern Ireland, but particularly in England, where the majority of those communities are, to make sure that the consent rate within those communities, where the genetic match would be much better, does go up, at least to equal the consent rate in the rest of England?
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the order. The Welsh Government have for a long time rightly been concerned about the number of people who have been critically ill and died while waiting for a suitable organ to be donated.
The UK as a whole has not had a great record in the past in terms of organ donors, and despite a huge push by the Organ Donation Taskforce to increase significantly the number of donors, the UK continues to have one of the highest family refusal rates in Europe. After detailed research and investigation, the Welsh Government decided to change the law in Wales, as the Minister outlined, so that the public were deemed to have given their consent to use their organs unless they had opted out of the system. Obviously, there are exceptions to this and these are outlined in detail in the Human Transplantation (Wales) Act.
The rights and wrongs of whether it is a good idea to have this system of presumed consent are not under scrutiny today, although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that it is worth looking at how successful this is going to be in Wales. Of course, this is a matter on which the Assembly has decided to legislate. My understanding is that the need for this SI is due to the fact that Wales is anxious—correctly, in our view—to ensure that there will continue to be a cross-border flow of organs and tissues across the UK. The change proposed means that organs from Wales will continue to be able to be used in England and Northern Ireland. It is worth noting, as the Minister pointed out, that the law does not need to be changed in relation to Scotland.
I would like to underline some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. If Wales is introducing this, presumably we are proportionately going to be doing more heavy lifting in terms of organ donation than the rest of the country. That is good—we in Wales are helped out by the rest of the country very often—but as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, underlined, there is a cost to this and it would be useful to know whether there will be an additional contribution from the NHS in England. Has any negotiation been undertaken with NHS England in terms of additional help as a result of that cost? We know that Wales could do with the help in financing the NHS.
The Labour Party is in agreement with this order and we give it our support.
Baroness Randerson
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Morgan, for their comments and for their support for this order. I will do my best to answer them in detail.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about preferential donation. As she knows, with her considerable expertise and experience, organs are donated unconditionally and allocated to sick patients on the basis of their clinical need. You cannot name an individual or individuals to whom you would like your organs donated when you join the NHS donor register, but a requested allocation could be possible at the time of your death if there was someone close to you who was waiting for an organ transplant. The noble Baroness made reference to a potential increase in the number of donors as a result of the deemed consent system. On the basis of statistical probability, approximately 15 extra donors a year are likely to become available. Donors tend to donate several organs, so it is estimated that this would help between 45 and 60 recipients.
There has been a considerable increase in the efficiency and co-ordination of organ donation and transplants in recent years, partly because of the efforts that the Government have made to increase the number of organs available. There is a commitment to ensure that organs continue to flow across the border; indeed, the whole purpose of this order is to ensure that that continues. I know that the Welsh Government are committed to that, as are the UK Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked what England is doing to increase the number of donors. Since 2008 and up to April last year, there was a 60% increase in the number of organs donated in the UK and a 47% increase in transplant rates. That is significant progress, although the UK Government firmly acknowledge that there is more to be done. A new, seven-year UK-wide organ donation and transplantation strategy was jointly published by the four UK Health Ministers and NHS Blood and Transplant in July 2013. I hope that this reassures noble Lords that the Government are committed to working closely with the three devolved Governments and to increasing consent rates.
The UK continues to support work to increase donation and transplantation rates further, particularly promoting collaborative work among organisations to raise awareness of donation in the black, Asian and minor ethnic populations. The noble Baroness made reference to that. I was interested and pleased to see in the Commons Lobby yesterday a stall from Transplant 2020, with literature and an expert clinician available to encourage Members of this House and of the other place to sign up but basically to discuss the issues associated with organ transplantation. The literature given to me referred to the need for greatly improved rates of organ donation among BME communities.
The noble Baroness asked whether the UK Government would move in any way towards a similar scheme, or discuss that. I think we would all acknowledge that the debate in England is at a much earlier stage than the debate in Wales, which has gone on for a significant number of years and has been subject to very wide consultation, but I can commit to the fact that the UK Government will look closely at the impact on donor numbers of the work that Wales has been undertaking.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Morgan, referred to costs. The increase in the number of beds required will, I am told, be minimal, and the Act will not increase the need for critical care beds. The increase in the number of donors will pay for itself over 10 years because the organ donation system is efficient and reduces hugely the costs of care for people suffering from organ failure. It will take some years for that to work through, but it is important to bear in mind that organ donation reduces the costs not only of healthcare but of social care in many cases, as well as the impact on families and the individuals concerned.
The noble Baronesses asked what England will do to reimburse Wales for the increased costs of intensive care beds. Each UK hospital receives up to £1,000 for every donor or potential donor in order to help with intensive care costs. Discussions are already under way across the four countries on the best way in which to fund the increase in the number of donors and transplants.
I hope that with those comments I have satisfactorily addressed the concerns of both noble Baronesses, and I join them in the concerns that they have raised about the need to, by whatever method, ensure that we increase the number of donors and particularly concentrate on the two issues that they outlined—first, the high family refusal rates, which have proved to be extremely difficult to deal with, and, secondly, the low donation rates among BME communities. I commend the order to the Committee.
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Northern Ireland) (Biometric data) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
That the Grand Committee do consider the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Northern Ireland) (Biometric data) Order 2015
Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee should consider the draft Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (Northern Ireland) (Biometric data) Order 2015, laid before the House on 29 January 2015. The main purpose of this order is to provide the Police Service of Northern Ireland with the ability to continue to use biometric data, including DNA, footprints and fingerprints, in the interests of national security and for the purposes of a terrorist investigation. The order also makes a transitional provision which permits the Chief Constable of the PSNI additional time to consider whether material held by the PSNI should be retained for an extended period for the purposes of national security, and makes some amendments to the Terrorism Act 2000 and to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. I shall refer to this as the 2012 Act.
The 2012 Act made new provision for the retention, destruction and use of biometric data taken in the course of a criminal investigation in England and Wales. The new provisions, which are now in force in England and Wales, require the destruction of biometric data of those individuals who have not been convicted of a criminal offence, subject to a number of statutory exemptions. Such new provisions were necessary in the wake of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of S and Marper v the United Kingdom. In that case, the court ruled that the provisions in Part 5 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which at that time permitted the “blanket and indiscriminate” retention of biometric data from individuals who had not been convicted of a criminal offence, violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The equivalent provisions relating to Northern Ireland, contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, were thus similarly considered to violate Article 8.
The 2012 Act did not provide for an equivalent new biometric retention framework for the police in Northern Ireland. While the Northern Ireland Department of Justice sought a legislative consent Motion from the Assembly for the inclusion of Northern Ireland-specific clauses within the 2012 Act, this was not granted. This was largely because the majority of the provisions to be made had by then fallen into the devolved space following the devolution of policing and justice to the Northern Ireland Assembly in April 2010. The devolved Administration therefore took forward a separate but broadly similar provision to that contained in the 2012 Act. This was done under the cover of the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013. I shall refer to this as the 2013 Act. It was recognised, however, that the Northern Ireland Assembly did not have the legislative competence to make provision in the excepted field, in particular to permit the biometric data obtained under the PACE NI order to continue to be used for national security purposes and in terrorist investigations.
An order-making power was therefore inserted into Part 7 of Schedule 1 to the 2012 Act to allow the Government to make excepted provision regarding biometric data in Northern Ireland. This power was consequential on the devolved Administration making similar provision to that contained in the 2012 Act by the end of 2012. In the event, it was the following year before the devolved Administration’s Bill containing the equivalent provision received Royal Assent, in the 2013 Act. It was therefore necessary to amend the order-making power in the 2012 Act via primary legislation. That was done in the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014, which received Royal Assent in March 2014.
An amendment to the 2013 Act is currently being taken through the NI Assembly via a separate Bill. The devolved Administration advises that this amendment is necessary to prevent the inadvertent requirement to destroy a large volume of material which was intended to be capable of retention. It is expected that that Bill will receive Royal Assent by this summer, following which the provisions in the 2013 Act will be commenced. This order will be brought into force on the same date that the provisions of the 2013 Act are commenced. That is in order to avoid any gap arising in the powers of the PSNI to retain biometric data for national security purposes or in terrorist investigations.
Following the approach for England and Wales in the 2012 Act, paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the 2012 Act provides for the making of a “national security determination” by the chief constable of the PSNI in respect of the biometric data of a given individual. That allows the material to be retained for up to two additional years for the purposes of national security. The order provides for a transitional period during which the new destruction regime will not take effect in respect of material identified as requiring consideration as to whether it should continue to be held for national security purposes. That is to allow the chief constable of the PSNI sufficient time to consider whether to make a national security determination in respect of such material. The provision permitting the chief constable of the PSNI to make the national security determination is not yet in force, but will be commenced by order later this year on the date identified for the commencement of the new destruction regime in Northern Ireland.
The Biometrics Commissioner, appointed under Section 20 of the 2012 Act, will have an important oversight function in that connection. The commissioner will have the power to review every national security determination made by the chief constable, and will be empowered to order the destruction of any material made the subject of such a determination if he concludes that it is not necessary for the material to be held on the grounds of national security.
Finally, the order makes two minor consequential amendments. First, paragraph 15 of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is amended to ensure that the correct definition of the term “sample” is adopted in relation to the use of police powers under the Act. Secondly, the order removes some remaining references in Schedule 1 to the 2012 Act to samples and profiles which are redundant in consequence of the 2013 Act.
Part 7 of Schedule 1 to the 2012 Act provides my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with an important order-making power. With this order she duly exercises that power to ensure that the PSNI remains able properly to investigate terrorist offences and make use of biometric data in the interests of national security. Moreover, the provisions of the order are a vital part of the new legislative framework, which is necessary to secure the Government’s compliance with our obligations under the European convention. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the complicated nature of the order that the Minister just outlined to us illustrates that it operates at the twilight zone between the excepted and the devolved matters. Of course, the fact that both are going at a different pace makes matters even more complicated. Nevertheless, we understand that this flows directly from an ECHR ruling and we must deal with that.
Can the Minister assure us on one point? Many members of the public frequently become concerned if there is a risk that material that could subsequently find its way into the evidential process will be disposed of prematurely. We now know of cases emerging many years after offences were committed. We see that on a regular basis and, as the noble Baroness knows, the Historical Enquiries Team is about to commence more work—just as it has previously operated, going back over very difficult terrorist cases. Of course, sadly, in the current circumstances in the modern world, many risks to national security come from all sorts of directions, and not ones that we have been used to traditionally in this part of the world. Therefore, there is quite a significant issue here. I would like the Minister to assure the Committee that the risks posed to successful prosecutions will not be significant and that there are sufficient powers available to ensure that appropriate material is retained in the reasonable prospect that further evidence would justify a prosecution.
The Explanatory Memorandum also raises a number of issues that affect the Police Service of Northern Ireland, not least of which is cost. I refer to paragraph 10, on impact. It says that there is,
“a cost to the PSNI in configuring computer systems for their use in managing the new regime and in staff training”.
Are sufficient resources available to the PSNI to undertake this work? The Minister will know that the PSNI has faced a very difficult budget settlement. We understand the reasons for that but the work that must be undertaken by the PSNI is, far from reducing, at a very significantly high level. That is not simply because of the ongoing terrorism threat. There are other threats out there, for example through smugglers and illicit trade.
I am pleased that at long last, after a two and a half year delay, the National Crime Agency will function in Northern Ireland. However, there is clearly a cost and resource issue here. It is not only cost. Part of the problem that the PSNI faces is that it has so many people working on historical cases and also an ongoing terrorist threat level that the Chief Constable described as “severe”—it is certainly substantial. He will have to review every piece of evidence and that is a massive piece of work. If officers’ time is taken up with that, with training and so on, there is a resource implication. Can the Minister assure the Committee that the effectiveness of the PSNI is not going to be diminished as a result of the substantial workload that is going to be forced upon it?
I hope that the Minister will address one other matter. Can she explain in a little more detail paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum covering the monitoring and review process:
“An independent Biometrics Commissioner has been appointed to keep under review the retention and use by the police of DNA samples”?
Given the fact that the role of the commissioner is currently limited to the oversight of the making of national security determinations, can the Minister elaborate on how this process is going to operate under the new circumstances?
In summary, the necessity for this has been more or less forced upon us as a result of the court ruling, and of course even though the legislative framework is different in England and Wales from Northern Ireland, the case has the same effect as it would have under the different legislation that exists in Northern Ireland. Those are the issues and I would appreciate it if the noble Baroness would address them in her response.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her exposition of the order and the staff in her office for keeping me informed. This is another sensible step, albeit that it may be forced on us, in the devolution process that was first started by a Labour Government. Anything that arms the PSNI and the forces of law and order with the necessary requirements to combat potential acts of terrorism can only be welcomed. I want to make it clear that the Official Opposition welcome this addition to the PSNI’s powers. This order does not deal with national security outwith the legislative context of the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it does bring the PSNI into line with other forces. The ability to use evidence that is gathered is particularly useful.
I echo the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, about the potential costs and use of resources. We all know that the budget of the PSNI is under considerable strain, especially given the circumstances in north Belfast. There are reports that the efforts of some of the historical inquiry teams have had to be reduced or abandoned because of a stated lack of resources. I assure the Minister that we will be paying particular attention to this because any weakening in the resources available to the PSNI makes it less able to tackle potential acts or planned acts of terrorism. However, despite the problems around the need for this order, we welcome and support it.
Baroness Randerson
I thank noble Lords for their comments and their support in principle for the order. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked whether there was a risk that biometric data that could still lead to the conviction of those who have not yet been brought to justice for their crimes might be destroyed. The purpose of the order is to allow the PSNI to continue to use biometric data in the interests of national security or for the purposes of a terrorist investigation. It does not impose any destruction requirements on the PSNI.
The Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, which was of course debated and approved by the Assembly, provides for the exemptions to the legal requirement to destroy an individual’s biometric data that have been introduced in response to the Marper judgment. During the Marper case, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the argument that the indefinite retention of biometric data was justified for the purposes of preventing crime. The court ruled that the blanket and indefinite retention policy of the UK did not strike the appropriate balance between public interest and the rights of the individual. The noble Lord will know that we are bound by that judgment.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, referred very rightly to the issue of resources. As the purpose of the order is to allow the PSNI to continue to use biometric data in the interests of national security or for the purposes of a terrorist investigation, no resource burden is imposed by virtue of the order that is before the Committee. However, the implementation of the new legislative regime for the retention of biometric data, provided for by the Criminal Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2013, has of course created a significant resource burden, as is noted in the Explanatory Memorandum, which noble Lords have referred to. It has been necessary to allocate resource to reviewing all biometric data currently held by the PSNI, the configuration of IT for their use and staff training. This is an inevitable consequence of the ruling of the European Court.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, asked about the mechanisms to be put in place to ensure the oversight of police retention of biometric data, which is not subject to the destruction requirements. The independent Biometrics Commissioner, to whom the noble Lord referred, will have the power to review the making of every national security determination, including those made by the chief constable of the PSNI. If the commissioner is not satisfied that the retention of any material is necessary on national security grounds, he can order the material to be destroyed. The Biometrics Commissioner’s first annual report was laid before Parliament in November 2014. In his report, the commissioner reveals that relatively few national security determinations relating to England and Wales, where his powers currently lie, have been received by his office to date.
I hope that those responses are helpful to noble Lords. I commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Empey
Will the Minister clarify one point for me? Is she saying that, if the chief constable designates a “sample” as one that is essential, in his or her view, for anti-terrorism or national security purposes, that protects the sample from the ruling of the court, subject to the oversight of the commissioner? Is that effectively where we are?
Baroness Randerson
The short answer is yes; that is the process. The chief constable makes the decision and it is reviewed by the commission.
Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the Grand Committee do consider the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2015
Relevant document: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, this draft order will devolve competence to the Scottish Parliament so that it can enact legislation about certain safety measures in relation to all dedicated school transport in Scotland. I will give the Committee a brief explanation of how the draft order achieves this and why it is felt to be an appropriate and sensible use of the powers under the Scotland Act 1998.
The draft order is made under Section 30(2) of the Scotland Act 1998. Section 30(2) provides a mechanism whereby Schedule 4 or Schedule 5 to that Act can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the agreement of both the UK and Scottish Parliaments. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, will recall that we debated a similar order on the Floor of the House last week.
The draft order will amend Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 to make an exception to the road transport reservation in Section E1 of Schedule 5 to that Act. The amendment will devolve power to the Scottish Parliament to legislate in relation to the regulation of the description of motor vehicles, by reference to their construction and equipment, which are used to transport pupils and students in Scotland to and from places where they receive education or training, such as schools and colleges.
There is an ongoing petition before the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee that calls for provision to be made to ensure that every school bus in Scotland is installed with three-point seatbelts for every school child passenger and to ensure that proper regard is given to the safety needs of the children. Although it is the Scottish Government’s current position that the specific terms of dedicated school bus contracts are matters for individual local authorities, in an approach consistent with the petition I have just mentioned, Scottish Ministers have indicated that they intend to introduce legislation with the aim of ensuring that it becomes a requirement for seatbelts to be installed on all dedicated school transport in Scotland. This order will confer legislative competence on the Scottish Parliament to allow them to do so.
Once again, the order demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I hope the Committee will agree that this order is a reasonable use of the powers in the Scotland Act 1998. The draft order has passed Committee stage in the Scottish Parliament and we expect that Parliament to conclude its scrutiny by 19 March 2015. The other place is expected to consider this draft order in two weeks’ time. I commend the order to the Committee and I beg to move.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his staff for making sure that I was kept informed. He mentioned last week’s debate on the Floor of the House. Perhaps in future he should consider a joint invitation to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, to come along and liven up the proceedings. That would probably put the Minister in the position that he would expect—and get—the Labour Party to ride to his rescue, as we did last week.
The Minister is absolutely right: this is continuing support for the devolution settlement, which I am glad the current Government are continuing. He has outlined it. There is no need to go over it again. We support the order.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as ever, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support.
Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
That the Grand Committee do consider the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2015.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)
My Lords, the main purpose of the order is to give full effect to the Courts Reform (Scotland) Act 2014, which I shall refer to as the 2014 Act, and to make provision where the Scottish Parliament does not have the legislative competence to do so.
The order is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 and makes necessary or expedient legislative changes in consequence of the 2014 Act. It is quite technical in nature. It maintains the status quo and ensures that courts in Scotland retain their specific powers in relation to devolved and reserved matters.
To provide noble Lords with some background, the 2014 Act implements the majority of the recommendations of the Scottish civil courts review of 2009, which was an independent review chaired by Lord Gill. As the Committee may know, Lord Gill was at the time of the review the Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland and is now the current Lord President of the Court of Session.
The 2014 Act is intended to make the civil justice system in Scotland more efficient, with most of that Act focusing on a restructure of the civil courts system in Scotland. The 2014 Act makes some additional provisions relating to criminal matters.
From 1 April this year, the functions of the Scottish Tribunals Service will be transferred to the Scottish Court Service as a result of provision within the 2014 Act, and that Act will rename the Scottish Court Service the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service. It is intended that this transfer will protect the independence of the administration of devolved tribunals by separating it from the Scottish Government. It will also create a joint independent administration for both courts and tribunals, with one board chaired by the Lord President as head of the judiciary for both courts and tribunals.
The Pensions Appeal Tribunal for Scotland, or PATS, was established under the Schedule to the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943. While pensions are a reserved matter, PATS is currently administered by the Scottish Tribunals Service, since the non-statutory function of providing administrative support was executively devolved to the Scottish Ministers by the Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999. The order before us transfers the administration of PATS from Scottish Ministers to the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.
Section 2 of the 2014 Act updates existing powers to alter sheriffdoms and sheriff court districts in Sections 2(1) and 3(2) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. The order consolidates and re-enacts the compensation provisions in those sections and permits the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service to pay compensation for loss of office or loss or diminution of emoluments in consequence of an order made under Section 2 of the 2014 Act.
Currently, the Court of Session may make rules to regulate procedure and fees in both the Court of Session and the sheriff court, and it is important that the Court of Session still has this ability both for reserved matters and those which are devolved. The principal powers under which these rules are made are contained within the Court of Session Act 1988 and the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. As powers which were conferred on the court by pre-devolution statutes, these rule-making powers cover both reserved and devolved matters. This means that the court has been able to make special rules governing practice and procedure in relation to reserved areas of the law such as immigration, financial services and terrorism.
The court’s rule-making powers are now to be contained in the 2014 Act, but, because of the current legislative competence arrangements, that Act can provide the rule-making power only for matters which are devolved. Accordingly, the order provides that these powers may be used to make provision which relates to a reserved matter, or which modifies the law on reserved matters; that is, provision modifying existing special rules relating to reserved matters. This preserves the pre-existing ability of the court to regulate practice and procedure regardless of whether the subject matter of the proceedings in question is devolved or reserved.
While the 2014 Act provides for the Lord President of the Court of Session to direct certain categories of sheriff court case as suitable to be dealt with by specialist judiciary, and for the Lord President or the sheriff principal of a sheriffdom to be able to designate particular members of the sheriff court judiciary as specialists in one or more areas, the order provides for these powers to be exercisable in relation to categories of case which relate to reserved matters.
Similarly, while the 2014 Act inserts new sections into the Court of Session Act 1988 to include the application of a second appeals test applying to applications for review of decisions of the Upper Tribunal for Scotland, the order extends these provisions to apply to the UK Upper Tribunal.
The 2014 Act provides that civil proceedings which a sheriff has competence to deal with, and in which orders of value are sought of an aggregate value which does not exceed £100,000, may be brought only in the sheriff court. However, this order prevents the 2014 Act applying to proceedings for the winding-up of a company, with the consequence that such proceedings will remain competent in the Court of Session regardless of any order for value sought.
Finally, the order makes consequential modifications to existing UK legislation. For example, the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 and the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 are each amended to reflect the abolition of the office of stipendiary magistrate and the introduction of new judicial offices of summary sheriff and part-time summary sheriff in the 2014 Act.
A further example of the consequential modifications made by the order is that, as the 2014 Act has repealed several pieces of legislation in so far as Scots law is concerned, it replicates these repeals for the rest of the UK, thus tidying up the UK statute book. A specific example of this is the repeal of the Judicial Offices (Salaries, etc.) Act 1952 by the 2014 Act. This order replicates those repeals for the rest of the UK.
I consider this order to be a sensible use of the powers under the Scotland Act 1998 and it once again demonstrates this Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to ensure that the devolution settlement works. I therefore commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
Again, I place on the record my thanks to the noble and learned Lord and his staff for keeping me fully informed. It is with trepidation that I set foot in a Room when an order mentioning emoluments and compensation for legal people is being discussed. I am not that brave and prepared to tread that ground too much.
The noble and learned Lord says that is sensible devolution. It is a steady process that is working well and, on behalf of the Opposition, I fully endorse the order.
Independent Schools: Variety and Diversity
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the variety and diversity of schools within the independent education sector.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests as president of both the Independent Schools Association and of the Council for Independent Education.
The association provides a range of excellent services to its expanding membership—up from 300 thriving, mainly smaller schools, averaging under 400 pupils a few years ago to some 360 today. The council brings together 18 independent colleges, helping them to enhance their already high standards, which will be on display in your Lordships’ House next week when I present annual awards to the most successful students drawn from all manner of backgrounds within this country and overseas. They look to the Government for one thing above all—the removal of unnecessary obstacles to student visas. Many independent schools feel equally strongly about that.
There are a number of other highly regarded professional organisations working on behalf of the 1,250 schools which have chosen to join them on terms that include regular inspection and published reports under Ofsted’s watchful oversight. I encountered an array of those well-established bodies during my time as general secretary of the Independent Schools Council between 1997 and 2004. With misplaced radicalism at the beginning of my tenure, I urged them to coalesce so they could speak with a united voice—not least to the Government of Mr Blair. I had no success. The organisations that represent independent schools reflect the innate diversity and variety, which are the hallmarks of the schools themselves, where 80% of the 625,000 pupils in the independent sector are educated. Yet those long-standing characteristics go almost entirely unremarked, and it is my object in this debate to underline their importance.
I am grateful to those noble Lords who will be taking part. This is a short debate. I regard it as opening salvo, and I hope to have other opportunities to carry forward and enlarge the discussion of issues relating to independent schools. It is in the national interest to do this.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Nash, who has taken a deep and constructive interest in these issues, cannot reply to this debate on behalf of the Government because of duties in Birmingham. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford for speaking in his stead.
My starting point is the extraordinary collection of misconceptions that dominate discussion of independent schools—in the media, in politics and over the dinner tables of the chattering classes. It is a long-standing national habit to view all independent schools as aloof, expensive and exclusive, barred to almost everyone in the land. The impression is now gaining ground that the cost has become so great—around £30,000 a year is the widely quoted figure—that soon only Russian oligarchs will be able to afford them. This takes to extreme lengths a misapprehension that has a cause as simple as it is difficult to dispel: a stubborn determination to regard all independent schools, of which there are more than 2,500 in total, as having been created in the image of a handful of famous public schools, which for some 150 years have been accused of occupying central and malign roles in creating and sustaining deep social division in our country. The famous picture taken of the Eton-Harrow cricket match in 1937 of two Harrovians in top hats being stared at derisively by three urchins is still used to illustrate innumerable articles about independent schools, despite being totally out of date and wholly unrepresentative.
I will not in this debate enter into the tempting historical argument as to whether the grave charge laid against the major public schools is true but I emphasise it as the factor that has done most to create the wholly misleading impression that is so rife today. An imaginary uniformity is attributed to independent schools. The variety and diversity that are their actual attributes have been lost to sight. Consider the question of fees—understandably, everybody does. It is perfectly true that places in boarding schools can be costly. Superb facilities are provided in return. But boarders represent only one in eight pupils. Far from being typical, very expensive schools are the exception. In some day schools in the Independent Schools Association, fees are at a level similar to the average cost of a place in the maintained sector, which makes many heads yearn for the introduction of an open-access scheme to their schools at every level of ability.
More than half of independent schools are not academically selective. Every year, means-tested bursaries increase. Over a third of pupils now receive help with their fees. Every year more pupils from ethnic minority families begin their education at independent schools. A higher proportion of ethnic minority pupils are in independent schools in England than in maintained schools. Many teachers seek to reach out as fully as possible to the communities around them. I think of a remarkable little school outside Lichfield where I presented prizes last summer. Maple Hayes Hall School has a superb track record of helping children with learning difficulties. The chairman of the local council described it last week as a jewel in the district’s crown, yet the local education authorities go to considerable lengths to try to prevent parents of statemented children from sending them to Maple Hayes, precipitating lengthy and expensive cases before tribunals. Such behaviour, inimical to the interests of the children of this country, really should end.
The independent sector has in this generation committed itself fully to partnership with state schools. The further development of partnership is the theme of the manifesto that the Independent Schools Council has published for the coming election. A proper understanding of what independent schools have to offer by way of full partnership can be achieved only by recognising and relishing the diversity and variety that exists within the sector. How can this be done? One way would be through a careful survey of members of the Independent Schools Association by an impartial education expert or an education journalist or two. The idea was enthusiastically received by many of the heads of the schools when I put it to them last week.
Emails have poured in, giving a foretaste of what those carrying out such a survey might expect. I will give a few examples.
At Gosfield School in Essex,
“we halved our prep school fees three years ago and provide substantial bursary support to families in the local community”.
At Babington House School in Chislehurst,
“we accept pupils from a variety of backgrounds, some of whom have very significant and particular needs. We are not a rich school and have no large endowments, but nevertheless we provide a number of means-tested bursaries”.
At Moon Hall College in Reigate,
“virtually all our pupils come to us having failed to achieve their potential in a mainstream school despite additional support. Many are still virtually illiterate when they arrive but they leave us full of confidence, having taken their GCSEs and been admitted to sixth-form colleges”.
At Claires Court School in Maidenhead, academic selection is totally rejected as,
“harmful to social mobility and the long term development of all children”.
At Thorpe Hall School in Southend,
“operating in a highly selective 11+ area with four huge grammar schools, we educate many pupils who did not get through that filter but would not thrive in a large comprehensive”.
At Brockwood Park School, in Bramdean,
“young people from diverse nations and cultures share the adventure of growing and learning together, and will be less likely as adults to engage in discriminatory prejudice”.
At Tring Park School for the Performing Arts,
“awards in the region of £650,000 (10 per cent of turnover) are made each year for drama and musical theatre scholarships and bursaries”.
At Thames Christian College,
“the vast majority of pupils come from families who would never have thought they would ever send their children to a private school; around 40 per cent of our pupils do not pay the full fees”.
I have been sent many more such snapshots of the variety and diversity of life in independent schools today. I have not even mentioned the wide range of activities undertaken by schools in their local communities which show up as risible the patronising comment made by the head of Ofsted last year that they represent no more than “crumbs from the table”.
Finally, I will quote the outstanding head of the James Allen’s Girls School in south London,
“an inner-city school where 50 home languages are spoken and we currently have 126 students who hold means-tested bursaries. We regularly send girls from under-privileged backgrounds and other under-represented groups such as Afro-Caribbean heritage to top universities”,
where, she adds, poignantly,
“they are at once officially classified as coming from a privileged independent school background”.
No one knows more about partnership with state schools than this most successful head, who has taken part in a large variety of collaborative schemes in recent years. She concludes, wisely, that,
“both sectors have a wide range of schools within them and neither one has the exclusive right to excellence”.
To that, I hope we will all say, “Amen”.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for having given us the chance to debate this very important topic this afternoon and for the impressive way he has laid out the case for independent schools. Before I go any further, I need to make the Committee aware that I have in the past acted as a governor of one of the seven great schools that was the subject of the Clarendon Commission in the 1860s. Incidentally, that commission was set up because of allegations of bullying among pupils—what we would now call child abuse; plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose—and which led to the Public Schools Act 1868.
Secondly, and more relevantly, I was the official reviewer appointed by the Government for the Charities Act 2006, which of course brought me into direct contact with the issue of public benefit. My work on that review showed me the very deep roots the education system has in the charity sector. The oldest charity is the King’s School, Canterbury, founded in 597. I do not think it has a continuous record, but it can trace a thread through from 597 to the present day.
Up until the Middle Ages, the church—through the monasteries—helped the sick, looked after the disabled and provided education. The dissolution of the monasteries—Wolf Hall and all that—meant that private endeavour had to step in. If you look at the foundation dates of a number of our great schools, you will see that several were founded between 1530 and 1580. That trend was accentuated because during the later Elizabethan era there was substantial social unrest caused by inflation and bad harvests, which resulted in groups of poor people roaming the country. Noble Lords may recall the nursery rhyme that begins,
“Hark, hark, the dogs do bark. The beggars are coming to town”.
That comes from Elizabethan times and led to the great Statute of Charitable Uses 1601 on which our charity law is based. It had three purposes which were presumed to be charitable—the promotion of religion, the relief of poverty and the advancement of education. That presumption remained in place for more than four centuries until it was abolished by the 2006 Act.
My noble friend has laid out an impressive case on behalf of the independent sector and I do not wish to repeat his arguments. However, I would argue that you are unlikely to strengthen the weak by weakening the strong; the independent sector has proved to be very strong and should therefore be encouraged. One of the greatest achievements of this Government has been to begin to raise standards in the state sector. That is the way we should be proceeding, so that the independent sector begins to feel the hot breath of competition. This will help all sectors and all our students from every background in every part of the country.
The independent sector is facing a couple of challenges. Independent schools are particularly concerned with the issues of variety and diversity which we are discussing. The first is what I call the facilities arms race, the wish for every independent school to have as far as possible the very best facilities, not just academic but sporting and artistic—music rooms, art schools and so on. This is a worthy aim, but it is an aim that comes at some cost and with implications for fees. Schools often say that the capital costs of such facilities are paid for by appeals to alumni and old members of the school, but this often overlooks the maintenance costs of the additional staff you have to hire to run the school and the inevitable need to maintain the buildings after they have been constructed. There is some concern that if this arms race continues, then gradually and imperceptibly fee levels will increase, which cannot be helpful or satisfactory to the sector. As my noble friend has said, we want to make sure that the sector remains open to as wide a proportion of our population as possible and we need to be mindful of the dangers and problems of what happens if we do not remember the squeezed middle.
There is a second aspect to this. The point was made in the briefing to us about the contribution made to the financial state of the country by individual schools from recruitment overseas. That is a fair point, but it is a point which can be taken too far. During my review, I met a very wise headmaster who said to me that, where you had 5% of students from overseas, that helped the school, but when it went above 10% it began to dissipate the school’s values and the school began to lose a sense of social cohesion. This challenge is particularly acute away from honeyed London and the south-east. During my review I travelled to schools in other parts of the country. The independent schools in London and the south-east have a wonderfully affluent and diverse pool of potential pupils to draw from. This is less the case when one moves west and particularly north where geographical distance begins to play a more important role and where schools are, in many cases, less well endowed or well supported than their south-eastern counterparts.
My final point concerns charitable status. In my review of the Charities Act it became very clear what huge advantages charitable status provided. Of course it concerns taxation and taxation privileges but, above all, it is reputational. The charity brand remains very strong in the public mind. One of the principal conclusions of my review was that charitable status is a privilege, not a right, and privilege carries with it responsibilities. Some of these were referred to by my noble friend—to reach out to the wider community, to help educational establishments which are less fortunate or less well equipped, and to be humble enough to learn lessons from schools outside the independent sector and from society as a whole. These will be the continuing challenges for the independent sector and there can be no room for self-congratulation. Independent schools have been clever and flexible in reinventing themselves many times over the centuries. I hope and trust that that flexibility remains part of their DNA.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lexden for securing this debate and for the variety and diversity of his opening speech. I want to begin my contribution by reminding the Committee that independent schools teach only 7% of the country’s school pupils, but the Debrett’s 500 list reveals that more than 40% of the country’s most influential figures went to fee-paying schools. Indeed, half of all noble Lords in the House have been privately educated, and more than 70% of our senior judges are former pupils of independent schools. The figures point out that independent schools are disproportionately dominant in their influence on today’s society.
If we are to discuss diversity within independent schools, we need to examine what has changed where independent schools and social mobility are concerned. I remember that parents on low incomes could receive valuable scholarships, but now the focus is mostly on bursaries that seek to help families on lower incomes afford fees on a sliding scale. This represents greater access to independent schools. At this moment in time, over a third of independent school pupils are on these bursaries. It is safe to say that such schools cannot end social mobility problems alone—as I have pointed out, they teach only 7% of the country’s school pupils—but I can only hope that if such monetary assistance continues, it is done in order to increase social mobility rather than to filter out gifted children from the maintained sector.
In my home town of Liverpool, there was an independent school called Liverpool College. The school principal decided to convert it into an academy, thus receiving public funding. The reason was that many parents wanted their children to attend but were unable to afford the fees. The benefits were reaped almost immediately. Pupils are admitted through random allocation, with some preference given to those who live within two miles of the school. Some students continue to board, but they pay less than 50% of what is charged by standard public schools, and their education is free. The demographics of the school are starting to shift; more pupils are eligible for the pupil premium, and more have been in care or come from ethnic minorities. The reason I brought up this example is that it highlights how the “greatness” of independent schools that traditionalists tend to emphasise can also be achieved in a state-funded school. Being able to expand the curriculum is what counts when seeking to enjoy a fully rounded education, and this need not be compromised at non fee-paying schools, as Liverpool College demonstrates. It is true that schools have a lot more freedom when they are independent, but the standard of provision, imaginative teaching and the quality of teaching is not different between the sectors.
The next issue to which I wish to turn is a large and contentious one—partnerships between independent schools and state schools. Some 90% of ISC schools are in mutually beneficial partnerships with state schools and local communities, but I feel that this figure should really be 100%. However, enforcing such partnerships may cause legal and logistical problems. It may not be wise to take away schools’ charitable status because treating schools as businesses would isolate them from society and work against our goal of partnership and collaboration. These partnerships can be encouraged, but they must be organic. Many London independent schools organise summer schools for primary schoolchildren in their local areas, including the loaning out of sports facilities and swimming pools, and teachers sharing resources and ideas to improve the quality of teaching. The list is truly endless. I am very glad that the DfE has agreed to fund 18 new partnerships and their start-up costs. This exchange of information allows the pupils to benefit from cross-sector wisdom and encourages a community spirit. Part of the discussion on diversity also invites a mention of transparency. It is no secret that independent schools receive charitable status, which can be considered a euphemism for tax breaks. These partnerships are a method by which private schools can earn that status.
As I mentioned earlier, the exchange of teaching methods is paramount to the quality of teaching, and this leads to my final point—innovation. We should of course note that innovation in schools is the product of a number of different things. Although evidence in this area is scarce, innovation is likely to be driven by evolving continuous professional development among teachers, employing teachers and school leaders from a wide range of backgrounds, guaranteeing flexibility in the curriculum and developing new technologies.
The case for for-profit schools rests on the concept that competition is the best driver of school improvement. The international evidence does not support this claim. The evidence on what works in improving school standards emphasises other factors: the quality of teaching, the need to reduce educational inequalities, and school autonomy—but only when coupled with sufficient accountability. The OECD’s analysis of the PISA results for the past several years has suggested that schools that enjoy greater autonomy in resource allocation tend to do better than those with less autonomy. However, in countries where there are no such accountability measures, the reverse is true.
That innovation would therefore mean that independent schools’ influence on maintained schools would be supplementary to state school education, as opposed to a necessity on which they depend. Therefore, it is not a rethink of any sort of hierarchy that we need, but a rethink of what are the most important tools for improving the diversity and variety of education and those who benefit from it.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, we should all be indebted to my noble friend Lord Lexden for giving us possibly the last opportunity in this Parliament to highlight the vital role of independent schools in the education sector and the contribution they make to civil society. Those of us who have had the good fortune to know him for many years, to have heard his erudite contributions in this House, and indeed to follow him on his remarkable website, know that the issue about which he feels most passionately is Ulster. But a very close second is independent education, a cause for which he has always been a formidable and authoritative champion.
I attended Brentwood School in Essex, where I received a first-class education that has been the foundation of all that I have done since. When I came to this House, one of the reasons I chose the title I did was because of my affection for my old school. I am now honoured to be a governor there, and I declare my interest accordingly. When I joined the school in 1971, it was a direct grant school. My parents could not have afforded to send me there otherwise. Direct grant schools were a very important part of our education system because in so many ways they neatly bridged the gap between the maintained sector and private education. I still believe that the abolition of direct grant status was a terrible act of educational vandalism.
But every cloud has a silver lining and for schools such as Brentwood, which were in effect forced into the private sector, independent status has proved to be of huge importance and value. The reason for that is this: genuine independence from the state and from the taxpayer has been the spur to innovation, and innovation has in turn been the engine of the diversity and variety that are the hallmark of the independent sector today. It is those three attributes that are the secret of success.
Your Lordships should think of it this way: independence means being judged every day on so many things—the standard of teaching, the provision of up-to-date facilities, the level of pastoral care, after-school activities, the quality of engagement with pupils and the effectiveness of communication with parents. Independent schools have to pass all those tests—and many more—every day or they fail. That so many of them are, like Brentwood, highly successful schools shows how effectively they meet these daily demands. As I said just now, crucial to that is the ability to innovate at the same time as preserving the tradition and heritage that are so valued by parents. Experimentation, original thought and the most up-to-date digital technology all sit alongside a respect for institutional history and custom, and a culture of excellence engrained over generations.
In this context, for a school like Brentwood, that means embracing systems such as the “diamond structure”, in which girls and boys are educated in single-gender groups from 11 to 16 and in a fully co-educational context post-16. It means championing a holistic approach to education, placing personal and social development, the importance of music, art, sport and community service alongside academic achievement. And it means the ability to offer ground-breaking curriculum alternatives such as the international baccalaureate diploma programme as well as international GCSEs, the rigour of which have underlined the general problem of grade inflation. Indeed, it seems to me that the innovation of the independent sector in championing these alternatives has been one of the spurs to the changes in the examination system that have been a key part of the Government’s education reforms.
As my noble friend Lord Lexden reminded us, schools across the independent sector come in many shapes and sizes, with often radically differing ethos and organisation; but they share in common a great deal. I have already talked about their educational fervour, appreciation of the value of independence and the immediacy of accountability. Another thing they share is a commitment to a diversity of pupils from different backgrounds. More than 28% of pupils at independent schools are from a minority ethnic background, which is 1.5% higher than in the state sector. When I visited my old prep school recently, I was struck by the extraordinary range of languages other than English spoken. I heard in the course of a morning Polish, Romanian, Italian and Spanish—something that brings a rich cultural diversity and global perspective to young minds and outlooks.
Perhaps most vitally, all independent schools have done a huge amount over the years to make entrance to them accessible to anyone who really wants to get there. Direct grant status helped my parents, whose living came only from a shoe shop in Upminster, to get me there. Today, that opportunity comes from a very generous system of bursaries for families who have trouble finding the fees and which has become a hallmark of the sector. These bursaries have been built up by generations of philanthropists and former pupils. For many existing pupils, means-tested bursaries throughout the sector are worth an average of £7,984 per year. More than 5,000 pupils at ISC schools pay no fees at all. I say to my noble friend Lord Storey that he is absolutely right to talk about social mobility. That is one aspect of social mobility in action.
More than a century ago, my grandfather attended Christ’s Hospital—a school with a long and distinguished history of reaching out to families of modest means. Today, it offers more bursaries than any other independent boarding school with just under 80% of its 680 pupils receiving support, and 123 getting full fee remission. Last year, it spent £16 million on means-tested purposes, a staggering sum, showing how seriously it, in common with other independent schools, takes its wider civil obligations and its charitable status.
As well as bursaries to enable greater access to children of all backgrounds, independent schools reach out to the wider community. Some, such as my own school, extend a helping hand to maintained schools wishing to start, for instance, their own combined cadet force. Others offer specialist Oxbridge tuition and assist local authorities to teach subjects in which specialist teachers are in short supply. In all these areas, independent schools are using the variety and diversity—and indeed the excellence—among them to expand diversity and variety within the maintained sector.
I hope what this excellent debate will achieve is to highlight three things: first, that the independent schools of today are a light-year away from the image many in this House may have had of private schools in the past. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, they have reinvented themselves, as they have done many times. They are modern, multicultural, diverse, home to cutting-edge digital technology and learning, and, above all, open to the gifted and ambitious whatever their background. Secondly, they take with the utmost seriousness the responsibilities from their charitable status, both through bursaries and wider community involvement. Thirdly and finally, as a result of their priceless independence from government, they add to the diversity and variety of our education system and, above all, of our society as a whole.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I begin by apologising to my noble friend Lord Lexden, and indeed to your Lordships, for arriving during his opening speech. I was inadvertently detained elsewhere. I thank my noble friend Lord Lexden for giving us this very important debate, and remind your Lordships of my education interests in the register.
Having worked in both private and state schools, I am an admirer—by no means an uncritical admirer—of the independent sector. My noble friend Lord Lexden has in the past pointed out that the majority of its schools bear no resemblance to those distinguished and well known boarding establishments that too often the press seems to imply epitomise the independent sector. The independent sector is extremely diverse and wide in its offering to parents. I want to refer very briefly to one aspect of its education provision, which is very different indeed from those famous schools before-mentioned and provides a superb service with very little fanfare—the independent special schools sector.
Under the previous Government, in the 10 years from 1997, some 9,000 special school places and 145 maintained special schools were lost in the state sector. That was because of a somewhat dogmatic application of the ideology of inclusion, which demanded that most children with special needs could be catered for in mainstream schools. I make no political point here, as all parties seemed to support this view at one time or other following the Warnock report. However, gradually common sense prevailed. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, herself had many second thoughts. Inclusion can work extremely well for those with certain physical disabilities, but can too often lead to distress and a serious lack of progress in others.
By 2010, however, there was a net increase in the number of special schools as some 220 new independent ones had been founded to fill the gaps created by the closures. Typically, parents of children with particular special needs found that there was little provision for them and would form a small charity to take over the work. This was for most a hugely difficult task, and the parents concerned are much to be praised for their dedication and determination to do the best for their children and the children of others. However, many graduated from the rooms of private houses to find proper accommodation as their pupil numbers grew. Persuading local authorities to pay the fees, or some of the fees, was difficult in some areas, but these schools flourished and today are a most important part of SEN provision. Today, there are some 550 of these schools in England, and Section 41 of the Children and Families Act 2014 allows the Secretary of State to publish a list of approved independent and non-maintained special schools and special post-16 institutions.
Department for Education figures show that some £612 million per annum is spent in placing children with SEN in these schools, which is 30% of the special schools placement budget. They vary in size, from the small institutions that I mentioned to large and long-formed charities, such as the wonderful Young Epilepsy’s St Piers School in Lingfield, where I live, which was founded in 1904 and provides 24-hour care every day of the year to children and young people with the most serious disabilities, including acute epilepsy, severe autism spectrum disorder and other associated neurological disorders and difficulties. On its 60-acre site is a farm on which the young people can work, recently supported by a large private donation. There are drama courses, business administration, ICT, media studies and many other classes suitable for these youngsters who gain hugely from being in a structured and caring environment.
The National Association of Independent Schools & Non-maintained Special Schools, to which I pay tribute, has some 220 schools in its membership and has produced a number of very valuable research reports. Its October 2011 study, using what was admittedly a small sample of seven schools, revealed that, for day and part-time boarding, delivery costs were between £7,000 and £17,000 lower annually per pupil than for the equivalent provision in local authority-maintained schools. As I said, this was a small study, and we need better comparative data, but at least it tends to suggest that the taxpayer gets good value for money from the independent special sector.
The extraordinary advances in medicine of the last decades mean that many more children with the most serious multiple disabilities now not only survive birth but can find much contentment in their lives with the proper attention, therapies, medication, supervision and, hugely importantly, appropriate education. The independent sector has risen magnificently to this challenge and is clearly the most valuable adjunct to local authority provision.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for tabling this debate and for giving us a chance to reflect on what is happening in the independent education sector and to scrutinise the latest journey that it is embarking upon.
I start with an acknowledgement: the sector has done very well for the parents that pay its sometimes eye-watering fees. Their children are twice as likely to attend a Russell Group university compared to their peers from the state sector and they are five times as likely to attend Oxford or Cambridge, with only one in 100 pupils from the state sector winning a place there. The Sutton Trust has identified five elite schools and colleges which have as many Oxbridge entrants as nearly 2,000 state schools and colleges. The advantages do not stop there. Pupils go from that advantage to make up 71% of senior judges, 53% of senior diplomats, 45% of public body chairs, 43% of newspaper columnists, 33% of MPs and, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, drew to our attention, 50% of your Lordships’ House.
What does that really tell us and where does it get us? At one level, it reaffirms that our education system is still entrenched along old class division lines and that state school children have to struggle that much harder to succeed against the odds, but I am sorry to say that I think that when the noble Lord opened the debate, he was asking the wrong question. It is not a question of how we can add to the variety or diversity of a sector that is by its very nature selective and elite.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Just to recap, the point I was making was that we are debating the wrong question. The challenge is not really about how we can add to the variety or diversity of the independent sector but much more about how we can give every child in this country a first-class education and an equal chance of succeeding in the very fast-changing global market. Noble Lords do not need me to tell them that the world is changing. If we have any chance of remaining a player in it, we must make sure that all our children are equipped with the skills, knowledge and character to compete successfully.
Our view is that we will lose out if we allow the top jobs to be the preserve of young people from a very small pool. The unskilled, low-ambition jobs of the past simply will not be there for those who are excluded. So whether it is a high-quality vocational offering or a comparable academic grounding, it has to be available to all young people regardless of the type of school they attend. This has to be the way of the future and it is a challenge across the entire educational landscape, including the private sector.
What does the independent sector have to do to play a part in addressing this challenge? One answer is that it should develop deep and measurable partnerships with state schools and share its resources and skills so that the benefits can be shared; for example, independent schools’ teaching expertise can be utilised to help disadvantaged state school children into the top- class universities, or by running joint extracurricular programmes with equal access, opening up their sports and arts facilities to joint activities with local schools, and running summer schools and mentoring programmes, thus giving access to their employer networks for careers advice and work experience. They also provide care and innovation in the special school sectors, as described so eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield. I fully acknowledge that that is a role which independent schools play.
All this could be encapsulated in a new schools partnership standard as proposed by our party against which the independent schools will be measured. To give an added incentive, we would amend the Local Government Act 1988 so that private schools’ business rate relief would become conditional on passing the new standard. Those independent schools that are already involved in these activities have nothing to fear from these changes, while those that have not kept up with the times will find it difficult to justify why they continue to be subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of some £700 million over the course of a Parliament.
The statistics appear to show that only 3% of independent schools sponsor an academy, only 5% loan teaching staff to state schools, and one-third allow state school pupils to attend lessons on their premises, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that more transparent and robust independent verification of what is going on in this sector would help us all. However, on this basis it appears that they have a long way to go before they will be able to persuade us that they are involved across the board in true partnerships with the state sector. While I welcome the noble Lord’s commitment to diversity, I would suggest that we need to be much more open about what they are able to offer. If there are to be meaningful partnerships in the future, they need to be based on the recognition of the much bigger challenge of providing a world-class education for every child, which is ultimately in all our interests. On this basis, I am sure that the Minister will agree with much of what I have said, and I look forward to hearing her response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lord Lexden for calling this debate on a very important subject, and other noble Lords for their wide-ranging contributions. I know that my noble friend is a bit disappointed that my noble friend Lord Nash is not here, but I hope that he will be satisfied with my response. I stand here feeling slightly humble because I know that he has a wealth of experience and knowledge of the independent schools sector. As the president of the Independent Schools Association and of the Council for Independent Education, he is already familiar with the proud tradition of the independent sector and the benefits it can bring to thousands of our children, as well as to the communities in which they are situated. I look forward to Parliament hosting his event next week to celebrate the successes of pupils from the smaller independent schools.
I know that this is a topic which is dear to my noble friend’s heart. The diversity of the independent education sector is part of its strength and remains an important part of our educational landscape—as it has been for hundreds of years. The choice the sector brings to parents and children to meet their specific needs and aspirations has to be welcomed. I agree entirely with my noble friend that independent schools make a positive contribution to the life of this country and that we should be proud of the world-class education which many of them provide. My noble friend Lord Black also made the very good point that independent schools today look nothing like the stereotype we have of them now and have had in the past.
The number of independent schools in England remains at around 2,400. There is a turnover of about 100 each year. Schools range vastly in size, ethos and provision. The sector includes day schools, boarding schools and special schools for children with special educational needs, which the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, mentioned. It includes schools with a specific religious ethos, and minority faiths are very well catered for, as my noble friend Lord Black, I think, pointed out. Some of these schools are very small and draw on a local community for their pupils and for their support. Minority ethnic communities are also well represented. Some schools are very well endowed financially, while others seem to get by on a shoestring.
We are also aware that the independent sector is a force for social change. Indeed, most independent schools place great value on community service. I declare an interest as I speak about Manchester Grammar School because my son attended it. It has a very high academic achievement and many of the pupils go on to attend Russell Group universities, yet the school still ensures that pupils are involved in the community that it serves—inner-city Manchester—which includes some of the poorest communities in the country. The activities include paired reading in the local primary school, teaching English as an additional language, recycling schemes, charitable donations, gardening, and work with special schools, which my son got involved with. That all contributes to the sort of inclusive society which we want to see.
MGS also has a huge bursary fund—I think it is around £10 million; I will be corrected if that is wrong but it is certainly substantial—making it very socially diverse and, indeed, ethnically diverse. I think almost 60% of its pupils are from ethnic backgrounds. It has always seemed to me the very epitome of an incredibly cohesive school community. Of course, most schools offer bursaries and more than a fifth of pupils get help with their fees. So in addition to the scholarships available to children with exceptional talents—for example, in music or the arts—many more children benefit from the academic rigour of independent schools because of the financial help they receive.
I will now turn to some of the specific points that noble Lords made. My noble friend Lord Hodgson talked about a facilities arms race that might lead to higher fees. That might be true but surely it has to be a matter for the schools themselves. Of course, if the facilities are better, they might be justified in charging a higher premium but that is for them to make a decision on. My noble friend Lord Storey talked about the 7% of pupils who go to private schools ending up as the high achievers of our society. I think that goes to the heart of this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, mentioned the very point that my noble friend Lord Hodgson touched upon—that you cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. It is about bringing up the attainment of our state schools as well as promoting what our private schools offer.
The approach of this Government to reforming the schools system—to give schools greater freedoms around teaching, teacher training and how they are run—has been noticeable over the period of this Government. My noble friend Lord Storey talked about Liverpool College, which used to be a private school and is now an incredibly successful academy. I can point to an example in Manchester: William Hulme’s Grammar School used to be a private school. Since it has become a state school, you could argue that it is a more successful school and it is certainly attracting more pupils.
There have been a lot of contributions about the partnerships with the state sector. The Government are very supportive of these partnerships, as the Secretary of State and my noble friend Lord Nash have made clear. At the recent ISSP seminar they were told in no uncertain terms that, for partnerships to be successful, they should be developed through building relationships of trust and integrity and not be imposed from the centre. However, ISSPs can make a difference. We have recently provided funding for 18 new primary-level partnerships. We have made available a modest amount of funding—less than £200,000—to assist primary schools around the country to improve subject teaching at primary and prep school level, with specific emphasis on subjects such as maths, science and modern foreign languages. There is good evidence that they are making a difference. I will give just one or two examples, because I am aware that time is pressing on.
The King’s College School in Wimbledon works in partnership with 27 state schools. To give a small taste of what this involves, pupils from King’s are given the opportunity to teach lessons such as Latin, music and sport at local primary, secondary and special schools. Sometimes they act as classroom assistants, but in some cases they actually lead the class, of course under the supervision of the King’s staff. The impact on results has been remarkable, with the average number of pupils achieving five A* to C grades at GCSE going up from 49% to just under 67% over a five-year period.
My noble friend Lord Lingfield talked specifically about independent special schools and we recognise how very valuable these are. They often provide specialist care for children with profound needs and include 170 such schools which are dual-registered as children’s homes. Through Section 41 we will be able to approve a number of schools to receive a funding arrangement, as for special academies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about the dominance of the independent sector. I reiterate that this is about bringing standards in state schools up and not bringing standards in the private sector down. It is not a good situation when there is such a disparity of achievement between the public and independent sectors, and the Government are putting their money where their mouth is over funding for educational improvements. We have provided significant additional funding through the pupil premium—almost £1.9 billion in 2013-14, which will increase to £2.5 billion in 2014-15.
In conclusion, we want all pupils, regardless of the type of school they attend or their background, to achieve the highest quality, world-class education, of which this country is rightly proud. Through our education reforms—more academies and free schools and greater accountability—we are transforming the state system to ensure that every pupil has the opportunity to fulfil his or her potential. A final point: we do not have any plans to withdraw charitable status from private schools. I think we have made great inroads in the partnerships between the private and state sectors. I thank all noble Lords for the part they have played in this debate.
House of Lords
Legislative Scrutiny: Digitalisation
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
To ask the Leader of the House what assessment she has made of the impact on the effectiveness of the scrutiny of legislation of the introduction of further digitalisation.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I have not made any formal assessment of the impact of digitalisation on scrutiny, but I welcome initiatives from the House of Lords administration that take advantage of digital developments, and the Government’s good law project continues to look to improve the process of scrutiny using new technologies.
Baroness Deech (CB)
May I explain for the sake of clarity that by digitalisation I mean the use of computers? Would it not be a great advantage to the House that instead of being presented with amendments on paper that read something like, “delete ‘the’ and insert ‘a’”, we saw what they meant by their being placed and tracked in the draft Bill, that Explanatory Notes should be accessible alongside the clauses by clicking through, that each day the successful amendments should be shown incorporated into the draft Bill, that Bills should be in words that we can amend and exchange with each other—I could go on for a long time, but I will not—and that the use of annunciators could be better if they showed the Question being asked rather than just saying, “1st Oral Question”?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Baroness is right that we should use new technologies where they are relevant to our work and will help us to do it better. We have made quite a bit of progress during this Parliament. Last night I downloaded the House of Lords app on my iPad, which allows us to look at the relevant papers associated with today’s business. On the noble Baroness’s specific proposals for tracking changes, I can inform your Lordships that that facility will be available not in quite the detail that she would like but starting down that track from the beginning of the next Parliament.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I certainly welcome the ideas put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. Does the Leader agree that one of the most important aims for further digitalisation is increasing transparency and engaging those in the wider world with the excellent work of the House of Lords, including scrutiny of course? I certainly commend the recent report by the Arctic Committee and the way in which it is interactive. Does the noble Baroness also agree that over the course of this Parliament, Twitter has proved a great way of communicating the important job that is done in this House?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Yes, I do agree with the noble Baroness. It is important to distinguish between the use of new technology to engage with the public and the use of technology to help us to do our job better; sometimes they serve different purposes. The arrival of the new digital director for Parliament later this month will, I hope, see all these things taken forward with great speed.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, will the Leader of the House make sure, in implementing the changes that she is talking about, that the needs of those who access the information using access technology are not forgotten? I am sure these developments can be very beneficial for people using access technology, but we have to make sure that we do it in the right way, not the wrong way.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord is right. Not only do we need to make sure that those who use access technology are well served alongside any new technological developments; we also need to make sure that those of us who rely on paper and prefer to do our work in an analogue fashion are able to do so. At the same time, we do not want to be behind innovation, so it is also about bringing people with us.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
If the objective is greater public scrutiny of work in the House of Lords, in particular on legislation, why does the House of Lords not have its own television channel instead of having to share one with the House of Commons? If the public want to watch what happens in this House, they have to wait until one o’clock in the morning. Have we actually assessed what it might cost to provide another channel?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As the noble Lord knows, I used to work at the BBC. If he would like, I could give him chapter and verse some other time on the way in which decisions are made on the costing of channels. While we do not have our own dedicated channel, it is important for us all to be aware that people have access to what goes on in this Chamber and in all the other democratic Chambers around the UK via a BBC service called “Democracy Live”, as well as what is available through parliamentlive.tv.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness think that perhaps we should be a little more cautious about moving towards a more digital economy before advancing a bit more in the area of cybercrime?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The noble Lord is starting to take me off the heart of the Question, which is about the digital means for us to be able to do our jobs here in this House. But he makes an important point.
Lord Naseby (Con)
I support the point made by the noble Lord opposite about a separate channel. If you tune in regularly, you will find something of the order of five or six new channels a week on television. Against that background, I cannot see why it is not a priority to find the resources to ensure that there is a proper channel for the revising Chamber that we represent here in the House of Lords.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
The point I am trying to make is that new technology allows for access to more Chambers than has been possible before. In an analogue world, there was one television channel that could view only one Chamber at one time. Streaming via the internet, all the Chambers operating in the United Kingdom are accessible to everybody simultaneously.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has told us about the importance of the new role of the digital director for Parliament. I appreciate that we are moving slightly off the core subject of the Question, but does she envisage further elements of co-operation between the two Chambers of Parliament, not just in digital areas but in all sorts of areas? What discussions has she had with her opposite numbers in the House of Commons?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As for the possibility of greater joint working, the noble Lord may or may not know that one commitment that we have made is for the Clerk of the Parliaments here to explore possibilities with his counterpart in the Commons. Alongside that, if we were to decide to go further down that route, clearly we would need to make sure in due course that we were in a very clear position to negotiate so that this House is never subordinate to the other House.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the suggestions made by the noble Baroness does not require any great technical innovation or, indeed, easy attention to the changes in the computerisation of our activities: placing the Explanatory Notes alongside the appropriate clauses in draft Bills or, indeed, Bills that come before your Lordships’ House? I did that with a Bill two years ago with cross-party support and drew it to the attention of some of her noble colleagues, but it does not seem that the Government have caught up.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I think I am right in saying that the innovation that will start at the beginning of the next Parliament, which, as I described, allows us to see tracked changes at the end of the Committee stage, will also allow access to the Explanatory Notes alongside it. What the noble Lord is suggesting is in train if it has not yet been implemented.
Sudan: Bombardment of Civilians
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of recent developments in Sudan, with particular reference to the continuing aerial bombardment of civilians in Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Northover) (LD)
My Lords, recent developments in Sudan’s conflict zones are deeply concerning. Continued attacks on civilian populations, including in South Kordofan and Blue Nile states, are entirely unacceptable. We continue to support the mediation work of President Mbeki’s AU panel and to emphasise to all sides that the only resolution to these conflicts is through political dialogue, not military means.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that I recently visited Blue Nile state and witnessed first hand the devastating effects of the Government of Sudan’s escalating aerial bombardment, which deliberately targets schools, hospitals, markets and people trying to grow crops? People cannot grow food and many hundreds have died of starvation. The bombers now come equipped with search-lights so that they can kill by night as well as by day. Over half a million people have fled their homes and are hiding in snake-infested caves, in river banks and under trees. What are Her Majesty’s Government actually doing to call the Government of Sudan to account and end the impunity with which they are perpetrating this de facto genocide?
Baroness Northover
I am aware of the noble Baroness’s visit and I thank her for the report that she issued after it. I commend her for her commitment to this incredibly dangerous region.
Baroness Northover
We pressed the Government of Sudan and their armed forces to cease attacks on civilians and to comply with international humanitarian law. We have consistently raised the two areas in the UN Security Council and the Human Rights Council and, through our embassy work, we seek to highlight the importance of the rule of law and promote a culture of accountability throughout Sudan. We are working very hard to try to get that across.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)
My Lords, what has been the Security Council’s response to the Human Rights Watch reports of horrific incidents of mass rape in Darfur and the continuing insecurity and impunity in that region? When will al-Bashir and his Janjaweed be called to account? We are now watching a terrible new phase of genocide in Darfur—and, I am afraid, in silence.
Baroness Northover
The noble Baroness highlights some very grave problems in Sudan, and she will I am sure also know that the UN independent expert on human rights in Sudan is looking at the human rights situation there. We are very concerned that that is taken forward. In terms of sexual violence, she will know that it appears to be an area where rape is being used as a deliberate weapon of war. We are pressing the Sudanese Government to try to take forward protection of civilians, but she will be acutely aware of how challenging that is proving to be.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, during two visits to South Sudan last year, both in Juba and in the fighting area, it was evident that there was widespread belief and evidence that the Government of Sudan were not only interfering in South Kordofan, Blue Nile and Darfur with these terrible acts, but seek further to destabilise the already terrible situation in South Sudan. What steps do this Government believe should be taken and what steps are they taking with the international community to stop this cross-border interference?
Baroness Northover
The cross-border area is again a very difficult area to be working in. Our sense of things in terms of South Sudan is that we have huge challenges there in trying to get the parties to some kind of agreement. The Government of Sudan themselves are playing a non-obstructive role generally speaking. However, given all the instability on the border that the most reverend Primate talks about, it is exceptionally difficult.
Lord Avebury (LD)
My Lords, does my noble friend recognise and do the Government recognise that the genocidal Government of Field Marshal al-Bashir and his generals, many of whom have also been invited before the ICC, have adopted a deliberate plan to eradicate the SPLM/A by a programme of destruction of food crops, bombing of hospitals and other atrocities which have already led to the fleeing of 250,000 people from South Kordofan and Blue Nile to take refuge in Sudan and Ethiopia? When will the Government remind the United Nations of the duty to protect?
Baroness Northover
We have consistently stressed the need for the United Nations to be engaged in the two areas. Obviously, there are challenges when the United Nations is not allowed into the areas that it should be. When I was in Sudan about a month ago, we were pressing on the Government there that, if the United Nations wants to get in and feels that it is safe to, it should be able to. We pressed for the Security Council statement on 11 December, which called on all parties to refrain from acts of violence against civilians. The newly appointed independent expert is working on human rights abuses and we are urging him to take that further forward.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recall our exchange on 17 May 2012, when I asked her whether she concurred with the view of Dr Mukesh Kapila, formerly our high representative in Sudan, that the second genocide of the 21st century was unfolding in South Kordofan, Darfur being the first? In her reply she said that,
“it is clear that there have been indiscriminate attacks on civilians and war crimes”.—[Official Report, 17/5/12; col. 526.]
In the nearly three years that have elapsed since then, during which an estimated 2,500 bombs have been dropped on civilian targets, why has the international community totally failed to prevent this horrific carnage, failed systematically to collect the evidence, failed to establish an international committee of inquiry, and failed to hold anyone to account for these atrocities?
Baroness Northover
I do remember that exchange and I remember the discussions we had after that question as well—as no doubt the noble Lord does—and the sensitivity of what we did in trying to make sure that we were able to get humanitarian organisations in, which we are seeking to do. We are extremely concerned to make sure that that access is there. It is indeed a very challenging situation and we would hold both sides to account. Certainly, in terms of what the Government of Sudan have been doing, we have enormous concerns and address this through the human rights activities that I was talking about.
Regulatory Agencies: Monitoring
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Smith of Clifton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Neville-Rolfe on 26 January (HL4107), how the activities of regulatory agencies are monitored to ensure their effectiveness in the scrutiny of the economic and public sectors they supervise.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the monitoring arrangements for each regulator depend on how each has been established by statute, such as the different degrees of independence granted by Parliament to each regulator and different sources of funding. Some regulators are non-ministerial departments and are monitored and managed by their sponsoring ministerial department; others are non-departmental public bodies, which are subject to triennial reviews.
Lord Smith of Clifton (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that rather confused Answer as to the situation. During this Parliament there have been many complaints about regulators, including those dealing with care quality and police complaints. Who will guard the guardians? Would my noble friend agree with me that there should be an overarching regulator to look at Ofcom, Ofsted, Ofwat, Ofgem and the like? It might be called the “Effectiveness Office”, otherwise known as “Eff Off” for short.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That was a good joke, my Lords, but this is a highly complex area in which quite naturally Parliament wishes some regulatory bodies to have a good deal of independence from the Government. There has been much discussion in this Chamber recently about the Equality and Human Rights Commission and how that should be maintained at considerable distance from the Government. On the other hand, the Care Quality Commission, for example, rightly is regarded as something which needs to be close to ministerial responsibility and on which Ministers are expected to answer to Parliament.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, I take the point that one does not wish to suggest that each regulatory body should be second-guessed day to day by any parliamentary process, but would it not be useful from time to time, given that many of these regulatory bodies are governed by secondary instruments covered by our committee structure here, to see what is happening at the interface, for example, with energy and transport? There are so many bodies where the interface is confusing. Consumers do not know where to go and are maybe pushed from one thing to another. Occasionally, some process should be found to review the accountability to the government department and, hence, to Parliament.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, these reviews do take place. The Environment Agency and Natural England were jointly subject to a triennial review, precisely to look at the degree of overlap. The noble Lord may recall that the Public Bodies Act examined the need for a number of statutorily established bodies that were set up a very long time ago and that the Deregulation Bill also touches on issues like this—125 triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies have already taken place. I was interviewed for the triennial review into the Civil Service Commission, for example, which I think will recommend an expansion of the responsibilities of that body. A good deal of toing and froing is under way. Parliamentary committees and the National Audit Office also monitor the management of these bodies.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, is there not a danger of a parallel government arising of unelected regulators working with enormous powers over the heights of the economy and working in concert?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, the idea that these are massively powerful bodies operating outside parliamentary control is an immense exaggeration. If you look at recent appearances by the heads of some of these commissions and authorities before parliamentary Select Committees, you will recognise that Parliament certainly monitors what goes on very actively.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government consider supporting my Private Member’s Bill to set up a regulatory body to supervise the conduct of political polling, including by multimillionaires?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I cannot begin to think who the noble Lord might be referring to, but I look forward with interest to him showing me his Bill.
Baroness Deech (CB)
Is the Minister aware that all 10 legal regulators, which operate underneath the Legal Services Board, agree that the board and the statute that put it into place are not working well and need radical reform? Can he say whether, if he is in government after May, a new Government will find time to reform it, which is what the regulators all want?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I will certainly take that back if I am in government after May. I hope I shall not still be the oldest member of the Government.
Defence Budget
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Head of the United States Army’s statement that he is “very concerned” about cuts to Britain’s defence budget.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)
My Lords, we remain a strong and capable defence partner of the United States. We are able to fight alongside US forces anywhere in the world and are demonstrating this once again as the largest partner in the coalition effort against ISIL. We have the second largest defence budget in NATO, are meeting the target of 2% of GDP on defence spending and will spend more than £160 billion over the next 10 years equipping the Armed Forces.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer but have to say that it is horrifyingly complacent. For more than three years now, through the back channels, the Americans—the three services, the intelligence community and those on the Hill—have been expressing concern about our spend and the reductions in it. It is time now to be honest with our nation: our military capability has been cut by 20% to 30% since 2010. That is a huge reduction. Next year, in 2015-16, the percentage of GDP spent on defence will be 1.88%, the lowest for 25 years. There is a generation of leaders who believe that peace is the natural order of things and that wars are inconceivable. However, war drums are beating in eastern Europe, and it is time we sent a strong message of deterrence through our military capability—because military forces deter. Will the Minister talk with the Prime Minister, and ask him to talk with the leader of the Opposition, to maybe come to an agreement that both parties should make a commitment to spending 2% of GDP on defence, to take this out of the political arena? I would have suggested having the Lib Dems join in that discussion, but most Lib Dems, I am afraid, with some notable exceptions, want a reduction, rather like the Green Party.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I will take the noble Lord’s suggestion back to my department and it will pass it on, but we will meet the 2% target this year and next. Decisions on defence spending will then be made in the next spending review. However, the Prime Minister is clear that there will be an annual 1% real terms increase in spending on defence equipment. We are committed to ensuring that Britain’s Armed Forces remain among the most advanced and capable, able to protect our security interests across the globe.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned the Government’s commitment to a 1% increase on equipment, but he did not make it clear whether this would be a 1% increase on the defence budget. Perhaps he could do that now.
Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon (LD)
My Lords, before we dive overboard in pursuit of this gold-braid chorus calling for lashings of extra defence spending, can we stop for a moment to reflect? When the party of the noble Lord, Lord West, was in office, it presided over a £30 billion excess in defence expenditure, which left a black hole that this Government had to cope with. It also presided over some of the most egregious military decisions of our time, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Surely that would cause us to believe that an excessive enthusiasm in according credibility to these calls is not required at this moment.
Lord Astor of Hever
My noble friend mentioned the previous Government’s £30 billion defence budget. We now have a £34 billion defence budget and because it has been brought back into balance, we are able to invest in the latest military equipment in the coming decade.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
Order. I am sorry to have to get to my feet, but if we are taking it in turns, it is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke
Will the Minister say what assessment has been made in the Ministry of Defence of the costs of the total realignment of our defence capability should we lose the collective security of NATO as a consequence of losing our Trident nuclear deterrent?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I assume that someone is working on those figures. The Government do not gamble with Britain’s national security. The primary responsibility of Government is the defence of the UK and its citizens. We cannot rule out a future nuclear threat to the UK, and therefore need a credible nuclear capability. Maintaining continuous at-sea deterrence is the best way to deter the most extreme threat to the UK. To clarify my answer to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the 1% is not on the defence budget—it is on the equipment spend within the defence budget.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
Undoubtedly we face a dangerous and uncertain world. I welcome the Minister’s statement. I have more confidence in supporting a Government who have shown the ability to manage the economy and have the best chance of maintaining our level of defence expenditure than I would have if we again found ourselves unable to afford to do it.
Lord Astor of Hever
I agree entirely with my noble friend. We need a strong economy to have strong Armed Forces.
Lord Dannatt
My Lords, does the Minister agree that however welcome his message is of a 1% increase in defence equipment expenditure, this does not address the whole defence budget? Does he furthermore agree that we should salute the bravery of Lance Corporal Leakey, who won the Victoria Cross recently? This underlines that it is our military manpower that makes the British Armed Forces what they are, not a 1% increase in expenditure, because when there has to be a cut, it comes in manpower. When I commanded the Army, it was 102,000 strong. Now, four or five years later, it is 82,000.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord and salute the recent recipient of the Victoria Cross. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that he does not want any reduction in the numbers of the Armed Forces below the level at which they are now, and he remains committed to growing the Reserves to 35,000.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Order. If we are taking it in turns, it is the turn of those on the Labour Benches, but there are two Labour Peers seeking to get in.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
My Lords, the Minister said that it is the primary responsibility of Government to provide for the security and defence of the country. Does he not therefore acknowledge that the defence budget needs as much security in its expenditure as Parliament has already given to its expenditure on international aid?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, the coalition agreement stated that we will honour our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid from 2013 and enshrine that in law. Those funds are being used for very worthwhile causes. For instance, DfID has contributed £35 million to our efforts to tackle Ebola in west Africa.
Lord Howell of Guildford
My Lords, does the Minister agree that although the noble Lord, Lord West, and others are quite right in wanting our Armed Forces to be fully and properly equipped, nevertheless, in modern conditions, large areas of defending the national security and safety of our citizens and the British nation lie outside the classical definition of defence expenditure? Does he not agree that they should be taken more into account, because they are part of the defence of this nation in future—a matter which I am not sure that the American general who spoke the other day fully comprehended?
Lord Astor of Hever
My noble friend mentioned hybrid warfare in a question last week, and there is also the very serious issue of cyber warfare, so I entirely agree with him.
National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015
Lord Popat
That the draft regulations and order laid before the House on 27 and 28 January be approved.
Relevant documents: 21st and 22nd Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 March.
Electronic Commerce Directive (Financial Services and Markets) (Amendment) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Newby
That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 17 December 2014, 21 and 29 January and 3 February 2015 be approved.
Relevant documents: 17th, 21st and 22nd Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 2 March.
Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Bill
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been tabled to the Bill and no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Modern Slavery Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:53 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 232 - Amendment 3 disagreed.
“(10) Regulations under subsection (7), (8) or (9) which add a public authority to Schedule 3 may contain provision modifying the application of this section in relation to that authority.”
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I shall also speak to government Amendments 5, 7 and 8. As noble Lords will be aware, on Report the House agreed amendments which specified an initial list of public authorities which will be subject to the duty to co-operate with the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner. During that debate the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, indicated that the Crown Prosecution Service and the College of Policing should perhaps be added to this list. On that occasion, I indicated that the Government would keep the list under review and consider, ahead of Third Reading, whether an ability to tailor the duty to individual public authorities would be helpful.
Our experience from working on the initial list of public authorities is that some authorities have existing remits or duties which could conflict with the duty to co-operate. In the case of NHS trusts, we needed to make it clear that patient confidentiality would be respected before they could become part of the duty. I want to ensure that it is possible to extend the list of bodies subject to the duty to co-operate in future, in light of that experience. Today, I am therefore putting forward amendments that will ensure that where we subject a public authority to the duty to co-operate by regulations, we can tailor the duty to co-operate to reflect the particular functions or legislative framework of that public authority.
The aim of this measure is to ensure that we can apply the duty to co-operate to more bodies relevant to the commissioner’s role in future. To assure Parliament that this duty will be used only appropriately, and will not inappropriately circumscribe the duty to co-operate in respect of a particular public authority, it will be subject to the affirmative procedure or the equivalent in the devolved legislatures. I hope that the House will feel able to support these amendments, which aim to ensure that the duty to co-operate can be extended practically to other public authorities. I beg to move.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) must set out—
(a) what services will be provided to meet international obligations for the physical, psychological and social recovery of victims;(b) how the services will be provided to meet international obligations in respect of a victim’s consent, safety or other special needs;(c) that provision of services must not be made conditional on the victim assisting with a criminal investigation or prosecution; and(d) how the services will be monitored and audited.”
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 2 is in my name and would clarify the content of regulations that may be introduced under Clause 50 for the provision of support and assistance to victims. I have spoken both in Committee and on Report about the importance of putting support and assistance provision into legislation and, in particular, the benefit of setting out the minimum range of support and assistance to be provided. There are three key reasons why I continue to think that this is important.
First, it will give confidence to victims and support workers that they will receive support and therefore it will encourage more victims to come forward to seek help. This point of view has been expressed by victims’ organisations and the pre-legislative evidence review, chaired by Mr Frank Field MP. Secondly, putting the basic principles of support and assistance into legislation will provide a strong framework to ensure consistent standards and availability of care across the country, strengthened by monitoring and auditing mechanisms.
The third reason for putting details of support and assistance into legislation is that it will ensure that provision will meet our obligations by allowing parliamentary scrutiny in a way which policy provision alone cannot. The review of the NRM was extremely welcome, although it was disappointing that it found many of the same problems identified by the evaluation report of the Council of Europe group of experts known as GRETA when it visited four years earlier in 2011. Putting support and assistance provisions into domestic law will focus the attention of the Government in a way that international obligations have not.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I should like to add a few words in support of Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who has made a convincing case today and on previous occasions for why measures about support and assistance, in accordance with our obligations under international treaties, should be put into statute. I agree with the noble Lord that it would give confidence to victims, improve access to support and establish a consistent quality of care for victims, wherever they might be or whatever their personal circumstances. I am particularly concerned that continuing with a policy-based approach will perpetuate the scope for failures in support provision identified by the NRM review, but highlighted by many NGOs and the Council of Europe GRETA report a long time before the NRM review took place.
Flexibility to respond to changing circumstances is important, but it must not come at the cost of meeting our international obligations and ensuring that all victims receive the support they are entitled to and at a proper standard. I welcome the inclusion of Clause 50 in the Bill and very much hope that, before too long, we will see the introduction of regulations that Clause 50 enables. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has said, during Report I was one of those who asked the Minister whether he would consider incorporating something into the regulations under Clause 50. Specifically, I asked if he might look at adding,
“key elements ensuring consistency in standards of care”.—[Official Report, 25/2/15; col. 1681.]
Amendment 2 would provide the necessary direction to ensure that the regulations promote that consistency. I am particularly interested to hear from the Minister why he does not believe it valuable to add such elements to Clause 50. If, as I suspect it might, the Minister’s answer points to the guidance in Clause 49, perhaps he could indicate why that clause similarly contains no details about the international reference points for the guidance or even that the guidance should cover the elements of providing support set out in Amendment 2—that is, the types of support, the manner and circumstances in which support is provided and provisions for monitoring support.
As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, noted, the requirements for the regulations about independent child trafficking advocates are far more specific about what needs to be covered, than either the reference to guidance in Clause 49 or the regulations in Clause 50.
I would also like to ask the Minister how the Government intend to ensure consistent standards in victim care provision without reference to them in the Bill. For example, can he give details of the minimum standards to which the care providers will be held, and the inspections referred to by him on Report? Will he also indicate whether—and, if so, where—those minimum standards of care have been published? At the end of this remarkable landmark Bill, I am still very disappointed that the Government have not introduced amendments on this matter. I very much look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, it is not just trafficked people who need physical, psychological and social support when they arrive here; the same is true of many asylum seekers who have experienced torture, rape and imprisonment as well as arduous journeys to get here. Many Members of both Houses have pointed this out on successive immigration and asylum Bills. However, I am not sure that the Home Office yet fully reflects these points in its day-to-day practice, particularly as regards women asylum applicants. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, the points made in this amendment seem to me of considerable importance. However, if the Minister could go back to his department and be reasonably certain that these aspects will be reflected in the regulations, it would not be necessary to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I will make a few brief comments, largely in line with the views that have already been expressed. A number of noble Lords have already referred to the Minister’s comment on Report that the government amendments would,
“allow for regulations to be made about accommodation, financial assistance, assistance in obtaining healthcare … 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”.—[Official Report, 25/2/15; col. 1684.]
However, the indications that the Minister gave about what could be included in regulations did not appear in the enabling clause and are not in the Bill. That is precisely the point that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, made.
I assume that the Minister does not intend to accept the amendment—I think that he would already have indicated if it was his intention to do so. However, as has been pointed out, we are facing the prospect that victims of trafficking in England and Wales will have fewer statutory rights than victims in Scotland and Northern Ireland, where statutory support services are set out in detail in the relevant legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, said, the purpose of his amendment is to provide clarity at least about the fundamental principles of support.
I ask the Minister only to give a helpful response to the amendment. He has been asked in particular to commit to the various issues that he said the regulations could cover. Will he stand up now and say that they are not, in that sense, meaningless words and that the regulations will cover the specific issues to which he referred when he spoke on Report? Ideally, noble Lords would like to see this in the Bill—but if the Minister is not able to agree to that, I hope that he might at least be able to say something rather firmer that will leave people with a very clear view that these issues most certainly will be in the regulations when they come out.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I will be able to say something further on the record today, which I hope will go some way towards reassuring my noble friend and other noble Lords on this important matter.
It might be helpful for the House to reflect on where we have come on this particular part of the Bill’s journey, which relates to identification and support. We had Jeremy Oppenheim’s review of the NRM, which was widely welcomed and appreciated on all sides of the House. It is important to remember that Jeremy Oppenheim stopped short of suggesting that there ought to be a statutory footing for this. He said that he felt that would take away from the flexibility of tailoring support to the needs of potential victims. He argued that it would be better not to put it on a statutory footing. We had that debate in Committee, with the very helpful support of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee, as I recall.
We then came forward with this enabling clause to say that we could enable the Government to bring forward regulations under the Bill. We then said that we would ensure that the services are working as effectively as possible and that we would have two pilot schemes, which will be set up in the next few weeks. They will test out the recommendations that have been put forward on identification and care in the Oppenheim review, along with other recommendations that have been made. We then said that, following those pilots, the guidance that will be produced will be subject to a public consultation.
I am going to some length to spell this out because someone looking at this amendment in isolation might think that the subject matter we are talking about, namely what services and care we provide to the victims of these crimes and how, which is of fundamental importance, is not stated anywhere—that it is somehow in the ether. The point I made in the past, and which I will make again, is that Her Majesty’s Government currently comply with all our international obligations under the EU directives and the convention. All we are talking about in this clause is what more we will do to go even further than our obligations require us to do. The idea that we are somehow going to drop below that threshold is simply not there.
When it comes to the amendment, we have some very specific difficulties with one or two of its provisions. I say to my noble friend, who has played such a pivotal role in bringing this legislation forward, that this has not been passed off lightly. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the words which I used at Report and then asked whether the Government would be bringing forward their own amendment in respect of this. We have gone through this painstakingly to see whether we can do this, but we feel that to do so would be effectively to prejudge all the very good stages of consultation, pilots and testing which we have put in place. That is the only reason why we are not in a position to support the amendment in its current form. However, I want to put some additional remarks on the record and to answer the very clear questions which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, so I will seek to do that.
The quality of identification and support for victims is a critical issue. As I have said before, the victim is at the heart of the Government’s approach to tackling modern slavery. Given the importance of ensuring appropriate assistance and support for victims, I entirely understand the sentiment behind this amendment and I believe I can put on the record some remarks today which will give the noble Lord and the House reassurance on this issue. The Government are fully committed to meeting our international obligations in respect of support for victims. In fact, we provide more than the minimum set out in our international obligations. I want to be clear about the intention of the new enabling power in respect of identifying and supporting victims which is that any regulations made under this clause will be fully in line with our international obligations.
The amendment also raises the important issue of the monitoring and auditing of standards of care, which the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, mentioned. Standards of care are integral to the victim care contract and the lead contractor—currently the Salvation Army—will ensure that it and any subcontractor comply with the requirements set out in the contract. These include safe accommodation, access to interpretation services, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me to repeat, and all other international obligations relating to support provisions. All service providers must be registered with the Care Quality Commission, which monitors, inspects and regulates care services to ensure that they provide people with safe, effective and high-quality care based on their needs and encourages providers to make improvements.
We want to see further improvements in identification and support of victims. That is why we are piloting the transformational recommendations of the national referral mechanism review to ensure that we get it right. It is also why we have committed to a formal public consultation to develop statutory guidance, under Clause 49, on victim identification and support. This will ensure that non-governmental organisations and others with expertise can help the Government to further improve the identification and support of victims.
I have some specific concerns. Given the period of major change that the NRM is currently going through, I would caution against specifying what the regulations must contain before the results of the pilots and the consultation on the guidance have helped us to frame future regulations. I also have concerns about the potential implications of the wording of the amendment, which could, for example, arguably conflict with the UK’s current policy of providing discretionary leave to victims where they are supporting a police investigation under our international obligations.
The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament will have an opportunity to comment on them before they are passed. Given that we have already come a long way on the issue by including an enabling power in the Bill and given the assurances I have provided about our international obligations, I ask my noble friend to reflect further on his amendment.
I will just deal with a couple of other issues. The first one is the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who asked whether the regulations will include information about our international obligations. The answer is, yes, the regulations will include the international obligations we have discussed, including the type of victim support set out in the Council of Europe conventions. To distil this down to a fine point, which my noble friend was eager to ensure: when the guidance comes forward in statutory form, will it spell out what is going to be provided? I can say unequivocally that the answer to that is yes. That is reinforced on page 62 of the Modern Slavery Strategy document. It is further cross-referenced in the NRM review, which on page 38 makes many recommendations about the nature of the identification and support which should be given for this. The Government have stated categorically that we support in principle all the recommendations which have been made in the NRM review.
I am grateful to my noble friend for seeking those reassurances. I hope that he will see that we have been genuine in our desire to find a way in which we can address his concerns. We have not been able to do it by accepting this amendment, but I hope that the additional words which I have been able to put on the record from the Dispatch Box today will give him the reassurance he seeks and enable him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, not only on this occasion but over many months. I thank the Minister for coming some way to allay our worries. I am very grateful to him for all the trouble he has taken and for the very gracious way in which he has coped with the conduct of this Bill. I thank him very much and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“(11A) The Secretary of State may by regulations appoint an organisation or an individual to collate slavery and human trafficking statements, and to maintain a website on which to publish those statements in a form in which the published data is searchable by members of the public without charge.”
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in introducing Amendments 3 and 6 to Clauses 54 and 57, which are based on Amendments 97A, 98A and 99A which we discussed on Report, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Young of Hornsey, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, for adding their names and to other noble Lords in all parts of the House for the support they have expressed for the principles in these amendments at all stages, not least the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, on the government Benches, and my noble friend Lord Sandwich, who spoke at earlier stages of the Bill on the issues raised in these amendments.
I start by reiterating the welcome I gave in Committee and on Report for Part 6, which is undoubtedly a major step forward in ensuring that supply chains are not being infiltrated by modern slavery. I return to the issue that I raised at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report and, indeed, through public correspondence in the correspondence columns of the Times. Noble Lords may have seen some of the letters that were signed by several Members of your Lordships’ House. At every stage of our proceedings when I have raised the issue, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, has been most attentive and very generous with his time in listening to suggestions on how this part of the Bill might be improved and strengthened. I join others in echoing the remarks made on the previous group of amendments by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who said how grateful we have all been for the way in which the Minister has engaged. I hope that we will see that again today when he comes to respond to these amendments, although I recognise that the way in which government works may well mean that he has perhaps not been able to gain the support of other arms of government. In those circumstances, only Parliament itself can make the decision, make the pace and ensure that if it believes that the principles in this amendment are worth incorporating, that is done.
These two amendments would allow, through regulation, for a central website to be established on which the slavery reports of businesses may be lodged. This has not only been supported by noble Lords; it has been consistently asked for by civil society groups, which have so much experience of working with businesses on supply chains. I was delighted to receive support from 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. I am also grateful for the letter I received from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which supported the principles outlined in the earlier Amendment 99A and reflected in the amendment today.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 3 and 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, to which I have added my name. I very much hope that they will get the Government’s support today, as there is much on which we all agree regarding this issue. There is agreement across the House that civil society is critical to the success of this part of the Bill, and there is agreement that we expect civil society to review the statements and add pressure where pressure is due. We want the amendments—we need them, even—in order to be able to scrutinise, analyse, and where necessary challenge, business; and, importantly, to praise businesses for the steps they take to eradicate slavery in their supply chains. If we want businesses to fulfil that role, we need to facilitate their doing so, and Amendments 3 and 6 would do that.
I have seen calculations that estimate that if the threshold figure of more than £60 million is used, more than 10,000 businesses will be obliged to produce a statement. If that is the case, it is absolutely inconceivable that civil society, businesses, which want to learn from each other, or indeed the Government, who want to ensure compliance with their legislation, will be able to review 10,000 statements without the use of technology. Technology gives us the power to access information and bring about real change, which is the intention behind this part of the Bill and behind the statements. Let technology do the hard administrative work and be the engine that really drives forward supply chain transparency. Those involved in the California Act recognised that there was a gap in their legislation. We should listen and learn from their experience and not repeat their mistakes. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said, this is an enabling amendment that allows the technology and the responsible organisation or individual in the future to be decided by regulation.
In conclusion, we have to harness the power that technology can give us to increase transparent supply chains and drive change. I hope that the Government will support the amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I support these amendments and thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his leadership. I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, about websites and technology.
I have had the privilege of being in conversation with the Minister about the importance of this legislation and what we are trying to achieve for our country as a mark to the world: that is, helping business to develop and change its culture, and to take responsibility for good practice. Of course, the discipline of using a website will enable businesses to be accountable to their investors, their consumers and their shareholders in a transparent and open space. That will encourage good business practice and help the businesses that have fallen short to be challenged. Therefore, this very sensible and practical suggestion will not only help the Bill to achieve its objectives but will help the culture of business to change in a positive way and make the employment of people in slavery less likely.
I want to make a couple of other small points. Amendment 3 includes the word “may”. Therefore, it is inviting the Minister to agree to this direction of travel as a priority to deliver what we all want to achieve through the Bill. This has been a long journey and we have learnt a great deal on it. As other noble Lords have said, we have been extremely grateful for the way in which the Minister has listened, negotiated and developed the Bill appropriately when persuasion has been there. I think that that process will go on. The website will provide for learning to go on and, with practice, to develop.
My final point is that last week, in talking about the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, we were reminded that organisations like that were able to access proceeds of crime to help fund the work. If we need to find a way of funding a website, which could be quite labour-intensive in answering all the niggly questions to which people expect a reply, the proceeds of crime might be a proper place from which resourcing might be found.
Baroness Young of Hornsey (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Alton. The Minister has referred several times to the California Act during the passage of this Bill. In both Houses it has often been cited as a sort of reference point or a benchmark. We should learn from that experience. As has already been said, the Californians are saying that this is the one aspect that they regret having missed out on. They see the work embodied in the two amendments as an essential tool. The essence of this part of the Bill is transparency. We cannot have full transparency without information and knowledge.
As I said at earlier stages, many young people in particular, in the wake of disasters in the clothing industry such as Rana Plaza, are keen to know about the provenance of their clothing. As my noble friend Lord Alton has already noted, the internet is a key tool, and many young people—and some older people, too—use social media to communicate about companies they see as not upholding their values. Pressure from consumers is something that the Government have said they are keen on. It is a way of holding businesses to account and a way of ensuring that they think about their reputations and how to protect them. Therefore, consumers have some power. However, while I argue that it is not solely down to consumers to keep a check on unscrupulous businesses, I accept that they have a role to play. Without the requisite knowledge and information it is hard to play any kind of role at all.
How could such a role be played without the kind of centralised information, the potential for which this amendment allows the Secretary of State to explore? Who, apart from specialist researchers, would even know which companies met the threshold for inclusion under the Bill, let alone find the required statements from those companies that would enable them to make their choices? I wish we could say that all companies are so concerned about reputational damage that they act in ethical and sustainable ways, but unfortunately they do not. That is one of the reasons why we need the Bill. Good businesses have said that transparency is an aid for them, not a burden. Given the widespread support for this measure in the House, from business, NGOs and, indeed consumers, I hope that the Minister, who, as everybody has said, has been so helpful in not just listening to what we have had to say but in acting on so many of the concerns expressed here and elsewhere, will take this opportunity to respond positively to the amendment and help the Government to become genuine world leaders on this aspect of the Bill.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I strongly support Part 6 of the Bill but, as the Minister knows very well, there is quite a big gap. If businesses are to produce reports, there is no point in having them if they are looked at only by their own people. They need to be subject to independent and transparent scrutiny. That has to go somewhere. It seems absolutely clear that there has to be a central, independent website.
During the Select Committee, a number of big businesses came to talk to us and made it clear that they wanted level playing fields. Like the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I have been talking to big businesses recently which are very interested in and supportive of the idea of a website. I actually suggested to two big businesses to which I spoke—I will not refer to them by name because it would be unfair—that they, with other big businesses in the UK, might put forward the money to put up a website. So it would be not a government website but an independent one, and the businesses that want a level playing field should be prepared to pay for it. According to the sort of companies I have been talking to, it should be a very large sum of money.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the ex-vice-chair of the Ethical Trading Initiative. I have spent a good few years of my life discussing with companies, trade unions and NGOs the complexities of supply chains. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, spoke of the positive endorsement of the Ethical Trading Initiative, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively.
Although I agree with most of what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said, I did not quite agree with the conclusion. It is a principle that is worth including in the Bill because we have to recognise that all these companies are on a journey. The complexities of global supply chains, which stretch far and wide, are not easy to monitor by any means. We know what happens when it goes wrong, as we saw in Rana Plaza in Bangladesh. That is just one example of many. There are lots of other examples where, unfortunately, bonded labour and child labour exist in supply chains. There is cross-party support for this amendment and there is absolutely no doubt about its importance. I, too, congratulate the Minister, who has displayed good diplomacy and a willingness to help to ensure that we make this Bill as strong and as effective as we can. This is a key part of the effectiveness of the Bill.
Surely what we are hoping to do in creating a website like this is “encourager les autres”, as they say— my French is not very good but it means to encourage the others. We want people to say, “Here are the examples of best practice. Here is what every company ought to be aspiring to do”.
I will not take up any further time because so many, such as my noble friend behind me, have made all the key technical points. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I certainly took from the Minister’s long and careful response to the amendments on this clause at the previous stage that he entirely took the points that are being made today. He said that all of us are willing and keen to accept the principle that the statements ought to be put in one place and made easily searchable and identifiable. I take it from that and from other comments that this is something that the Government are working on.
The Minister then mentioned a two-day tech-camp. Frankly, that sounds terrifying, but I wonder whether he has any news of that. He issued a generous invitation to Members of the House to attend it. I am not sure whether I would be up to it myself, but it sounds as though it holds the seeds for taking this matter forward and I hope that he can give us a little more news.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, Third Reading is an occasion for tributes and I hope that the Minister is not too embarrassed to receive all these tributes. He has worked very passionately on the Bill and I congratulate him. We are asking a very small step of the Minister today. I mentioned this before. It was a small step then and remains small, although, even so, it may be the biggest step that he takes today.
My noble friend has put all the arguments so succinctly that I will not rehearse them. I add only one particular point, which is that I personally would not like to see the voluntary sector carrying the load of this responsibility. The way that the amendment is worded is very gentle. It states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”.
It does not actually say that it has to be a government agency. That is the interesting thing about the amendment—it takes us just a very small step further.
I mentioned to the Minister at a private meeting that the situation of the groceries adjudicator may be a parallel to look at, but I would not want to wait for consultation. I do not agree with my noble and learned friend that we have to wait longer for that. I think that the House will decide today in favour of the amendment unless the Minister has something else.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I, too, add my name in support of the noble Lord’s amendment, which I believe will be helpful to both businesses and consumers. I am particularly pleased to note that the business community, through the Ethical Trading Initiative, has expressed its support. I echo what it said about the need for a level playing field. I am proud of what we have achieved on the Bill and I am committed to the journey that we have begun, so I very much hope that my noble friend will feel able to accept the amendment.
Lord Rosser
I will make one or two brief comments. I certainly do not want to repeat all the powerful arguments that have been put forward in support of these two amendments. But to reiterate what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said a moment or two ago, this is an enabling power for the Secretary of State. The amendment states “may by regulations”. It does not say “must”, and it does not specify who should be appointed. It simply says,
“appoint an organisation or an individual”.
I would have hoped that the Minister would feel able to go down this road, since it does not make a very specific commitment but it gives a positive indication of the direction in which we should be going.
It is heartening to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, that Mr Hyland is in favour of what is proposed in the amendment and has described it as being “able to make a positive difference”. I think that that was the wording that was used. I would only conclude by reiterating what the Minister himself said on Report. He said:
“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”.—[Official Report, 25/2/15; col. 1750.]
I really cannot see the difficulty with this amendment, since it achieves precisely the thing that the Minister said that he and the Government want to achieve.
Lord Bates
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton —I think I want to thank him—for his amendment. In essence, it is like a number of these things. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, accurately surmised, we are more or less on the same page. The question is: do we at this stage want to have this written on the page, or do we want to leave it to something that we will come to a little later?
I sometimes get the sense—it might just be the Whip’s instinct in me—that people are preparing to take a run at testing the opinion of the House and they are galloping up the runway. I urge the noble Lord to bear with me a little while, while I try to set out what we are doing. I am putting on the record some things which I have not been able to put on the record before, but I am seeking to go further. I just ask him to keep an open mind as to whether at the end of this stage I have managed to convince him that, should he choose to withdraw, he will be withdrawing further down the path to where we all want to be at the end.
One of the key elements that we have here is another consultation going on at present about these very things. It is worth mentioning, because I genuinely want to flag it up and say that NGOs, companies and organisations —the Ethical Trading Initiative—would be people whom we would want to engage actively with this consultation, which was a concession; it was something which we said we would do in response to concerns raised in your Lordships’ House. We launched the consultation and it is open until 7 May. Question 13 on the consultation specifically asks:
“What would good practice look like … ?”.
When we deal with the publication of these statements, we hope that all the comments made here will be taken into that consultation, as well as the remarks which have been made about people who have been arguing passionately about this long before the clause was in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, led a very constructive debate on supply chains when the clause was not even a twinkle in the Home Office eye at that stage. It is in the Bill now and we are talking about how to make it work.
Much as I love the state of California, I find it an astounding gap that the home of Silicon Valley could not fathom out a way to create a website to consolidate all these statements in one place and make it easily searchable. That is a bit of a concern. One would think there would be lots of local companies—without naming any—which might be perfectly capable of doing that.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked me to report back on what had happened to the tech camp. It is actually just finishing and it is another element that I want to put in here. It was an initiative put forward by the Home Office in response to the precise question that the noble Lord put in his amendment. We set up the tech camp with the Home Office, Unseen, a charity which works with many trafficked people, and Deloitte consulting, which does a lot of work in the technology field. They have had two days looking at what solutions might exist in technology to enable this collation to take place very effectively. I cannot provide a read-out from the tech camp because it is meant to finish about now in St Paul’s in the City, although given that they are technical whizz-kids they probably clocked off a couple of hours ago. I certainly undertake to give noble Lords a read-out from that important gathering.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for soliciting from Kevin Hyland the commitment of support that he has given. That is helpful. He is the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner-designate, and we cannot therefore direct him to do things, but he is suggesting he might have a role. Of course the point here is that everybody is in principle in favour of doing this, but not until they know what will be involved. A key point, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, is where the threshold is drawn for how many companies we will be talking about. Will it be tens of thousands or thousands? How many will we be dealing with? That will obviously impact on people’s views.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the way he has addressed the issue. Whatever the outcome today, I will of course work with him, as I have done all the way through on this issue as we have considered these proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, gave us part of an old French saying about encouraging others. I think the first part of that saying is that you should shoot a few admirals to encourage the others—certain noble Lords are not here at the moment, so nobody will take that personally.
It is certainly not my desire that we should shoot this Minister—indeed any Minister, but not this one in particular. As I said in my opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, has been exemplary in the way that he has dealt with the House throughout all our proceedings. He is a fine example to other Ministers in piloting legislation through your Lordships’ House. He has offered us today a consultation which is under way, the “tech camp”, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to earlier—which is welcome—and more guidance. In a way, at the end, he pointed to the difference that stands between us: whether something should be in the Bill—a point alluded to by my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss—or whether it should be purely discretionary. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, pointed out, this is actually a discretionary amendment, because it allows for regulation and says, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, “may” not “must”. It will be there for the Secretary of State to use. Therefore it is not prescriptive in any great sense.
The noble Lord has told us that we should wait for a consultation, but I cannot think of an organisation—and I cited many in my opening remarks—that we would consult about this proposal that has not already come out in favour of a central repository which should be available to prevent people from having to trawl across the internet to find individual companies. How on earth is anybody going to do that? Who will know who makes the threshold required in this legislation and who does not?
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and my noble friend Lady Young said that we should learn from experience. The Californian experience has been cited here. If only they had their time again. It is not about the inability of people in Silicon Valley, as the Minister said, to construct a website. It is quite the reverse. It was the failure of legislators to place a requirement in their legislation that such a central website should be provided, so there would be a repository where everyone meeting the threshold would have to place an account of what they were doing to combat modern-day slavery and human trafficking. There are moments when Parliament needs to help Ministers out and this is one of them. I therefore beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Bates
“Gangmasters Licensing Authority
The Secretary of State must—(a) before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, publish a paper on the role of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, and(b) consult such representative bodies and other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate about the matters dealt with by that paper.”
Lord Bates
My Lords, this amendment inserts a new clause before Clause 55. I thank noble Lords for the excellent debates that we have had on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority during the passage of the Bill, as well as the important discussions that we had outside the Chamber ahead of Report. I welcome the support expressed in this House for the vital work undertaken by the GLA—the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, that is. It is obvious that there is a shared interest right across the House in increasing the GLA’s effectiveness and indeed that of all the agencies engaged in the fight against worker mistreatment.
On Report last week, I welcomed the spirit—no pun intended—of the proposal from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, which was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley. I highlight that my concerns about it were of a technical nature; as in the previous group, there is no difference over the principle that we want to see in the Bill. I said that I would look again at this before Third Reading, and I have done so; the government amendment reflects our revised thoughts on the issue. It commits the Government to publishing a consultation paper on the role and responsibilities of the GLA within one year of the Bill being passed. This amendment achieves several important things, including a full public consultation on the role of the GLA, which will be placed in the context of the wider landscape of organisations fighting worker mistreatment. It provides for an evidence-based approach to further improving the role of the GLA in tackling abuse of workers. In addition, this new clause places this commitment to a consultation in legislation, meaning that a future Government must live up to the commitments that have been made during the passage of this Bill and ensure there is an urgent focus on the work of the GLA at the start of the next Parliament.
I believe that a clause on the work of the GLA in this Bill reflects the concerns expressed through pre-legislative scrutiny, debates in another place and in this House. All through the passage of this Bill, there has been a common view that we need to focus on getting the role of the GLA right, and this amendment reflects that clearly in the Bill. Through this full public consultation, we will be able to take proper account of the activity of other organisations devoted to tackling serious crime and protecting workers and make sure that, in whatever we do, we avoid creating duplication and overlaps between agencies, thus avoiding wasting time and money which could be better used than in allowing the perpetrators of mistreatment of workers potentially to escape scrutiny. Preparatory work on the consultation document will start immediately so that it can be published as soon as possible in the next Parliament.
I know that some noble Lords have supported the idea of an enabling provision to allow extension of the GLA remit by secondary legislation. Our assessment is that would not achieve its main purpose of avoiding the need for further primary legislation should a decision be taken to extend the GLA remit. We have not, therefore, focused the government amendment in this area. 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. A focus on how the remit of the GLA is set out in legislation in isolation fails to consider the need to make sure that our legislation provide for a coherent enforcement landscape that can be used by the police, the National Crime Agency, HMRC, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and others.
I assure the House that the Government welcome and share the commitment expressed in this House to considering how best the GLA can tackle and punish those that abuse, coerce and mistreat their workers. Our proposal for a full and speedy public consultation reflects that commitment.
I add one other thing, on the subject of consultation. I know that we have had many consultations, but that in itself is part of the strategy. The more that we engage with organisations and individuals about different aspects of how this Bill is going to work in practice, the more awareness there will be of the problem and of the new, robust legislative landscape that is there to tackle this abuse. I hope that noble Lords will support this amendment to ensure a comprehensive consultation. Again, I particularly thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby for his work in this important area.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I thank the Minister. This is another excellent example of listening, learning and working together and taking seriously what was said at Report. On Monday, I was privileged to be at the GLA national conference, which was in Derby, where the Minister, Karen Bradley, who I see is present, was the keynote speaker. I was privileged to speak, along with the new independent commissioner designate. The GLA is alive and well and thinking creatively, but it will be very important for it to use its expertise in a targeted way and negotiate how that expertise is employed alongside other inspectorates. I welcome this proposal.
At the event on Monday, there was the launch of an academy by Derby University in partnership with the GLA to help businesses to learn good practice at a professional benchmarked standard to enable them to comply with the spirit and direction of the Bill and for there to be proper professional training of those employed in businesses to administer supply chains and employment.
The GLA is fulfilling all the expectations that it raised with the Select Committee and Members of this House. It is very important that we undertake this work. I am grateful that the amendment contains the word “must” because it is important to do this scoping out and I thank the Minister for tabling it.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, I have no problem with the amendment but have picked up a concern that, although it is in line with much that has been done already, it possibly raises the whole question of the GLA. A future Government might come in and say, “We have had this consultation and perhaps the GLA is not the right way forward”. I do not know whether the Minister has heard that comment before but it would be helpful if he could give some reassurance on the record that this could not be a consequence of the consultation and this amendment.
Lord Rosser
The comment that I wanted to make was in line with that made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich. I appreciate that the Minister can talk only about the intentions of this Government and not those of a future Government. The amendment refers to publishing,
“a paper on the role of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority”.
Will the Minister assure us that the Government are not looking to extend the role of the GLA into other new and very different areas such as crime control or anything to do with border security, but that they will consider whether to extend its existing remit and resources to enable it to continue to fulfil the very successful role that it plays in labour inspection, enforcement and standards? There must surely be a need to concentrate on its core functions and perhaps extend the area in which it carries them out given that it is highly successful at achieving those core functions which are crucial in the fight against modern slavery.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for welcoming this amendment. I again thank him for his work in this area. In answer to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, the consultation will look across all aspects of the GLA’s work and will consider how it can make an effective contribution to tackling worker exploitation through asking questions about how we can improve the way that it gathers and shares intelligence with other agencies and the way that it interacts with other agencies. The consultation will also examine possible changes to its enforcement activity and powers as well as to its licensing functions. Given that that is the intent, I certainly think that the scenarios outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would not arise. We are talking about the mistreatment and exploitation of workers. The GLA performs excellently in its present role and we are seeking to ascertain whether, given this new piece of legislation, it can play a part in supporting the work of tackling exploitation. I hope that I have reassured the noble Earl.
Lord Bates
“( ) regulations under section 43(9) which contain the provision mentioned in section 43(10) (modification of section 43 in its application to public authority added to Schedule 3);”
Lord Bates
(ii) the provision mentioned in section 43(10) (modification of section 43 in its application to public authority added to Schedule 3);”
(b) the provision mentioned in section 43(10) (modification of section 43 in its application to public authority added to Schedule 3).”
Lord Bates
My Lords, the new advice from the Procedure Committee is that it is at this stage, in moving that the Bill do now pass, that we make some traditional remarks marking the end of this stage. I want to take that opportunity.
To start naming particular individuals is perhaps invidious, since so many have engaged in this process. This has been a genuine cross-party effort. All sides of the House, including the Cross Benches, have played an incredibly important role. That also includes the Bishops’ Benches—they have played a very important role in shaping this legislation.
In all the legislation I have ever been involved in, this has perhaps been one of the most significant. Procedurally it has been one of the best for Parliament. I am delighted to see the Minister for Modern Slavery at the Bar of the House. It is appropriate that she is there. When the Bill was published it went through pre-legislative scrutiny. It was then republished. It was taken through a substantive series of Committee stages in the other place, where amendments were made. It then came to your Lordships’ House where it has been engaged with again. The amendment that I just passed, Amendment 8, was the 100th government amendment that we have made to the Bill in the House of Lords. That is a tribute not only to the deep passion that we all share on this issue, but to the thoroughness with which we have engaged.
From my point of view, I thank in particular my noble friend Lady Garden for her support through this process. I thank members of the Bill team, who have done such a tremendous job. We have put them through an incredible pace. The number of letters, bilateral meetings, interested Peers’ meetings and telephone calls that we have had has put a tremendous strain on them. I am very conscious of that, but they have performed their role perfectly in support of our discussions in your Lordships’ House.
I take great pride in this Bill. It was more than 200 years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, often refers to, that legislation abolishing slavery was passed by this House. It was this country that took a lead in the world to produce legislation to bring about that effect. What we have done in our work is of a similar magnitude and similarly groundbreaking. It needs to send a message to the victims that we are here and will provide them with support, and to those who are perpetrating this evil crime that there are powers, capabilities and institutions that are now on their case in tackling their inhumanity to other human beings. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for his very kind comments. I, too, add my appreciation for the work that both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, have done. I express my thanks to the members of the Bill team. Whether with 100 government amendments they ended up in a state of despair, I do not know, but if they did they never showed it and we are extremely grateful.
I also express appreciation from these Benches to all noble Lords who have taken part in our discussions, whether from a political party, the Cross Benches or the Bishops’ Bench. We have had numerous meetings which have all been extremely helpful. They have certainly all been extremely good-natured and conducted on all sides with a view to trying to resolve any differences of view and to come up with solutions that have been acceptable to us all. I also thank those organisations and individuals who have provided advice and briefings. I am sure we have found them all very useful and helpful. Whether or not we have always taken the road that the advice suggested is another matter, but we appreciated receiving it.
This Bill has been interesting because at heart it has not been a party-political issue. We have all been trying to achieve the same objective. We may have had slightly different views as to how that objective should be achieved, but nevertheless this Bill has avoided some of the rancour that can go with highly party-political issues. As the Minister has said, at the end of the day we have achieved real progress on behalf of the victims of modern slavery and I am sure this Bill and its terms will be much appreciated by all those concerned for what it will achieve.
The Minister said there had been 100 government amendments. They were obviously put down in part as a result of the patience, good nature and willingness to listen of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, which has been widely commented on in this House and widely appreciated. Of course, in so doing, the Minister has denied us the excitement and thrill of a number of votes, but in view of the outcome of the last one, perhaps that is just as well.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, from the Liberal Democrat Benches I also thank all those who have already been mentioned. It is only so as not to be tedious that I will not go through the list again but my thanks are sincere.
This has been such a good example of how Parliament can work well across parties, with people of no parties and with organisations outside this House, as the noble Lord said. I have been particularly struck, which I am sure is in no small part thanks to the efforts of both Minsters present, that even at this last stage, with the last of the substantive amendments on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, the Minister came forward with an amendment which he did not need to make. I do not think there would have been complaints. We would have taken the good faith of what he had said about the work that the Government were going to be doing on this. I know that he will agree that this is the end of the beginning rather than anything further, including at a personal level. I do not know whether the Bill team has counted up for him the number of commitments to extra meetings that he has made following the passing of what will soon be an Act but I know that we will all want to continue to be involved in making sure that the Bill, as implemented, fulfils its promises.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I want to very briefly say from these Benches what a privilege it has been to participate. My colleague, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, had to get special permission for me to sit on the Select Committee. It has been a wonderful opportunity for the church to contribute and, through me, for the voluntary sector to be involved both with the crafting of the legislation and with working further afield on grass-roots responses and the wider cultural and learning changes that need to happen in our society. I also want to say a final “thank you” to the Minister whose leadership of this whole process has been exemplary, as other colleagues have said.
Deregulation Bill
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:02 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 145 / Noes: 182 - Amendment 5 disagreed.
19:41 - Division on Amendment 20 - Ayes: 87 / Noes: 145 - Amendment 20 disagreed.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Deregulation Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Clause 1: Health and safety at work: general duty of self-employed persons
Amendment 1
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“( ) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) A description of undertaking included in regulations under subsection (2) may be framed by reference to—
(a) the type of activities carried out by the undertaking, where those activities are carried out or any other feature of the undertaking;(b) whether persons who may be affected by the conduct of the undertaking, other than the self-employed person (or his employees), may thereby be exposed to risks to their health or safety.””
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 imposes a general duty on all self-employed persons to protect themselves and others from risks to their health and safety, regardless of the type of activity they are undertaking. Clause 1 limits the scope of Section 3(2) so that only those self-employed people who conduct an,
“undertaking of a prescribed description”,
will continue to have a duty under this provision.
A public consultation was conducted by the Health and Safety Executive during July and August 2014. A common concern was that regulations which prescribed only self-employed persons who conducted specified high-risk activities would not be fit for purpose. One of the key concerns expressed by respondents to the consultation was that this would lead to some self-employed persons who pose a risk to the health and safety of others falling exempt from the law. Following the commitment I provided to the House on Report, the Government have now given careful further consideration to the consultation responses and Amendment 1 addresses these concerns.
The amendment sets out the ways in which undertakings may be described in regulations made under Section 3(2) of the 1974 Act to retain duties on self-employed persons. New subsection (2A)(a) covers descriptions based on the type of activities carried out by the undertaking. These descriptions could include a reference to the economic activities that the undertaking engages in, work activities involving a specific hazard, work activities conducted in a specific capacity, or a combination of these things. New subsection (2A)(b) ensures that the regulations could also include a general description covering any undertaking the conduct of which may expose others to risks to their health and safety.
This amendment will therefore enable the Secretary of State to make regulations which not only retain Section 3(2) duties on all self-employed persons who conduct specified high-risk work activities but also retain duties on those self-employed persons who may expose others to risks to their health and safety. This, it is considered, more closely aligns with Professor Ragnar Löfstedt’s recommendation in respect of this provision. Regulations made under this clause will continue to be subject to the affirmative procedure. They will therefore be scrutinised by Parliament at the time of laying to ensure they are fit for purpose before the regulations are brought into force.
The Government acknowledge that assistance will need to be provided to the self-employed to assist with their understanding of this legislative amendment and to limit the possibility of incorrectly assessing whether their work activities may expose other persons to risks to their health and safety. Further to aid this amendment, the HSE will therefore produce guidance targeted at self-employed persons and others to address these issues. It will also signpost them to existing guidance which explains in practical terms what self-employed persons need to do to comply with the relevant law.
Amendment 2 seeks to make it mandatory for the regulations to prescribe all self-employed persons who may pose a risk to the health and safety of others, thereby ensuring that they do not fall exempt from the law. I can provide the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, with the assurance now that the Government intend to produce a set of regulations that will retain a duty on all self-employed persons who may pose a risk to the health and safety of others under Section 3(2) of the Act. I understand what the noble Lord wants to achieve with his amendment. However, in the light of the assurances I have now provided, and given the safeguards in place for the regulations to be scrutinised further by Parliament before they are brought into force, I hope the noble Lord will not seek to change what the Government have brought forward. I think the differences between us have narrowed considerably although I realise that some very small differences remain about the assessment of potential risk.
Amendment 3 seeks to impose various conditions on the making of regulations before undertakings can be prescribed for the purposes of retaining duties on the self-employed under Section 3(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This amendment requires an independent review to be conducted and considered by both Houses before the regulations can be brought into force.
I hope I can provide some assurances also to demonstrate that this amendment is not necessary. In Committee, the Government amended Clause 1 so that regulations made under the power it creates are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure before they come into force. This provides Parliament with an adequate opportunity to scrutinise and debate the regulations to ensure that they are fit for purpose. The conditions that the noble Lord seeks to impose on the regulations can already be considered by the Houses as part of the affirmative resolution procedure if, indeed, Parliament considers these factors to be relevant. Additionally, the proposed prescribing regulations will contain a commitment for their review and for a report to be published after five years of making these regulations. The report will seek to assess the extent to which the objectives intended to be achieved by the proposed policy have been met.
Given the safeguards already in place, and the consultations undertaken by the HSE, the Government do not consider that a further independent review of the regulations would be of any benefit. Furthermore, the Government have now changed the policy to ensure that all self-employed people who expose others to risks to their health or safety will remain subject to the law. This, I think, is also what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. We have considerably narrowed the differences in the course of our consultations. I thank the noble Lord and other opposition Peers for the conversations we have had with officials in the intervals between the various stages of this Bill. I hope we have provided sufficient assurance. I beg to move that Amendment 1 is made and urge the noble Lord not to press Amendments 2 and 3.
Amendment 2 (to Amendment 1)
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“(b) must be framed so as to include all those whose work activities may pose any risk to the health and safety of any person other than the self-employed persons conducting them.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 3. I thank the Minister for reverting on this matter at Third Reading, as he promised to do, and for providing some important draft regulations. The issue with which we have grappled throughout this Bill is how Professor Löfstedt’s recommendations might be safely implemented—if indeed they can be—and in particular how it would be possible to deliver the recommendations that those self-employed who pose no potential risk of harm to others should be exempt from the general duties of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 without creating unintended consequences.
As we have asserted before, maintaining the status quo for the self-employed is the preferred approach given the minimal requirements that would fall on them in these circumstances and the risk of confusion that could follow any change. However, we accept that this is not where the Government are—hence another attempt to implement the recommendation is necessary. Certainly, the first two attempts to implement a Löfstedt approach fell short. The most recent did not have the support of the professor himself and received substantial criticism when consulted on, not least from the CBI and the EEF, and it is understood that the HSE advised that the last approach should be abandoned. The latest attempt is reflected in the government amendment and in the draft regulations, which I think were circulated on Monday.
As we have heard, this amendment provides a framework for determining who is conducting and undertaking a very prescribed description and, hence, is subject to the general duty. As we have heard, it can be determined or framed by reference to types and locations of activities or any other feature, and, crucially, by whether persons who may be affected by the conduct of the undertaking may be exposed to risk to their health and safety—a very important change.
Although our preference for any exemption from the general duty is that it should be based on everyone being in, subject to exclusions which take people out, rather than the reverse, we see merit in this government amendment. We are comforted by proposed new subsection (2A)(b), which appears to be a substantial change in the Government’s position, as I think the Minister confirmed. It brings matters back to a Löfstedt formulation and therefore we are grateful to the Minister for his efforts in bringing this about, doubtless with the steadying hand of the HSE. It raises questions of how it is to be put into practice and doubtless takes us back to issues around risk assessments, but I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about specific guidance being developed in this regard, as well as use of the existing guidance.
Although comforted, I am bound to say that we are not comforted enough. Our Amendment 2 would simply ensure that, rather than just setting out some of the potential criteria by which undertakings of a prescribed description may be determined—that is, the circumstances which bring a self-employed person under the duties of the 1974 Act—it is mandatory. So regulations determining the self-employed who retain a general duty must always include those who may pose a risk to the health and safety of another person. Indeed, why on earth should that not be the case?
Certainly that approach is what has been provided for in the draft regulations that we have seen. But they are, frankly, only that—draft—and presumably there is no prospect of them being finalised before the end of this Parliament. The Minister may wish to comment on their intended progress. What assurance do we have that the actual regulations will replicate the circulated draft? I understand exactly what the Minister said—that if he were in a position to determine that, that would be the case; it would be the basis on which the Government took them forward. However, we know where we are in the electoral cycle and, come May, who knows who will be in a position to take this forward and on what basis? Is it not the case that the Government of the day could ignore new subsection (2A)(b) in framing any regulations, undoing the good work that the Minister has achieved and reverting to a prescriptive list which bears all the flaws of the earlier version? Changing primary legislation, which could always be done, would be much more difficult.
Incidentally, in determining who is exposed to harm, the Government have discounted the employees of a self-employed person. Accepting that Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act would in any event impose a duty on the self-employed in respect of their employees, can the Minister tell us why that is so?
Our Amendment 3 was drafted before we had sight of the government amendment and it calls for a review of any proposed regulations to see that they are fit for purpose. This still has relevance, although we see that the draft regulations—the Minister referred to this—provide for a review of any regulations within a five-year period. Such a review would clearly be welcome.
On the face of it, the Government’s position represents a significant and welcome change. However, unless we think about locking it down more tightly in primary legislation, it may yet be wasted. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his constructive comments, and I recognise that the timing creates some difficulties. I have consulted on whether draft regulations can be finalised, approved and laid before the general election, but I have to say that with the best will in the world that will not, at this stage, be possible. I cannot give the noble Lord a guarantee on the structure, nature and composition of the next Government—I am not sure that any of us can at present. That, of course, has to remain a matter of good will and of the commitment of those who have been involved from all sides in these consultations.
The duties and the question of the employees of the self-employed are covered by the general duty that the self-employed have to consider the interests of others and the risks involved. That seems to me to be fully covered here. We have moved as far as we can and the draft guidance was intended to provide an indication of where this coalition Government would be moving and where we would trust any successor Government to continue in assessing this very delicate balance between where Professor Löfstedt started, which was with the sense that we should try,
“to exempt from health and safety law those self employed people whose work activities pose no potential risk of harm to others”,
and, as he also said in his original review, to,
“help reduce the perception that health and safety law is inappropriately applied”.
That is what we on both sides are attempting to do. I felt that the Government had now moved sufficiently far to assure the Opposition that we were very much pursuing this role and that our proposals would bring Britain into line with other European countries and remove health and safety burdens from the self-employed in low-risk occupations. I hope that that does provide sufficient assurance, but I will see how far we have been able to do so.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I entirely accept his assurance about what he sees as the way forward in circumstances where he and his colleagues were in a position to determine that. It is a great pity that the Government have come a significant way on this but we are just a smidgeon away from locking it down and making it mandatory. I really do not see the problem with doing that. If the Government are happy to provide for that in the draft regulations and happy to take those factors into account as part of their amendment, simply always making it mandatory to feature that provision in regulations seems to me to be quite a small additional step and one that could make a real difference. It is a pity that having come so far the Government cannot just close that gap.
Incidentally, in terms of the employees of self-employed people, I understand that Section 2 of the 1974 Act creates a general duty on all employers, whether they are employees, self-employed, or whatever their status is, so I am not quite sure why they are being excluded here when these arrangements are considered. Perhaps we might reflect on that. This is difficult, because I would like to test the opinion of the House, but I think that the Minister has done his utmost to provide reassurance on the record. That is where we are, and it is probably the best way to leave it today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
“Short-term use of London accommodation: relaxation of restrictions
(1) The Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 25 (provision of temporary sleeping accommodation to constitute material change of use), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) is subject to section 25A.”
(3) After section 25 insert—
“25A Exception to section 25
(1) Despite section 25(1), the use as temporary sleeping accommodation of any residential premises in Greater London does not involve a material change of use if two conditions are met.
(2) The first is that the sum of—
(a) the number of nights of use as temporary sleeping accommodation, and(b) the number of nights (if any) of each previous use of the premises as temporary sleeping accommodation in the same calendar year,does not exceed ninety.(3) The second is that, in respect of each night which falls to be counted under subsection (2)(a)—
(a) the person who provided the sleeping accommodation for the night was liable to pay council tax under Part 1 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 in respect of the premises, or(b) where more than one person provided the sleeping accommodation for the night, at least one of those persons was liable to pay council tax under Part 1 of that Act in respect of the premises.(4) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), it does not matter whether any previous use was by the same person.”
(4) After section 25A (inserted by subsection (3) above) insert—
“25B Further provision about section 25A
(1) The local planning authority or the Secretary of State may direct that section 25A is not to apply—
(a) to particular residential premises specified in the direction;(b) to residential premises situated in a particular area specified in the direction.(2) A direction under subsection (1) may be given only if the local planning authority or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary to protect the amenity of the locality.
(3) The local planning authority may give a direction under subsection (1) only with the consent of the Secretary of State.
(4) A direction under subsection (1) may be revoked by the person who gave it, whether or not an application is made for the revocation.
(5) The Secretary of State may—
(a) delegate the functions of the Secretary of State under subsection (1) or (4) to the local planning authority;(b) direct that a local planning authority may give directions under this section without the consent of the Secretary of State.(6) The Secretary of State may revoke a delegation under subsection (5)(a) or a direction under subsection (5)(b).
(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision—
(a) as to the procedure which must be followed in connection with the giving of a direction under subsection (1) or in connection with the revocation of such a direction under subsection (4);(b) as to the information which must be provided where the local planning authority seeks the consent of the Secretary of State to the giving of a direction under subsection (1).(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(9) In this section, “local planning authority” has the same meaning as in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (see section 336(1) of that Act).””
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, following the publication of the Government’s policy paper on short-term letting in London on 9 February, the Government have laid Amendments 4 and 17 to 19 to include provision for the policy in the Bill.
The Government’s policy paper has taken into account the representations that we received following the discussion document published last year on property conditions in the private rented sector. It has also taken into account our discussions with London’s local authorities and the industry and all the important issues that noble Lords have raised on this clause in previous debates during the passage of the Bill. They have been clear that any relaxation of legislation governing short-term letting in London should be available only to residents, so that they can make their property available when they are away for a limited duration. It will not allow non-residents to use their property for short-term letting on an ongoing or year-round basis. As set out in our policy paper, the Government share this view, and we have put forward these amendments to update the existing legislation and to ensure that we provide an appropriate level of freedom for residents, alongside important safeguards to prevent abuse of these reforms.
The Government have been consistently clear that their aim is to reform outdated legislation from the 1970s that requires Londoners to apply for planning permission in order to be able to let their residential property on a short-term basis. This will enable London residents to benefit from letting out either a spare room or, indeed, their whole house without unnecessary red tape, in the same way as other residents do in the rest of the country. We have also been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that this policy is aimed at helping residents to let their homes while they are away, not at providing new opportunities on an ongoing basis for commercial letting.
Section 25 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 provides that the use of residential premises for temporary sleeping accommodation for less than 90 consecutive nights is a change of use for which planning permission is required. London’s residents face a possible fine of up to £20,000 for each offence of failing to secure planning permission.
The world that we live in today is very different from what it was in the 1970s. The internet has created entirely new ways to do business. It has made it much easier for people to rent out their property, allowing residents to supplement their incomes and offer new experiences for consumers. Last summer, nearly 5 million overseas visitors came to our capital city. Some of those visitors, as well as UK residents, want to experience London as a real local. This means either staying with Londoners or staying in their homes while the Londoners are away on holiday.
Currently thousands of London properties and rooms are advertised on websites for use as short-term accommodation. However, each is potentially in breach of Section 25 as it stands. The current legislation is poorly enforced, which often leads to confusion and uncertainty for householders as to whether their local authority will take planning enforcement action against them for unauthorised short-term letting. The Government’s reforms will provide clarity and give London’s residents confidence that they are able to let out their property on a short-term basis within the law, but without the disproportionate bureaucracy of applying for planning permission.
The Government have tabled these amendments to the Deregulation Bill in order to allow residential property to be let out on a short-term basis without planning permission while providing a number of important safeguards. Indeed, these safeguards reflect some of the concerns that noble Lords have expressed. In order to ensure that these reforms will help residents but not create opportunities for the short-term letting of properties on a permanent basis, these amendments propose to allow short-term letting without planning permission up to a limit of 90 nights in total per calendar year, as well as requiring that the people providing their property for use as temporary sleeping accommodation are liable for council tax. Provision has also been made to empower local authorities to request that the Secretary of State agree to targeted localised exemptions from this new flexibility, either for particular properties or properties in particular areas, but there needs to be a strong amenity case to do so. This will ensure that the provision is used only where clearly justified.
The Government want to enable London’s residents to participate in the sharing economy and enjoy the same freedom and flexibility as others do across the country to temporarily let out their homes without the disproportionate burden of requiring planning permission. These amendments will deliver an appropriate level of freedom and flexibility for Londoners without creating new opportunities for short-term letting on a permanent or commercial basis.
I will now address the substantial issues in Amendments 5 to 16. Amendment 7 seeks to amend Amendment 4 by reducing the number of nights that residents can let their property on a short-term basis without planning permission from the proposed 90 nights in total per calendar year to a maximum of 60, with the number to be specified in regulations. The Government want to deregulate the current requirement to apply for planning permission, and to do so in a way that gives residents real freedom and flexibility. We believe that a limit of 90 nights per calendar year offers an appropriate level of flexibility, while being clear that the 90-night limit means that we are not providing for short-term letting on a year-round basis. The Government believe that a limit of 60 nights, and the ability to prescribe a lower limit in regulation, is unduly restrictive on the way people use their property.
The Government are also keen to enshrine in the Bill the number of nights that property can be let on a short-term basis in order to provide certainty that is currently absent under existing Section 25. As I said earlier, the current legislation is poorly enforced, which often leads to confusion and uncertainty for householders as to whether their local authority will take planning enforcement action against them for unauthorised short-term letting. The proposed ability to vary the number of nights in regulation will add to this feeling of uncertainty.
Amendment 8 seeks to create an additional condition, which is that a property can be let on a short-term basis without planning permission provided that the premises are the principal residence in London of the owner. The Government believe that the limit of 90 nights per year and the council tax liability are sufficient safeguards. We do not want to legislate unnecessarily for how the new rights should apply to individuals’ use of their property. We want the legislation to remain light-touch, but we also want it to send a strong signal that in order to let your property on a short-term basis legally you must remain within the 90-night limit or risk a local authority taking enforcement action against an unauthorised change of use.
The Government’s amendments, alongside Clause 44, have already provided for the ability to prescribe additional instances where residential property can be used as temporary sleeping accommodation in certain other circumstances that may be specified. Under our amendments and Clause 44, it would therefore be possible to add additional safeguarding measures in future, should it prove necessary.
Amendment 9 seeks to require the provider of temporary sleeping accommodation to notify the local authority in advance of every occasion that they let their property on a short-term basis. One of the major advantages of the internet is the ability to make transactions quickly and flexibly, and we want our reforms to facilitate this. A requirement for advance notice prior to every short-term stay, on a form to be prescribed in secondary legislation, would create a bureaucratic burden on the accommodation provider and potentially limit the ability of hosts to offer accommodation to customers seeking to book at short notice. Let me be clear: the Government are seeking to deregulate the current requirement to obtain planning permission for short-term letting in London. We do not believe that people wishing to let their homes on a short-term basis should be burdened by new red tape, to be set out in future secondary legislation.
Amendment 12 seeks to remove the requirement for the local planning authority to seek the consent of the Secretary of State in order to direct that the new flexibility does not apply to particular residential premises or premises in particular areas. The Government want the Secretary of State and the local planning authority to be able to grant exemptions, but only in exceptional circumstances and where, as I said earlier, a strong case has been made for the protection of the amenity of the locality by the local authority. Otherwise, we want to be clear that our aim is to provide the same rights for all Londoners in all local authority areas.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, in moving this amendment, I will also speak to our other amendments in this group. In doing so, I, too, draw attention to my interest in the register. We consider that this is an integrated group of amendments that stand together, should we decide to test the view of the House. I trust that that is agreed.
The issue of short-term lets has generated considerable controversy since it has been proposed that there should be some relaxation of the London provisions, but it has also focused attention on what is now happening in the market and why the status quo cannot be sustained. Currently, the letting of residential accommodation for temporary sleeping accommodation in London for a period of less than 90 consecutive nights constitutes a change of use for which planning permission is required. Notwithstanding that there is the possibility of a fine of up to £20,000 for failure to secure permission, we know that short-term letting is extensively carried on without permission being available.
We have covered in earlier debates the problems that can arise and the issue is helpfully dealt with also by the briefing we have received from London Councils for this debate. It concerns the potential loss of residential accommodation to the lucrative short-let market, increased problems with noise and anti-social behaviour, loss of community identity, increased crime and fire safety risks, and significant challenges on continual enforcement. We know that other cities around the world are experiencing similar problems. There is clearly a market for this activity and business opportunities have been created, particularly via the internet, which are different, as the noble Lord said, from those of the 1970s. According to the Government’s own figures, there are currently thousands of London properties and rooms advertised as used for short-term lets, each potentially in breach of the law. That is an untenable situation.
The amendments that I am speaking to have the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Gardner of Parks, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, who have each added their names. Indeed, we have worked together across our party divides to come up with a package of measures that, building on the government amendments, would enable home owners who wish to let their homes on a short-term basis to do so unless there is detriment to the amenity of the locality and to do so within a system where there is proper notification to local authorities and where enforcement is enabled. Like the Government, we do not see this as providing new opportunities for large-scale commercial lettings. These amendments, too, are about providing safeguards for the local community.
Our amendments cover five issues. First, there must be provision in regulations for those letting properties on a short-term basis to have an obligation to notify the local authority. Our amendment is not prescriptive as to form and content and it need not be overly bureaucratic. The Minister rather set his face against that in introducing his contribution, but there is no reason why this could not be dealt with very straightforwardly via some web- based approach. It is not prescriptive, but it would give an opportunity for the local authority to gain an understanding of the scale of activity in its area. It would also aid local authorities in their enforcement role, which we know is a challenge at the moment, and of course could potentially be an encouragement to tax compliance.
Secondly, we consider the number of days in the calendar year that accommodation should be available for short-term letting should be 60 rather than 90, as the Minister recognised, with regulations enabling this to be reduced. We consider that to be a more reasonable constraint and protection on local amenity. But even that would allow a four-month back-to-back letting across a year end. The Minister simply asserted that 90 days was more appropriate. I am not sure that that assertion, frankly, carries more weight than one for 60 days.
The concept is that short-term letting should be allowed effectively for someone’s home. It appears that the Government are seeking to define that by liability to council tax. We think that that is inadequate. Would not a liability to council tax arise for somebody letting residential property on a commercial basis, for example, between tenancies? Limiting the relaxation to someone’s principal residence in London would better target the deregulations.
Fourthly, we welcome the provision that the Government are seeking to make for local authorities to disapply the regulation for certain properties or areas, but oppose this right being subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. Local authorities are better placed to make the judgment about the impact of short-term lettings in their boroughs. Surely, that must be the case. We agree that they should not be able to do this in an arbitrary manner and protection of the amenity of a locality is a fair yardstick. However, we believe that a desirable hurdle rather than one that is necessary is considerably fairer. Indeed, the necessary hurdle could give rise to substantial and fair challenges on the local authority.
Finally, there is the issue of enforcement. In their policy document of February this year, the Government stated that:
“To protect amenity and address concerns over nuisance, the Government proposes that the new flexibility should be able to be withdrawn from particular properties after just one successful enforcement action against a statutory nuisance”.
In his contribution, the Minister said that there was provision elsewhere for this to be effective, but I am not sure where it is. The Government were clear in their policy document that that was what they wanted to happen. Our amendment provides that regulation should make such provision but is potentially more flexible than the “one strike and you’re out” approach.
These amendments are designed not to undermine the Government’s position, but to strengthen the safe- guards, and also, in the spirit of localism, to recognise that local authorities and not the Secretary of State are best placed to determine whether the scale of short-term letting is destroying the amenity of their areas. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham (Con)
My Lords, my name is also on this amendment, and I would like to draw attention to the declarations I have made in the past of being a joint president of London Councils and also a former leader and member of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which will be affected by this legislation.
The noble Lord has set out very clearly the amendments that we think are necessary to make this legislation tenable. London has a particular problem. I drew attention on Report to a phrase in the policy document which said that London needed to be brought into the 21st century over the renting and letting of property. I said then and I say now that I think that London is already and has been in the 21st century for a very long time. There is enormous pressure on property in London. There is probably more renting now in London than anywhere else. There is a hugely transitory population, so that we now have great areas where we know that people are not resident. The properties are not used; they are investment properties. London has a dichotomy. It is an area where people want to live but now cannot, largely because it is getting so expensive. Where there is investment, the people who have invested in property are not from this country but from abroad. Where there is a lot of very new property on land which perhaps could have been used for local people, it is now largely empty.
The temptation to let is enormous. To make sure that there is no abuse of the proposals which the noble Lord has brought forward, we have tabled these amendments. Before saying more about that, I want to mention some other things that I am concerned about. The Government—of whom I have been a great supporter —are all in favour of devolution, of passing powers to different parts of the country and to different parts of England. We have just done it with Greater Manchester. There is more devolution. London has had devolution through its ability to put forward Private Members’ Bills to deal with the issues that affect London. These Private Members’ Bills are not put forward in isolation: they have to be put forward with the agreement of all the London boroughs. That process has been deficient, at the very least, in terms of what has happened here. I saw a representative of London Councils here today in Parliament and, as far as I am aware, London Councils has been solidly against this proposal since it was first brought forward. By definition, that includes the London boroughs.
For some reason, the Government have chosen to try to override what London wants. They may not think that London figures very greatly within this category in relation to the rest of the country. One of the rationales for making the change is to enable London to do what other parts of the country do. But London is different. It has very different pressures, as I have tried to suggest.
In these amendments we are trying, first, to query whether people really do go on holiday for 90 days. I think we would all be jolly lucky if we managed to get that amount of time off. That suggests that if people want to let for 90 days they might not be quite as altruistic as they might appear to be at first sight. Is it not reasonable to suggest that people might like to go on holiday for a lesser number of days?
Secondly, the amendments are trying to ensure that somebody will at least know that the letting is likely to take place. We have not specified what that process should be other than that people should notify their local authority that they want and are likely to let their properties on a holiday-let basis. If that does not happen and something goes wrong or difficulties occur in those properties—I think that my noble friend Lady Gardner will go into this in more detail—no one will know why or how the properties have been let, or to whom they have been let, and the local authority will have no real powers of intervention. I think that that matters. I am all for deregulation but I also think that because of the whole problem of renting in London, a little more grip needs to be kept on this.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I would like briefly but very strongly to support the amendments which have been so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and my noble friend Lady Hanham. I may have been a somewhat sporadic attendee for this particular part of the Deregulation Bill, but it certainly has been visible to the naked eye that the goalposts seem to have been shifted somewhat in this area as we have moved from Second Reading in July to Committee in October, with an enormous gap between Committee and Report. The initial assumption was made, as far as I could see, on Second Reading and right up to Committee that the Government were going to completely deregulate in this area. We then discovered that new regulations will be introduced. Some consultation took place, and the policy paper was published. Then, on Report it was clearly understood that we were going to have a set of regulations, which were continuing to be consulted on, which would make changes to Section 25 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1973 at a later date. And yet we now find ourselves at Third Reading with a very comprehensive new clause setting out the Government’s view. It has been like a slow-slow-quick process and completely the reverse of the usual march that one would expect in these circumstances. I think the provisions contain great dangers, and that is why I very strongly support these amendments.
My noble friend the Minister made great play of the benefits to the tourism industry and I want to speak from the perspective of tourism hospitality. However, I believe that the boot is very much on the other foot. Of course, as we all know, tourism and hospitality businesses are a very important part of local communities in London and of the London economy. It is not that the tourism and hospitality industries are against new models; indeed, they believe that they are an important way of introducing new ways of delivering to tourists. The most recent newcomer—the Minister used this phraseology—is the sharing economy: the sharing model which offers guests the ability to pay to stay in someone’s residence on a night-by-night basis.
We have seen that many of those who let their properties this way are essentially running businesses, but they do not act as responsible hospitality providers and undertake the necessary precautions to ensure health and safety in the same way as more traditional tourism businesses. They have been described as “pseudo-hotels”. If they are allowed to spring up, they pose a real danger not only for their guests but in respect of noise and nuisance for nearby residents. We need to have safeguards to monitor and limit the use of these residences, ensure the rules are followed and quickly deal with any problems that arise. We have seen problems arise in many other cities around the world, and safeguards have been and are being put in to protect communities from the impact of these short-term lets in places such as Paris, New York and Singapore. We need to manage these genuine risks and ensure that safeguards are in place and are enforceable.
These government amendments effectively make it impossible in practical terms to enforce the limits on short-term lets in London. This has been made clear to the Government not only by noble Lords today but by London councils, including Westminster City Council, and by all those bodies that will, in the future, have the responsibility of enforcement. They must surely have a pretty good idea of whether these provisions are going to be enforceable by their own officers. Without local registration, there will be no ability to enforce any safeguards around short-term lets. At a minimum, local councils and the Metropolitan Police should have the transparency they need in the use of these London residences to identify them when they are being used for short-term lets and to ensure that safety and security measures are in place to protect communities.
All the other proposals in the cross-party amendments advocated by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, my noble friend Lord Tope and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, are extremely important from that perspective as well. The scale of fraud and lawbreaking around these short-term lets will otherwise increase and so will the nuisance and noise for residents. Both the tourism industry and local councils have made a very strong case, and we should adopt each one of those points. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, say that if this is put to a vote, it will be put as a package. The package of amendments is extremely important.
Whatever happened to localism? I thought that we had been debating it for the past few years. What could be more attuned to localism than the amendments that are on the Marshalled List today?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I will address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in his speech. He mentioned that there were 4 million overseas visitors to London last year. I should also start by reminding the House that my interests are on the register and that I am the owner of leasehold flats.
First, the noble Lord talked about the potential breach and the £20,000 fine. Is he aware that no one— but no one—has been asked to pay a £20,000 fine for an illegal letting? Boroughs have not implemented that at all. Then he talked about the 90 days in the calendar year. However, 90 days is three months, and if you choose to let in, say, October, November and December, it is a new calendar year for January, February and March—so you can have six months instead of 90 days, which is why 60 days seems to be a more reasonable amount.
The noble Lord said that disproportionate bureaucracy is involved in applying for planning permission. I agree with that, but local councils are willing to have a 24-hour online notification period. What could be more in tune with modern living and with the idea that, as the travel people say to you, we need to be able to supply someone with accommodation within 24 to 48 hours? If councils are prepared to accept that as a notification, surely that is keeping right up to date with modern practice. Your person could fly in tomorrow, in 24 hours, provided you have notified the council who it is, how long they are going to be there for and who will be responsible for the property. It is not disproportionate bureaucracy; it is a great reduction in bureaucracy.
My fear is that if you give the Secretary of State these powers, you will be loaded with bureaucracy and delay. Nothing is going to happen quickly. What if the threat is a terrorist one? By the time you have gone through the Secretary of State and everything, it will be too late. When I saw what happened in Sydney recently, I found it such a shock and realised that one of these terrorist attacks could happen anywhere in the world. Why should London think it can escape? We have even read in the papers about threats that are coming to us. London is different from other parts of the country: it has a special attraction and is quite a drawcard. Of course a lot of people come. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, believes that his amendments will give real freedom and flexibility. I do not agree with that at all. The amendments that we are proposing to his amendment will give much more real freedom and flexibility.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, mentioned the question of a “principal residence”. I know from personal experience that, if a property is empty, the owner is liable for council tax. The day when you could have it empty and unfurnished and no council tax was payable has long gone. Everyone is liable for council tax on a property, and therefore using that as the judgment of whether or not you are suitable to let something is no answer at all. A principal residence has to be a place that you have to be living in some of the time. As we mention, it has to be the “principal residence in London”, as opposed to just a general principal residence. Notification within 24 hours is very reasonable and could be done by all authorities, although we are not insisting that all authorities do it. We believe there should be a flexibility for local authorities, because what is someone’s problem today will be someone else’s tomorrow. These problems move around rather than just staying in one place—conditions change. On Report, I mentioned that Camden was very upset about the huge number of council properties there that were being let on these short lets.
The noble Lord mentioned that he thought the provision relating to previous offenders was unreasonable. I do not think it is at all unreasonable. The fact that you cannot get away with it on a repeated basis is a very good justification for us saying that, if it has happened to you before, then things are slightly different.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, mentioned back-to-back letting. I have mentioned how it can turn your three months into six months. Several speakers have also mentioned localism, and I absolutely agree with every word that they have said. However, unless the local authority has some awareness of who is in a property and for how long, it has no idea of what it is dealing with, and anything could happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, mentioned the consultation document. I have mentioned before that I have asked who gave what answers to the consultation and have been denied an answer—not once but three times—when I have tabled that Question to be put before the House. Why are they so frightened to publish the consultation answers? Why has he not said tonight what they are? I find it unbelievable that you can table a Question and it can just be ignored by the Government of the day. That is very strange.
I have seen this short-letting business in practice and in reality—not personally, but it has been reported to the management of the block that I own flats in. Ten people come every fortnight, brought from the airport in a bus, and all of them live in a one-bedroom flat. I believe there should be a limit on how many people can live in a one-bedroom flat. There are three of these flats in a block where there is a communal hot water system—30 extra people in a 15-flat block is a huge drain on the central heating, the hot water and everything else. It is not fair to people. Elderly people living in the block have found it quite terrifying to have strangers coming in who abuse them and push them out of the lift so that they can take over. It is really unbelievable.
Many of them now have keys to the street door, but they do not even need them: they go down, open all the fire doors and leave them open, so there is no protection from anyone coming in from the street at all. Younger women have been threatened in these blocks. I cannot claim to have been personally affected, because my flats are higher up in the block and fortunately are not involved, but the lower floors suffer so badly. It is incredible that this goes on. Moving this into the hands of the Secretary of State would be wrong. It is right that we should have regulations and strange that we have not been given answers to Questions we have asked. I strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie.
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I have also added my name to the other three from both sides of the House. I have no personal interest to declare, other than that I am a resident of outer London, where this is not yet a problem. I stress “not yet” because the issue is growing so fast and exponentially that it is only a matter of time before it becomes so: not just in central London, where it is of major significance now, but elsewhere in London and in other parts of the country, although they are not affected by this legislation.
I spoke about this at Second Reading in July, at greater length in Grand Committee and on Report. The reason was that I learned more and more about the issues that residents of central London experienced daily from indiscriminate and largely unregulated short-term letting. To that extent, all of us are agreed—and agree with the Government—that we have no objections whatever to London residents wishing to sublet their London residence for a short period while they are on holiday or otherwise away. Where it becomes more difficult is when this grows and in many places, particularly in central London, becomes an industry.
I have been helpfully advised by Westminster City Council throughout this process. For understandable reasons, Westminster has experienced this issue hugely. It told me back in the autumn that for some time it has employed between four and six planners solely to deal with the enforcement of this issue of short lets. It has considerable experience both of the problem and of trying to enforce the law as it stands.
To digress for a moment, on Report I quoted what I had been told by the leader of Westminster City Council, who had told me:
“There has been no engagement with this local authority either at a political or an officer level”.—[Official Report, 11/02/15; col. 1306.]
In reply to the debate, in col. 1316, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, denied that and said that there had been full engagement with London authorities, specifically with Westminster. A few days later, on 13 February, the leader of Westminster City Council wrote to Lord Ahmad, saying that this was categorically “not true” and there had been no consultation with Westminster at that time. She wrote:
“I should also note that Westminster had no advanced knowledge of the detail of the policy note”,
which had then just been published,
“and would have been left to read about it online or in the newspapers”.
When the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, replies, does he wish to put the record straight? Like me, I am quite certain that the Minister was speaking in good faith. I repeated what I had been told. I have no doubt that he repeated what he had been told, but he and I now have in writing from the leader of Westminster City Council that he had been misinformed. He may wish to correct that.
Westminster has been helpful in all this. It speaks from experience and it is true to say that it would much prefer us to go for a 30-day limit rather than a 60-day one. Any limit is arbitrary, of course, and we have gone for a compromise. However, the most important issue for Westminster City Council, and any other local authority that has to enforce this, is that it must have some system of registration. To quote again what I have been told by Westminster, without that,
“we simply would not be able to identify where a property was let illegally on a short-term basis”.
Unless there is a registration system and the regulations require it, albeit a quick, simple, online system, which Westminster says they can set up probably in a matter of hours, then all the regulations—whether they comply with our amendments or the government amendments—will, frankly, be unenforceable and meaningless. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, says at least that the Government will require it in regulations.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, because I agree with everything he has said. When he discussed this with Westminster, I am curious to know whether they discussed the insurance implications—not so much the contents, but one assumes that the owner in a block of flats pays insurance through the service charge. Quite clearly, the lease must be being breached in the sense of the numbers. The insurance companies must have some view about this, because it leaves everybody else liable and may leave the owner of the particular dwelling subject to sanctions by the insurance company. That may be a route to helping to solve the problem.
Lord Tope
The noble Lord asks if I discussed this with Westminster: specifically no, not with Westminster City Council. However, in the course of the many months that this has been going on, my noble friends and I have heard from numerous individuals and organisations involved in this. It is indeed one of the issues that others have raised and the noble Lord is right to draw attention to it. Others have been health and safety, fire regulations and all sorts of issues, which will be helped, to some extent, by whatever regulations are introduced.
I began by saying I wanted to be brief. I think that I am temperamentally incapable of being brief on this issue, but I will try. On registration, which is absolutely critical, I will quote from the letter that the leader of Westminster City Council wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, on exactly that point. She concluded by saying:
“Having dismissed the suggestion of a simple, light-touch notification process for those seeking to let out their property on a short-term basis”,
which is what the Minister did at the previous stage, she asks,
“how will a local authority be able to identify and therefore enforce against a property being let for the 91st day within a calendar year?”.
I re-emphasise the point because it is critical. Unless we have some sort of notification and registration process, it is simply unenforceable, whatever else we say and do.
The other issue I want to speak to briefly is how we determine that the property concerned is indeed the residential property belonging to the person letting it. It has been suggested that this is done by the requirement, in the Government’s amendment, to pay council tax. We all know that lots of people pay council tax, but it is not necessarily their residence, let alone their principle residence. It is a bit unusual for a Liberal Democrat to quote Westminster City Council so frequently, but it does have the greatest experience on this. It says:
“This provision would therefore change nothing. The real change would be if the Government stipulated that only principal permanent residences were eligible for short-term letting”.
That is the purpose of the amendment in our package.
We are now at the last possible stage of this Bill in this House, apart from ping-pong, and we need to understand why we are at this stage. I raised this issue—as did others—at Second Reading in July, we had a considerable debate on it in Grand Committee on 30 October and we returned to it in February, one day after the Government finally published their policy guidelines and then only under considerable pressure from the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who realised that he would have to reply to the debate. We are now trying to put into the Bill details of regulations that should have been properly and fully consulted over that nine-month period. We should have tried at least to reconcile the differences between the different interests—and they are substantially reconcilable if the Government had ever tried. The one local authority most directly involved and with the most experience states in writing twice that up until a week ago, it had had no such consultation.
We are now at the stage where the Government have understood, as I pointed out on Report on 11 February, that it is too late for the regulations to be tabled to receive their 40-days waiting period to be considered in this Parliament. On Report, that was impossible; it is clearly even more impossible now. For this Government not to give a blank cheque to whomever forms the next Government and whoever is the next Minister, we are now putting in the Bill details that ought to have been in regulations, drafts of which should have been produced months ago, discussed and consulted on so that whatever we are to legislate for was clear—hopefully agreed, but at least we could agree where the differences are. We are at the last possible stage putting in the Bill just what the Government until now said that they would not do, but ought properly to be in regulations that have been consulted on and largely agreed.
Baroness Shields (Con)
My Lords, I put on record my support for the measures being introduced by the Government to reform short-term letting across London. I do that in my capacity as the Prime Minister’s adviser on the digital economy, but also as the chairman of Tech City. Over the recess, noble Lords will have received a report entitled Tech Nation, which detailed the enormous social and economic benefits being generated by the digital economy—across the country, not just in London. The accommodation sector is a prime example of the sharing economy. It is led by a number of high-growth businesses in the UK which are global leaders in their field. They are hiring a lot of people to support those businesses. It also gives individuals the opportunity to leverage an unused asset and to generate income for themselves and their families.
In my role as chairman of Tech City, I have seen the enormous opportunity that that presents to the UK economy. I see five key benefits as a result of that reform. The first is a more optimal use of space by allowing short-term letting for short periods when homeowners are out of town, to utilise existing housing stock in a much more efficient manner. Secondly, it would be a boost to family incomes. The supplementary income derived from short-term letting can help individuals and families to top up their immediate incomes.
Thirdly, the reform will deliver more taxation to the Exchequer. Any earnings accrued via short-term lettings will have to be declared, thereby boosting Treasury receipts. Fourthly, the reform will provide more options for tourists. Many tourists around the world are now opting to rent a home versus staying in a hotel, especially for groups or families who may need a large living space or a garden, which a hotel or bed and breakfast simply cannot provide. Finally, this reform will help to boost local businesses and employment. New hospitality providers are creating large numbers of jobs. In addition, short-term lets often take place outside central areas, so businesses which may not have historically benefited from tourist footfall may now benefit from tourists staying in their area.
Aside from those overarching benefits, the reform will also provide clarity to Londoners who are now facilitating short-term lets and ensure that they take place in a more secure and regulated manner.
I understand and respect the concerns raised by Peers across the House related to unintended consequences of the reform. However, I am satisfied that the Government have now put in place measures which will protect London’s long-term housing stock and residential amenity. Specifically, the reform will be limited to those who are liable to pay council tax. A limit of 90 days in any calendar year for which residents can let out their residence will also ensure that homes are let out only for short-term occasions. Local authorities will also have power to apply to the Secretary of State for specific areas to be exempted from the provisions. In my view, the additional safeguards called for by the amendments are unnecessary and run counter to what we should be seeking to deliver: a proportionate, straightforward and progressive set of rules.
I should like to tackle the issues in turn. First, it is proposed in Amendment 7 that the total number of days in a calendar year for which a resident can let their property should not exceed 60. In my view, that is far too restrictive and fails to acknowledge the working and living patterns of many Londoners today. Other cities have reformed their laws to allow many more days to letters. Paris, France, allows 120 days, Hamburg 180 days, and San Jose, in the heart of Silicon Valley, also 180 days.
Secondly, it is proposed in Amendments 6 and 8 that the reform should be restricted to principal London residences only. I believe that it should apply to all residences. Often, secondary homes are left empty. In my view, from time to time, those homes should be available to let and utilised more efficiently.
Finally, on exemption powers, although I acknowledge the potential need for the Secretary of State to exempt certain areas from the new provisions, that should be the case only in extreme circumstances and where there is sufficient evidence that residential amenity is negatively impacted. The granting of exclusion powers to councils to restrict short-term letting to specific areas would, in my view, result in a regulatory patchwork across London that would provide neither clarity nor consistency for homeowners.
Lord Rooker
Given the assuredness and spirit with which the noble Baroness is speaking for the Government, before she sits down, will she ask the Minister to tell us about the results of the consultation? In the mean time, will she tell us whether she has been privy to the results of the consultation in preparing her speech?
Baroness Shields
I am sorry, I missed that. I did not understand the last question.
Lord Rooker
I am asking the noble Baroness whether, in preparing her speech, she has been privy to the results of the consultation.
Baroness Shields
No, I have come to present the view of my declared interest in this new sector of the economy. I am not privy to that information.
The Government’s proposals aim to allow people to short-term let their residences while they are away, while ensuring that local communities are protected. I believe that the right balance has been struck. That is why I support the reform and urge your Lordships to vote in favour of the government amendment and against the other amendments which have been tabled on the issue.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, we are discussing short-term lets, and it is perhaps ironic that we have had a long-term slot when it comes to issues of deregulation. We are talking about London, and people have talked about London specifically. Let me put it into context as someone who was born in London, educated in London, worked in London, lived in London and represented a London council. Unlike my noble friend, who has had a very distinguished career in the London Borough of Sutton, I had the honour and privilege to serve in the London Borough of Merton, which, as we all know, hosts the great event that we know as Wimbledon. Therefore, it is my great honour also to carry it in my title. Perhaps there are people in Wimbledon who currently let their properties on a short-term basis.
It is important that we respond not just to the challenges and concerns that have been expressed today, to which I will come specifically, but acknowledge that this is commonplace not just in inner London; it is experienced, perhaps with a different perspective, in other boroughs across our great capital.
Starting with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, first, I put on record his broad support at least for the spirit and principle of what we are trying to achieve. In noting that, I thank him for his constructive discussions. We have not always agreed on the issues, as is clear from our debate on Third Reading thus far, but I have always found him to be someone with whom I can have a constructive and honest exchange. I put on record my deep thanks to all noble Lords with whom I have had meetings since I have taken over this ministerial responsibility, but particularly to my noble friends Lady Gardner, Lady Hanham and Lord Tope, who have always been courteous in their exchanges. To “courteous” I wish that I could add “uncritical”, but clearly they have had concerns, which they have expressed again today. However, I assure my noble friends and all noble Lords that I have taken that in the spirit that it has been well intentioned and reflects noble Lords’ experience in local government.
In talking about the amendments to government Amendment 4, the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about this being an integrated group of amendments. We agree that we are treating these amendments as consequential.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and my noble friend Lord Tope also raised issues about notifications to local authorities, as an addition to some elements that the Government have already introduced. Perhaps I may repeat something which have I shared with them at previous stages of the Bill’s passage: we believe that this would be a further burden on the person letting. It is not a restriction which applies elsewhere in England. Part of our principled stand on this is that we are seeking to bring London into line with other great cities around the country.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and others including my noble friend Lady Gardner also raised the issue of two periods of 90 nights being allowed to run across calendar years. We recognise that it would be possible for 90-night periods to run continuously across the calendar years but we also think it right not to be overly prescriptive about when the 90 nights should take place in the year. I commend my noble friend Lady Shields for her contribution and I congratulate her. When you are standing in your Lordships’ House, there is always the great expertise in what others have expressed—not only others; I pay tribute to her own expertise in this field. She highlighted what numbers of nights some of the other great cities around the world apply.
Several noble Lords asked why we need the Secretary of State’s consent. We believe that the Secretary of State’s intervention will ensure that the provisions are applied appropriately across London and that there is consistency and fairness to them. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether Amendment 4 could be used to disapply exemption from properties where there has been a statutory nuisance. I draw his attention to proposed new Section 25B(2), which allows the Secretary of State or a local planning authority to make a direction where,
“it is necessary to protect the amenity of the locality”.
Indeed, such a direction could be made when there has been a statutory nuisance.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also raised limiting council tax liability, and whether that could still be done commercially. The council tax liability test has to be read and taken in conjunction with the 90-day limitation, as I said in my opening remarks. That will make it unattractive to undertake commercial letting on a long-term or continuous basis.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, also talked about building on the government amendments. As I said at the outset of my closing remarks, I welcome the spirit in which our discussions have taken place. One of the contributions today alluded to the fact that Governments change positions, or that the Bill today is not where it had been. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones raised a specific question on this. In my time as a Minister responding from this Dispatch Box, I find that you are in one of those situations where if you do not change, you are accused of being terribly rigid and not flexible in listening to your Lordships’ House. However, when you change you are told, “This is not what was presented to us initially”. Perhaps some answers on the back of a postcard would be welcome. I jest, of course, but the important point here is that the Government have listened carefully to the concerns and expressions that have been raised across Parliament, both here in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. We have sought to provide a correct balance in what the Government are presenting.
Several concerns were expressed by my noble friends Lady Hanham, Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lord Tope about the consultation. I regret that my noble friend Lady Gardner feels that the responses I have given in this respect have not answered her question. I gave my latest response only yesterday, as I believe she acknowledged. I wrote to my noble friend on the details of the consultation but in the interests of the public record let me reflect on the public consultation held last year, in which local authorities were asked the question. As noble Lords will know, including the Corporation of London there are in total 33 local authorities across London. Fifteen London authorities responded in total. Eight authorities opposed reform of the legislation. They were—I will feel a bit like a train announcer here—Haringey, Enfield, Camden, Westminster, Newham, Redbridge, Lambeth and the City of London. Seven were not opposed to a review, which included Lewisham, Sutton, Southwark, Hammersmith & Fulham, Harrow, Islington and Greenwich.
I also wish to set the record straight on the issue of Westminster. My noble friend Lord Tope is correct that I have received a letter from the leader of Westminster Council—indeed, I have responded to her—but I want to put officially into the record what has happened. In addition to taking full account of the written representations we have received, officials in the Department for Communities and Local Government have met a number of local authorities, including Westminster Council, on 20 June and 7 October 2014 and 26 February 2015. A further meeting with Westminster was also scheduled for 3 March. I hope that these specific dates give some reassurance to my noble friends, given the concerns they expressed.
I think that I have covered the concern about the Government changing position which my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones posed, but on transparency for police and local authorities, let me assure my noble friend that we believe that our measures will offer the assurance to Londoners that they can do what they like with their homes, as with anywhere else in the country. However, the police and local authorities do not have this power anywhere else. This does not affect the police and local authorities in acting against any antisocial behaviour, or in tackling the genuine concern about terrorism. My noble friend Lady Gardner raised that concern and talked of Sydney, but it is a tragic fact that we have been victims of terror attacks right here in our great capital city. Nothing is proposed in the Government’s amendments which seeks to lessen the importance or priority that they are giving more generally to tackling that. I know that that sentiment is shared by all noble Lords across the Chamber.
My noble friend Lady Gardner also raised the issue of the £20,000 fine for short-term letting. Enforcement action is of course taken at the discretion of local authorities. What is significant—this is what the government proposals are about—is that authorities still have the ability to take action, which acts as a disincentive and deterrent to anyone considering breaking the law. That will continue.
Lord Rooker
For the avoidance of doubt and so that it is on the record, when the Minister read the list of authorities out earlier he said that 15 replied. He mentioned that seven did not disagree; I take it that eight disagreed. Can we get it on the record that the majority of local authorities which responded to the consultation disagreed? Do I have that correct?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
When the noble Lord referred to the 15 and the seven, I thought, “I hope I have got my maths right”, so I am glad that we said that there were eight and seven. He is quite correct. I mentioned those authorities which did not want the review to happen and, subsequently, the seven which did not object. To clarify that point, I say that the noble Lord is quite right. I hope that I am being clear. I am being detailed in my response so, while I am not expecting it, I at least hope—and one should never give up on hope—that I shall carry the House in certain elements of what I am saying, and that there will nevertheless be clarity in covering the issues that have been raised.
My noble friend Lord Tope also raised council tax liability as a way of demonstrating residency. We believe that this provision distinguishes between private and business premises because it requires liability for council tax, which means that if a property was used as a residence, a hotel or a hostel, it would be liable for business rates. Combined with the 90-night limit, we believe that this provides an appropriate safeguard against short-term letting on an ongoing basis.
I welcome the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, as I do those of all noble Lords. I listened to him attentively. He raised the issue of insurance. It is of course a matter for landlords to enforce, and for tenants to abide by, the terms of the lease and any insurance policies. Our amendments relate to the need to apply for planning permission and do not affect issues under an existing lease or indeed an insurance policy.
I hope that I have addressed most, if not all, of the issues raised in the hour and 10 minutes that we have had on this group of amendments. This is an important area, and I assure the House again that the Government have listened to the concerns expressed during the passage of the Bill. We believe that what is in front of us today, and what we are proposing more generally, is a balanced approach, with the objective of updating a law that would work for the benefit of ordinary Londoners wishing to let their homes in a legal way.
I hope that noble Lords will accept the reassurances that I have given again today: we are proposing amendments to seek to prevent the loss of housing stock by allowing the short-term letting of homes for a maximum of 90 days without the need for planning permission. I stress again that there are safeguards in the Bill to check that the added freedom will apply only to those people who are providing their homes and paying council tax; and we are providing local authorities with the power to apply to the Secretary of State where exceptions may be and where local amenities need to be protected.
I believe that the Government have listened and present a balanced perspective on where we are today. If I may, I end with the words of the song:
“Maybe it’s because I’m a Londoner
That I love London Town”.
I believe that what the Government have proposed does just that.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this has been an extensive debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendments: the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Gardner, and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Tope. I hope they will forgive me if I do not pick up each of the very strong comments that they made.
To the noble Baroness, Lady Shields, I say simply that no one is saying that there should be no opportunity to boost family income or to use a property when someone is abroad—indeed, it might lead to interesting opportunities for tourism—but this is a question of balance and the protection of the local community as well. Just because something can be accessed digitally does not mean that you should disregard other issues, particularly around enforcement.
The Minister is right that over the months we have perhaps narrowed the gap. He asserts that the Government and he himself continue to listen, and I am sure that he does. However, I hope he will respect when I say that on this occasion they have not listened enough. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision corresponding to section 25B of that Act.”
Baroness Hanham
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I do not think that I need to delay the House too long on this, but I want to draw attention again to an issue that involves overriding what London is doing, which is becoming quite a concern. It relates to how waste disposal penalties are going to be put forward. London has been running its own waste penalty system since the London Local Authorities Act 2007; it has its own system set up and runs a very tight way of dealing with this, which is the forerunner of what is being proposed for the nation as a whole.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for bringing this amendment back. I did not have the benefit of attending the meeting that she had with the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, but presumably his explanations of why the Government were doing this crazy thing were not sufficiently compelling to persuade the noble Baroness not to bring back the amendment.
The Minister has to answer some very simple questions if he is to persuade anyone that this is a good idea. The first is: what is the problem that the Government are trying to solve? What is wrong with the scheme under the London Local Authorities Act 2007? What is failing in that scheme? What is the evidence that that is not working or that people are being unnecessarily penalised for a first-time offence? It looks as if the Government have brought forward a Deregulation Bill and have decided not to deregulate something in London but to complicate the regulatory process by introducing extra stages, processes and bureaucracy. If I thought I understood anything about what this Government were trying to do, it was that they believed in simplifying red tape and eliminating wasteful form filling and processes. However, the Government’s proposal makes this area more complicated, not less. The Minister needs to explain why that is the case and why this is an additional regulation Bill rather than a Deregulation Bill.
The Minister needs to explain another thing. I thought the Government believed that localism was another important principle, but the London local authorities have come together and developed a scheme which is working well—unless the Minister can produce evidence at this 11th hour of a whole series of problems of which nobody else was aware. However, we now have an example of the heavy-handed bureaucracy of the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Minister’s right honourable friend Eric Pickles saying, “I want to put the dead hand of central government authority on to London local authorities”. How does this square with the Government’s policy on localism? I suspect that this measure was dreamt up for reasons of simplicity without anyone looking at the details, and now nobody is prepared to admit that they got it wrong. However, the reality is that it imposes additional regulation, goes against the principle of localism and we will end up with more bureaucracy and problems to solve a problem which does not exist.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having been able to take part in previous discussions on this matter, but I speak as leader of a London local authority and I consider that it is my responsibility to draw the House’s attention to the way this measure is perceived by a leader of a London authority. I am also by training a historian of Byzantium. I think that very few Byzantine emperors would have devised such a system for their capital city.
On the previous amendment, the Minister on the Front Bench argued very strongly against increasing bureaucracy and extra red tape. He also argued that London needed to be deregulated. However, I anticipate that, just a few minutes later, the Minister now on the Front Bench—my noble friend Lord De Mauley—will tell us the opposite of that and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, suggested, will tell us that we need more complication and further regulation. I simply do not see the logic of that and I do not know of another leader of a London authority who shares the Minister’s view.
We heard the representations made by London authorities on a previous amendment. It is important to realise that this is not some bone-headed resistance from a bureaucratic body. People who are talking to government, or who wish to talk to government and advise them, have authority and the responsibility of satisfying the people of London on a day-to-day basis that their streets can be kept clean and be competently administered. I believe that they are clean and competently administered in most cases. We have a non-criminal system that was recently established with general consent and which I do not believe needs to be tampered with. If the Government really believe in deregulation and devolution, there is no rationale whatever in changing the London system.
My authority is a keen promoter of recycling. We pass all the Pickles tests. We do weekly collections and even collect from side alleys. We do not have bin snoopers but we do have the opportunity to impose a light-handed touch of regulation. In five years as leader I have not had a single call, letter or email complaining about this system. There is no evidence base that I am aware of to justify imposing a more complex system on London.
I suspect that at this stage the Government are not prepared to change their mind. That is a pity in the light of the arguments in the record that I have read and those that I have heard. Of course, it would be perfectly possible to proceed with two parallel systems. In fact, it would be interesting to see whether the Government’s more bureaucratic system outside London was more effective than the less bureaucratic system inside London. That could be a sensible way to test public policy. Even at this late stage, I urge my noble friend to consider whether the Government could not leave London well alone. That would not stop anything that is planned for the rest of the country in terms of decriminalisation. That is the considered view of experienced people in London based on their experience of doing the difficult job of trying to administer London and at the same time reduce staffing in local authorities and not take on extra bureaucrats to implement ever more complex systems. I hope that my noble friend will reflect on that when he comes to reply.
Lord Tope
My Lords, I am the fourth current or former London borough council leader to speak in complete agreement with my colleagues—indeed, my former colleagues. The essential point has been made: what is wrong with the London legislation passed in 2007, which applies across London and was supported by all the London boroughs—it has to be supported by the London boroughs—that we now need Clause 57, at the end of five pages in the principal legislation, specifically deleting the provisions for London, and a four-page schedule, Schedule 12, implementing them?
There must be a pretty serious problem in London that needs fixing. It is supposed to be such a serious problem, but neither a current London borough council leader nor three former leaders from different parties and different parts of London are aware of any problem at all. The London legislation largely meets the Government’s intentions either specifically in decriminalisation or certainly in intent and purpose. The differences between the schemes are relatively minor, certainly not such as to require nine pages of principal legislation to deal with.
We ask, I think in my case for the third time during the passage of the Bill, what is so wrong with the London legislation that it requires this Bill to change it. What are the problems? What are the issues? There is no record of people being incorrectly or inappropriately prosecuted. Indeed, there is hardly any track record of people being prosecuted at all, so that is not really the object of it. The object is to encourage people to recycle and to comply, not to penalise them. It has a very well tested appeals system, albeit not tested in waste collection, which has not been a problem. It is the same appeals system as is used for parking appeals, which is certainly well tested in London.
We have a good system that has been in legislation for just about eight years. We have a good appeals system and a waste collection system that works. What exactly are the Minister and his colleagues trying to fix with this legislation?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)
My Lords, I hope noble Lords would accept that there appears to be broad agreement that a fair system of penalties, as established in Clause 57, should apply to household waste collection in England. Clause 57 would remove the criminal sanctions currently available under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It would ensure that people are treated fairly and consistently by offering individuals a fair chance to represent themselves and by introducing a “harm to local amenity” test.
Local authorities will have the power to issue fixed penalties of between £60 and £80 if a householder does not comply with household waste collection requirements, and this causes a nuisance or is detrimental to the locality. In practice, this could be when waste causes obstruction to neighbours, attracts vermin, unreasonably impedes access to pavements, or is an eyesore. Through Schedule 12, we seek to amend the London Local Authorities Act broadly to mirror the changes to the Environmental Protection Act. Under both pieces of legislation, civil sanctions would apply when a householder’s failure to comply causes a nuisance or is detrimental to any amenities of the locality. Householders would receive warnings before being issued with a penalty and the level of fines would be the same.
I turn now to my noble friend Lady Hanham’s amendments, Amendment 20 and Amendment 36. I thank her and my noble friend Lord Tope for discussing these matters with me between parliamentary phases. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was invited to the meeting by my officials; I asked them to invite him. I appreciate my noble friends’ concerns and those expressed by noble Lords this evening about changes to the waste collection system currently operating in London. Indeed, in following London’s lead we recognise that a decriminalised approach, as is used in London, is more proportionate than a system based on criminal sanctions. We want the approach used throughout England to be based on this type of system, with additional safeguards in place to ensure that people are treated fairly.
Before turning to points of detail, I would like to make a general point. The Government are firm believers in localism. This is, of course, not just about the powers available to local authorities, but about empowering local communities, neighbourhoods and individuals. Our proposals seek to reduce a regulatory burden that currently affects householders.
Lord Harris of Haringey
My Lords, can the Minister explain how much of a nuisance the regulatory burden is in London?
Lord De Mauley
My Lords, I am trying to get there.
In our view, legislation should not provide for people to be issued with, or threatened with, financial penalties the first time they make a mistake. That is why we want local authorities to give householders a written warning. The requirements on people are not always obvious, particularly when they move to an area where a different collection system applies. It is right that people should find out what they have done wrong and should have the opportunity to rectify mistakes before they are asked to pay a penalty. People in London have as much right to this opportunity as anyone else in England.
Based on what we have heard from local authorities, we do not believe that this will add significant burdens compared with how the current arrangements operate. We know that many authorities already communicate well with their residents and seek to educate them if they are having difficulties with collection requirements, but if we do not amend the London Local Authorities Act, this legislation would still allow someone making a mistake for the first time in London, but not elsewhere in England, to be penalised. We do not believe that that is fair or right.
I am aware that some noble Lords consider that the system we propose is bureaucratic. Indeed, my noble friend described it as byzantine. She used the words “long and protracted” and mentioned our five-page schedule. Let me explain why I do not believe that we are introducing significantly more bureaucracy compared with the current London system.
London Councils produced a 22-page guidance document in December 2013 on the current system operating under the London Local Authorities Act. According to this, London authorities issue householders with a penalty charge notice. I quote from the guidance:
“Depending on each local authority’s policy, a verbal or written warning may be given before escalating”,
to a penalty charge notice. The householder then has 28 days to make representations to the London authority. If representations are made, the authority then has 56 days to make a decision. If it rejects the representations, a notice of rejection must be served. The householder may then appeal to an adjudicator before being required to pay the penalty. All that is under the current system in London.
Under our proposed system, London local authorities will first issue a householder with a written warning. The next time a householder makes a mistake they may issue a notice of intent. The final notice can then be issued after 28 days, taking account of any representations made. The householder may then appeal to an adjudicator before being required to pay the penalty. Is our proposed system really adding bureaucracy, compared with the current system?
As well as reducing the regulatory burden on householders, our proposals seek to ensure that the level of penalties is proportionate. Given the broad agreement that making a mistake related to household waste collection should not be a criminal offence, it would not seem appropriate for the penalty to be higher than for a criminal activity. The penalty under the London system for a breach of the rules about presentation of waste is currently set at £110, yet a shoplifter committing a first offence may be issued with a £90 penalty notice for disorder. Under our proposals, councils in London would be able to set the penalty between £60 and £80.
We believe that this range is proportionate, but understand that some noble Lords consider that it will not act as a deterrent. We should remember that for many people in London, as elsewhere, an £80 financial penalty is certainly significant. For people who consider that £80 is insignificant, I ask whether they really consider £110 such a radically different amount that they will treat it as a significant penalty. We believe that £60 to £80 is the right level and that householders in London have as much right to be treated fairly and proportionately as anyone else in England.
Also, I suggest that it would not be right for a “harm to local amenity” test to apply everywhere in England except London. Under the Environmental Protection Act, we propose that householders should be issued with a fixed penalty only if their behaviour actually causes problems in their local neighbourhood. They could receive a penalty for leaving bin bags on the street for days on end, but not for leaving a bin lid open. If we kept the London system as it is, we would be in the anomalous position where the legislation allows local authorities to issue penalties to householders who make any sort of mistake in this area if they live in London, but not if they live anywhere else in England.
We intend to work with local government to produce advice to help local authorities implement the test with confidence. My officials are of course also happy and available to talk to representatives from London Councils and others about the practicalities of operating this system if that would be useful.
This clause and schedule, as they stand, will introduce a proportionate approach, providing appropriate safeguards for householders throughout England, including London. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hanham
My Lords, I think I said on Report that I felt really sorry for the Minister having to respond, because it is clearly not an easy clause or schedule to respond to. There is absolutely no rationale to it whatever. The fact is that whatever the Minister has been told to say, this is a much more protracted procedure than is going to go ahead nationwide. Most local authorities will deal sympathetically with people who make a mistake by putting something out in a way that they should not. As I understand it, it does not require another offence to trigger the next stage. It can be the same offence that has not been acknowledged —so the warning of an offence, then a letter of intent, then perhaps a penalty charge notice, then an appeal, then to a tribunal, because under the England procedures you can continue on down the line. I totally fail to understand why London should be encumbered with this.
I did not make the point in my opening remarks about the level of the penalty. I worry that this is being presented by the Minister as a penalty appropriate to shoplifting. In London the penalty for this offence, as he has rightly said, would be in the region of £130, but then so is a parking ticket. London is a bit more expensive in what it does and a shoplifter would probably go to court anyway rather than have a penalty charge notice. Indeed, if people spit chewing gum on to the pavement, we are still looking at the same sort of penalties.
I think this is a daft bit of legislation and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“( ) In section 43 (remand centres and young offender institutions), as it has effect on and after the day on which section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 comes into force, in the Table in subsection (4)—
(a) in the entry for “Young offender institutions”, in the second column, for “Sections 28 and 37(2)” substitute “Section 28”;(b) in the entry for “Secure training centres or secure colleges”, in the second column, for “, 28 and 37(2)” substitute “and 28”.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords this group of amendments makes minor and technical changes that clarify and improve the drafting of the Bill. Amendments 21 and 22 relate to Clause 83 which will remove the requirement that prison closures are made by order. It does this, in part, by amending Section 43 of the Prison Act 1952. The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, which received Royal Assent on 12 February, at Section 38 substitutes Section 43 of the Prison Act with a new Section 43 which permits the Secretary of State to make provision for the detention of young persons in young offender institutions, secure training centres and, additionally, secure colleges. These minor amendments provide for the removal of the requirement that prison closures are made by order both in respect of Section 43 as it is now, and in its revised form once the provisions in Section 38 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 are commenced.
Amendment 27 relates to Clause 88, which will remove the current requirement that providers carrying out children’s social care functions on behalf of local authorities should register with Ofsted. In consequence of the removal of that registration requirement, subsection (2) provides for various references to providers of social work services in the Care Standards Act 2000 and in the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 to be omitted. This amendment would provide for the omission of a further reference in Section 30A(6)(f) of the Care Standards Act 2000 which had previously been overlooked.
Schedule 13, Part 3, will repeal Part 11 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 and allow joint waste authorities to be established by secondary legislation. The schedule outlines a number of consequential amendments needed to be made in other legislation as a result of these changes. Amendments 37 to 40 are merely further consequential amendments that take account of legislative changes made since the Bill was introduced, including removing references to the joint waste authorities in other legislation.
Schedule 19 makes significant amendment to the Poisons Act 1972. In particular, it creates new offences. Amendment 43 corrects the form of words for the maximum fine that can be applied to offences in the new Section 8 of the Poisons Act 1972 inserted by paragraph 10. In subsection (1)(b)(ii), the reference to,
“level 5 on the standard scale”,
should instead be a reference to “the statutory maximum”. This brings the penalty in line with the usual practice for financial penalties for more serious offences.
Amendments 29, 30, 44 and 45 change the extent of two provisions in Schedule 21. The provisions relate to the repeal of the Mining Industry Act 1920, the Fisheries Act 1891, which I think was probably before all Members of this House were taking part in its business, and the British Fishing Boats Act 1983. The changes are required due to timing and resource problems with getting a legislative consent Motion in place in Scotland during the passage of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“CLC practitioner services bodies
(1) Section 32 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 (provision of conveyancing services by recognised bodies) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, after “conveyancing” insert “or other”.
(3) In subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after “bodies” insert “or CLC practitioner services bodies”;(b) in paragraph (b), for “such bodies” substitute “conveyancing services bodies”;(c) in paragraph (b), for the words from “undertake” to the end substitute “undertake—(i) the provision of conveyancing services,(ii) the exercise of a right of audience,(iii) the conduct of litigation,(iv) probate activities,(v) the administration of oaths, or(vi) the provision of relevant legal services not covered by sub-paragraphs (i) to (v);”;(d) after paragraph (b) insert—“(bza) prescribing the circumstances in which CLC practitioner services bodies may be recognised by the Council as being suitable bodies to undertake—(i) the exercise of a right of audience,(ii) the conduct of litigation,(iii) probate activities,(iv) the administration of oaths, or(v) the provision of relevant legal services not covered by sub-paragraphs (i) to (iv);”;(e) in paragraph (ba), for the words from “bodies” to the end substitute “bodies to carry on—(i) the exercise of a right of audience,(ii) the conduct of litigation,(iii) reserved instrument activities, where the recognised body is a conveyancing services body, (iv) probate activities, or(v) the administration of oaths;”; (f) in paragraph (c), after “requirements” insert “, including requirements about the carrying on of activities which are not reserved legal activities,”.(4) In subsection (3)(e), after “those bodies” insert “(including information about disciplinary measures taken)”.
(5) In subsection (3C), after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) conditions restricting the kinds of CLC practitioner services that may be provided by the body;”.(6) For subsection (8) substitute—
“(8) In this section—
“administration of oaths” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);“CLC practitioner services” has the meaning given by section 32B;“CLC practitioner services body” has the meaning given by section 32B;“conduct of litigation” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);“conveyancing services body” has the meaning given by section 32A;“probate activities” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);“relevant legal services”—(a) in relation to a conveyancing services body, has the meaning given by section 32A; and(b) in relation to a CLC practitioner services body, has the meaning given by section 32B;“reserved instrument activities” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);“right of audience” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act).”(7) After subsection (8) insert—
“(8A) Nothing in this section affects section 13 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (entitlement to carry on a reserved legal activity).”
(8) After section 32A (definition of “conveyancing services body”) insert—
“32B CLC practitioner services bodies
(1) For the purposes of section 32 a “CLC practitioner services body” means a body (corporate or unincorporate) in respect of which—
(a) the management and control condition,(b) the services condition, and(c) the authorised person condition,are satisfied.(2) The management and control condition is satisfied in the case of a partnership if at least one of the partners is a licensed conveyancer or a licensed CLC practitioner.
(3) The management and control condition is satisfied in the case of an unincorporated body (other than a partnership), or a body corporate which is managed by its members, if at least one of those members is a licensed conveyancer or a licensed CLC practitioner.
(4) The management and control condition is satisfied in the case of any other body corporate if at least one director of the body is a licensed conveyancer or a licensed CLC practitioner.
(5) The services condition is satisfied in respect of a body if—
(a) the body is carrying on a business consisting of the provision of—(i) CLC practitioner services; or (ii) CLC practitioner services and other relevant legal services; and (b) the body does not provide conveyancing services.(6) The authorised person condition is satisfied if the licensed conveyancer or licensed CLC practitioner by reference to whom the management and control condition is satisfied, or one of the persons by reference to whom that condition is satisfied, is an authorised person in relation to any reserved legal activity involved in the CLC practitioner services that are provided by the body.
(7) For the purposes of this section—
(a) a reference to CLC practitioner services is a reference to services involving the carrying on of such of the following as are reserved legal activities in relation to which the Council is designated as an approved regulator—(i) the exercise of a right of audience;(ii) the conduct of litigation;(iii) probate activities;(iv) the administration of oaths;(b) a reference to designation as an approved regulator is a reference to designation as an approved regulator—(i) by Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Legal Services Act 2007, or(ii) under Part 2 of Schedule 4 to that Act;(c) a person has an interest in a body if the person has an interest in the body within the meaning of Part 5 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (see sections 72 and 109 of that Act).(8) In this section—
“administration of oaths” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);“authorised person” means an authorised person in relation to an activity which is a reserved legal activity (within the meaning of the Legal Services Act 2007);“conduct of litigation” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);“probate activities” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);“relevant legal services”, in relation to a body, means—(a) CLC practitioner services, and(b) where authorised persons are managers or employees of, or have an interest in, the body, services such as are provided by individuals practising as such authorised persons (whether or not those services involve the carrying on of reserved legal activities), except for conveyancing services;“reserved legal activity” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act);“right of audience” has the same meaning as in the Legal Services Act 2007 (see section 12 of, and Schedule 2 to, that Act).””
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, these new clauses fulfil the commitment made by the Government on Report on 5 February in response to a series of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.
Provisions in the Administration of Justice Act 1985 and the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 place a restriction on the Council for Licensed Conveyancers, which effectively means that it can authorise a body or person only if that body or person is licensed to provide conveyancing services. This is a restriction that none of the other legal services approved regulators has. The purpose of the amendments is to remove this restriction. This is being done by amending Section 32 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 and Section 53 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
The amendments also include amendments to Section 32 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 to cover the full range of reserved legal activities for which the council is an approved regulator or for which the council may in the future be an approved regulator, if it were to be further designated. Any such further designation would require a recommendation of the Legal Services Board and an order under the Legal Services Act 2007. I remark in passing that I think that when my noble friend Lord Smith of Clifton asked his Question this afternoon, I do not think he had in mind the idea of private but approved regulators as part of his universe of regulating agencies.
The proposed second new schedule in these amendments will make amendments to the Administration of Justice Act 1985, which will enable the council to carry out its role as an approved regulator and licensing authority more effectively and efficiently. For example, amendments are made to change the venue for appeals from the High Court to the First-tier Tribunal. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support these amendments, to which I have added my name. As the Minister said, they rather improve the wording which was accepted in principle in my amendments on Report. They are important because they take forward the intention in the Legal Services Act to increase the availability of legal services. As the Minister said, the CLC—an approved regulator for reserved activities, probate and the administration of oaths—has now been accepted to be the regulator for a wider range of legal services. However, it became apparent a bit belatedly that the Act which created the CLC and set out its powers actually restricts it from the enlarged role which it, the Legal Services Board and the MoJ had envisaged. It was then found that the powers in the Legal Services Act were also not sufficient to make the changes. Without these amendments, the CLC would be able to regulate only conveyancers, which means that a lawyer would have first to train as a conveyancer before being regulated by the CLC for other activities.
The other changes which have been mentioned are to simplify appeals so that any appeals against the CLC’s appeals and discipline committee can be heard by the First-tier Tribunal rather than the High Court, and to allow the CLC itself to appeal against determinations. There is also a provision to allow the CLC to suspend the licences of practitioners to protect the public while they await the outcome of disciplinary actions.
As for the CLC’s own governing council, the current requirement is that the number of lay members must exceed the number of professional members by exactly one. That means that if one of the professional members leaves for any reason, the council cannot continue its work. The amendments would allow for the lay majority to be at least one, which will get over that hurdle. Finally, instead of putting the time that the CLC has to determine applications in statute, in future it will be in regulatory rules. These are sensible and welcome changes. I thank the Government for bringing them forward and their work on this excellent drafting.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“Licensed CLC practitioners
(1) Section 53 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (the Council for Licensed Conveyancers: authorisation of individuals to carry on reserved legal activities) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), omit “only if the person is a licensed conveyancer”.
(3) In subsection (3)—
(a) for “a licensed conveyancer” substitute “a person”;(b) for “the licensed conveyancer” substitute “the person in respect of that activity”.(4) In subsection (4), for “Any such” substitute “If the person granted a licence under this section is a licensed conveyancer, the”.
(5) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) If the person granted a licence under this section is not a licensed conveyancer, the licence may be granted as a separate licence or as part of a composite licence comprising that and any other licence under this section which the Council may grant to the person.
(4B) A licence under this section granted to a person who is not a licensed conveyancer ceases to have effect if the person becomes a licensed conveyancer.”
(6) In subsection (9)—
(a) in the opening words, after “respect to” insert “persons who apply for, or hold, an advocacy, litigation or probate licence and”;(b) in paragraph (c), for “licensed conveyancer” substitute “person”;(c) after paragraph (d) insert—“(da) any case of an individual who describes himself or herself, or holds himself or herself out, as a licensed CLC practitioner without holding a licence in force under this section;”;(d) in the words following paragraph (f), after “respect to” insert “persons who apply for, or hold, a licence under Part 2 of the Act of 1985 and”.(7) After subsection (9) insert—
“(9A) The modifications mentioned in subsection (9) may differ depending on whether the person applying for, or holding, an advocacy, litigation or probate licence is or is not a licensed conveyancer.
(9B) Subsection (9) does not apply to section 34 of the Act of 1985 (modification of existing enactments relating to conveyancing etc).”
(8) After subsection (10) insert—
“(11) In this section—
“advocacy licence” means a licence issued under this section by which the Council authorises the person concerned to exercise a right of audience;“CLC practitioner services” has the same meaning as in section 32B of the Act of 1985;“licensed CLC practitioner” means a person, other than a licensed conveyancer, who holds a licence under this section;“litigation licence” means a licence issued under this section by which the Council authorises the person concerned to carry on activities which constitute the conduct of litigation;“the practice of a licensed CLC practitioner” means the provision by a person, as the holder of a licence under this section, of CLC practitioner services in accordance with the licence; and“probate licence” means a licence issued under this section by which the Council authorises the person concerned to carry on activities that constitute probate activities.” (9) In the italic heading preceding section 53, after “conveyancers” insert “and licensed CLC practitioners”.”
“CLC practitioner services: consequential amendments
Schedule (CLC practitioner services: consequential amendments) contains consequential amendments relating to sections (CLC practitioner services bodies) and (Licensed CLC practitioners).”
“The Council for Licensed Conveyancers: other amendments
Schedule (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers: other amendments) contains other amendments relating to the Council for Licensed Conveyancers.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“section 30A(6)(f);”
“( ) This section does not apply to the following—
(a) Professional Standards Authority,(b) Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and(c) any persons exercising a regulatory function with respect to health and care service that the Secretary of State specifies by order.( ) An order under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
( ) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section may not be made unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will move Amendment 28, which was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. Our concern is about the impact of the economic growth clauses on these health regulatory bodies and the risk of a negative impact on their overriding responsibility to protect the public. On Report, the Minister denied that that would happen and stated that the economic growth duty would sit alongside the other factors that a regulator must consider. However, “sitting alongside” suggests that it has some—or even the same—weighting and therefore cannot be ignored. The Minister also quoted the draft guidance, but the guidance adds to our concern. It states:
“The growth duty does not automatically take precedence over or supplant existing duties held by regulators”.
The term “not automatically” implies that it is entirely possible that it will take precedence, and that must put the protection of the public at risk.
The two health regulators, the Professional Standards Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, were debated on Report. They are the subject of Amendment 28. My noble friend Lord Hunt questioned whether the Professional Standards Authority is indeed a regulator, given that it oversees nine statutory regulators, including the GMC, but is not itself a regulator. We say that there is no need for it to be covered in the Bill. Can the Minister confirm that the Government do not consider that the PSA is covered by the economic growth clauses because it is not such a regulator?
The HFEA performs a crucial and difficult task. We worry that the economic growth duty could make its task even more challenging. On 24 February this House had an excellent debate on mitochondrial donation and agreed the regulations. However, we did so only on the basis that the HFEA’s regulatory processes were robust. The HFEA—which, as we know, is highly respected as a model for the regulation of fertility and embryology treatments and research—has acknowledged on its website that it is not an economic regulator. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is so. However, I hope he will go further and address our concern that any growth duty could impact on the HFEA’s ability to regulate effectively. There is no requirement in the HFE Act to consider growth, thus the new duty could upset the delicate balance on embryo research which has served this country well.
At the centre of the balance is a settlement between science and society which involves a clear set of rules that enable scientists and clinicians to experiment while maintaining public confidence. The existing regime has enabled growth. Surely it is no accident that the UK is the first country in the world to allow mitochondrial donation; it is a by-product of a thriving bioscience sector combined with intelligent regulation. Good rules, flexibly applied, can foster growth. Ironically, the growth duty could upset that balance and even hinder growth in the sector. It risks HFEA decisions being judicially reviewed. For example, those who are against embryo research might argue that the HFEA will favour research because of the growth duty and challenge it on that basis; science-based companies might argue that if it fails to consider growth, it will be failing the growth duty.
I have some questions for the Minister. Do the Government accept that our bioscience sector has thrived and that HFEA regulation has contributed to that success? If so, what is the point of making the growth duty apply to the HFEA? Can the HFEA decide to ignore the growth duty if it is inappropriate in particular cases, for example in respect of patient safety or for new treatments such as mitochondrial donation? Can the Minister assure the House that the HFEA will not be more likely to be judicially reviewed because of the growth duty? Will statutory guidance make this clear so that the HFEA can refer to such guidance if challenged in court? Will the Government commit to exempt the HFEA from the regulation?
Perhaps I may also mention the relationship between the economic growth duty and the EHRC, an issue that has featured not only in this Bill but in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill. The Minister will be aware of the argument that the EHRC enjoys an A status as a national human rights institution. It is therefore right that the Government should always be crystal clear that it is not appropriate to apply general regulations to the EHRC. The A status is awarded by the UN International Coordinating Committee, which regularly reviews the EHRC’s compliance with the Paris principles, which require the EHRC to be independent. We have to avoid the perception—or the reality—that there is interference in the commission’s ability to perform its functions, and ensure that it is always independent. If that independence were jeopardised, it would jeopardise the A status which is vital to the UK’s international standing.
Last night, in response to these sorts of arguments in this House, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, agreed to look again at provisions regarding the EHRC in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill. Will the Minister agree to do the same thing with these two regulators in this Bill? I beg to move.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I speak to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, from my perspective as a member of advisory bodies that advised the previous Government on better regulation—the Better Regulation Commission and the Risk and Regulation Advisory Council. I am also a member of a body that advises this Government on regulation—the Better Regulation Strategy Group.
I say immediately that if the growth duty compelled either the PSA or the HFEA, or indeed any other regulator, to pursue growth at the expense of undermining the protection of sensitive sectors or sensitive activities, I would have sympathy with this amendment. However, that is not the case. The growth duty does not compel the HFEA or other regulators, as suggested in the amendment, to pursue growth at the expense of undermining protections in the area that they regulate. What it does do is require regulators to consider the economic impact and any unnecessary, disproportionate or excessive bureaucratic burden that they might be imposing on those whom they regulate when carrying out their regulatory processes, producing guidance and so forth.
From my experience of better regulation, better regulators and better enforcement of, or compliance with, regulation, I can see absolutely no reason why the HFEA cannot consider the burden it is imposing on the businesses and organisations it regulates while continuing to ensure that patient protection remains its primary objective.
The growth duty is not a duty to achieve or pursue economic growth. Therefore, it is not a duty that would require the HFEA to drive growth in the fertility sector, for instance. Nor does it dictate that a regulator must attach a particular weight to growth. Therefore, the HFEA, or any other regulator obliged to have regard to the business and bureaucratic experience of being regulated, may reasonably decide that it will attach little or no weight to business factors in relation to a particular decision and that it must attach more weight to its other duties. In the HFEA’s case, prominent among those other duties would be patient safety. Therefore, the growth duty will not undermine or override regulators’ primary responsibilities in delivering protection.
Applying the growth duty to the HFEA will not affect its robustness as a regulator, and it will not affect its ability to protect the public, which was one of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness. In that sense, the title of the Bill is, I think, misleading, in that the growth duty is more about better regulation than deregulation. It does not loosen regulation; nor does it remove any regulatory duties or responsibilities. Rather, it enables their delivery and enforcement, when and where appropriate, to be more sensitive and more user-friendly.
Also of relevance to this amendment is the fact that the HFEA is already within the scope of another of the better enforcement programme measures—namely, the Regulators’ Code—as it was with its predecessor, the Regulators’ Compliance Code. The Regulators’ Code is a clearly defined, simple and principles-based framework of good practice for regulators in engaging with those whom they regulate. To my thinking, the HFEA would apply the growth duty in a way that complements the existing requirement to which it is already subject through the Regulators’ Code. More importantly, it would, and can, do so without compromising its rigour as a regulator.
I can understand why exceptions might be made in requiring regulators to adopt this duty where it is an irrelevance to the way they regulate or to the areas they regulate, but I cannot see any sense in exempting the HFEA from the growth duty.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, on Report I committed to giving further consideration to whether the Professional Standards Authority, the PSA, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, the HFEA, should be within the scope of the growth duty—that is, whether they should be required, in the exercise of their regulatory functions, to have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth.
Since Report, officials from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have met with the Department of Health and the PSA to explore whether the functions carried out by the PSA meet the definition of “regulatory function” at Clause 106 of the Deregulation Bill. Officials have also considered the nature of the PSA’s regulatory role as oversight body for the nine statutory regulators of health and social care professionals.
Following those discussions, the Government have concluded that, while the PSA exercises functions that fall within the definition of “regulatory function” as per the Deregulation Bill, its specific role means that the PSA’s regulatory functions are far removed from individual businesses. The PSA would have limited economic impact on business even if it were to apply the growth duty. In the course of taking this Bill through the House and on a number of other occasions, I have learnt to respect the immense diversity of regulatory functions and regulatory bodies, and that is one of the things that the very helpful and positive speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, took us a little further into. Anything that attempts to apply an overview to the vast mass of regulatory bodies is likely to be wrong. The Government therefore do not currently propose to bring the PSA in scope of the duty but will review this decision in the future should the PSA’s regulatory role change.
Moving on to the HFEA, I start by saying that the Government understand that there are aspects of the HFEA’s role that are ethically sensitive and unique, as we have recently debated in this House. Therefore, perhaps I may offer a number of preliminary reassurances and commitments to noble Lords, which I hope will reassure the Opposition Front Bench. I should say that we had an extremely positive and constructive discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and others earlier in the week.
The growth duty is not a duty that would require the HFEA to drive the growth of one of the industries that it regulates—for example, the fertility sector—and it is not a duty to achieve or pursue economic growth at the expense of patient protections, such as those involved in the sensitive sectors regulated by the HFEA, as the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, has already set out.
I take this opportunity to repeat once again that the growth duty will not impede the independence of regulators and will give them discretion in how to apply the duty. It is certainly not the Government’s intention that the growth duty should weaken the HFEA’s regulatory role. I also assure noble Lords—especially the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who is not here at the moment but has had helpful meetings with a number of Ministers to discuss this policy—that the duty is about reducing, for example, the regulatory burden of bureaucracy on business. It is not a duty that loosens or undermines important duties of protection. Statutory duties concerning the protection of vulnerable women and men in seeking help in this sector remain of fundamental importance.
The duty requires regulators to have a regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth among those they regulate when they carry out regulatory processes and make regulatory decisions—for example, writing guidance, planning or changing intervention strategies, designing or revising processes, and carrying out inspections of those who are regulated.
The Government commit to continuing to work with regulators, including the HFEA, to ensure that the statutory guidance is fit for purpose, robust and principles-based to assist them in avoiding the risks of challenge. We are all aware of the problem of judicial review and that the HFEA has already been subject to a number of challenges via judicial review. We will therefore make particular efforts to ensure that the guidance is as clear as possible. It will be clear that regulators can have regard to the growth duty, balance it against their other statutory duties and decide not to afford any weight to growth where it is not appropriate or relevant.
I can also give noble Lords the commitment to publish a revised version of the guidance on GOV.UK before or at the time the guidance is laid in draft before Parliament. I should point out that the Government commit also to lay the draft guidance and the draft order, listing the functions to which the duty will apply, before Parliament at the same time for informed debate. Both these, as noble Lords are aware, will be subject to the affirmative resolution in both Houses. There will be continuing engagement with stakeholders to help regulators consider how the duty can be applied, which we hope will help regulators to decide what weight, if any, they should apportion to the growth duty when considering it alongside their protection duties.
Since the Report stage debate, BIS officials have met with the HFEA and the Department of Health to discuss how the growth duty might apply to their specific regulatory role. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howe for his commitment that the two departments should continue working together and with the HFEA to address any concerns on specific issues as we move forward. I know that some strong concerns were raised on Report about the HFEA’s role in regulating some of the extremely high fees being charged by some fertility clinics. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, talked of a lady, approaching her forties, who went to a clinic in London and was quoted the extremely large sum of £11,000 for three months of fertility treatment.
Having explored the powers that the HFEA has as a non-economic regulator, we found that it has no power to regulate the prices charged in IVF clinics. I understand that the HFEA does want to do more. It has recently decided to provide patients with a feedback mechanism on its website where patients can say whether the costs they actually paid were as originally advertised. I know from discussions with the HFEA that it recognises that costs are a key concern for many patients. However, at present it can only act within its powers. I want to assure the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Winston, and noble Lords here today, that the Government will work with the Department of Health to explore further the matters raised.
As I said, officials from BIS and the Department of Health have met with the HFEA to consider its statutory regulatory functions which are taken from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts 1990 and 2008, and other legislation. It is the Government’s view that the HFEA could have regard to growth when exercising these regulatory functions in a way that would not weaken its regulatory role. It could apply to the HFEA in its general course of operation, such as licensing, inspections or the information that centres are required to provide for them. For example, in the HFEA’s overall licensing and inspection of clinics, if it decided to implement a new licensing process, the growth duty requires a consideration of the importance of exercising such regulatory functions in a way which ensures that regulatory action is taken only when it is needed and that any action taken is proportionate. This would encourage the HFEA to consider the impact that this change may have on those it regulates.
The HFEA, as an expert in its respective and expanding field, will decide what weight, if any, to afford growth as part of its decision-making process in each case. In some circumstances it may be appropriate that the HFEA, in making a particular decision, has regard to growth, but makes a reasonable decision not to give it any weight in its decision-making. For example, while exercising its licensing and inspection functions the HFEA may find that a clinic’s ability to provide a safe service was in question. The clinic may have breached the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, its licence conditions or the HFEA’s code of practice to the extent that it is at risk of the suspension of its licence or even having its licence revoked. In this circumstance, where patient safety is clearly an issue, the HFEA may, in considering the facts before it and weighing up its various statutory duties, make a reasonable decision not to apportion any weight to growth in considering whether to continue to license or close the clinic.
It may also be helpful to draw on an example from the pharmaceutical sector to further illustrate the type of mischief that the growth duty seeks to resolve. A pharmaceutical business used an alcohol spray product in bottles which had certification to say it was safe to use for three months. However, the inspector told the business that once opened, it must throw out bottles after 24 hours. Despite the business pointing out the certificate and the three-month agreed safe lifespan, the inspector refused to read the material and imposed the requirement that the company throw out the spray every 24 hours. This clearly placed an unnecessary financial burden on the business, due to the cost of the product. It could no longer afford to use the product or manufacture a particular pharmaceutical product. The growth duty would have required the inspector to have regard to the economic impact of its decision on the business. It would also have ensured that regulatory action was taken only when needed and that the action taken was proportionate. In neither of those cases would the issue of safety have been jeopardised in any way.
The Government are committed to creating a positive business environment right across the economy and applying a growth duty to regulators across a broad range of sectors that will contribute to this. It is, thus, the Government’s view that the HFEA should continue to be included within the scope of the growth duty. I hope that I have clarified the scope and intent of the duty and provided the necessary reassurances on this front.
Finally, in addition to excluding the PSA and the HFEA from the scope of the growth duty, the amendment seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to list by order,
“any persons exercising a regulatory function with respect to health and care service”,
and in that order to exclude them from the scope of the growth duty.
The Department of Health feels that excluding health regulators from the growth duty would be at odds with other departments and inconsistent with the Government’s intent. I hope that I have provided the assurances that the Opposition and others were looking for in this complex area, and I hope that that will enable the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the Minister for a very thoughtful response, and for all the work and meetings that have clearly taken place. I particularly welcome the fact, if I have his words right, that the Government do not propose to bring the PSA into scope.
Turning to the HFEA, funnily enough I agree with virtually everything that the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, says, except that I do not agree that it is against the amendment in front of us. I think that he is arguing for better regulation and for not putting unnecessary burdens on those being regulated, be they hospitals or laboratories. All the talk about better regulation, not having undue costs and not throwing away bottles after 24 hours is, to me, better regulation and not the same as the growth duty. I think that we are not very far away from that.
I welcome very much the recognition by the Minister that the HFEA is not an economic regulator, his words that it will not be required to drive or pursue economic growth, his willingness to continue this discussion and to use new guidance to try to help avoid the risk of challenge, and his words that the HFEA will decide for itself not to afford that duty in certain cases. We are probably fairly close on this, and the discussions and the new guidance will be helpful. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“(5A) The following provisions come into force on such day as the Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument appoint—
(a) sections (CLC practitioner services bodies) and (Licensed CLC practitioners);(b) section (CLC practitioner services: consequential amendments) and Schedule (CLC practitioner services: consequential amendments);(c) section (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers: other amendments) and Schedule (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers: other amendments).”
“(8A) The Lord Chancellor may by order made by statutory instrument make such transitional, transitory or saving provision as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate in connection with the coming into force of sections (CLC practitioner services bodies) to (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers: other amendments) and Schedules (CLC practitioner services: consequential amendments) and (The Council for Licensed Conveyancers: other amendments).”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“in subsection (2B), omit paragraph (a);“in subsection (3), omit “(ba),”;”
“(29) If paragraph 4 comes into force before the coming into force of the repeal of the Audit Commission Act 1998 by section 1(2) of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, Schedule 2 to the Act of 1998 is to have effect (until the repeal comes into force) as if in paragraph 1, paragraph (ma) were omitted.
“( ) In the Energy Act 2013, in Part 3 of Schedule 9, in the definition of “local authority” in paragraph 14(3), omit paragraph (b).
“( ) In the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014, in Schedule 2, omit paragraph 25.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“CLC practitioner services: consequential amendmentsAdministration of Justice Act 1985 (c. 61)1 The Administration of Justice Act 1985 is amended as follows.
2 (1) In section 16 (conditional licences), subsection (1) is amended as follows.
(2) For paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) when conditions under this section have been imposed on a licence under this Part previously issued to him;(ba) when conditions under paragraph 5 of Schedule 8 to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 have been imposed on a licence under section 53 of that Act previously issued to him;”.(3) In paragraph (c), after “Part” insert “or a licence in force under section 53 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990”.
(4) In paragraph (ca), after “24A” insert “(including that section as applied by section 53 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.
(5) In paragraph (d), after “26” insert “(including that section as applied by section 53 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.
(6) In paragraph (ea), after “22” insert “(including that section as applied by section 53 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990)”.
3 (1) Section 26 (proceedings in disciplinary cases) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after “licence” insert “under this Part”;(b) in paragraph (b), for “a licence under this Part” substitute “any relevant licence”;(c) in paragraph (c), after “licence” insert “under this Part”. (3) After subsection (8) insert—
“(9) In this section “relevant licence” means—
(a) a licence under this Part, or(b) a licence under section 53 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.”4 (1) Section 28 (revocation of licence on grounds of fraud or error) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) after “a licence” insert “under this Part”;(b) for “the licence” substitute “all of the relevant licences held by that person”.(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) Where a person has had any relevant licence which was held by him revoked because of fraud on that person’s part, the person may not be issued with a licence under this Part except on the advice of the Committee given to the Council as the result of an application made by the person to the Committee.”
(4) In subsection (3), for “a licence under this Part” substitute “any relevant licence”.
(5) After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) In this section “relevant licence” has the meaning given by section 26.”
5 (1) Section 33A (administration of oaths by licensed conveyancers) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, after “conveyancers” insert “or licensed CLC practitioners”.
(3) In the section, after “conveyancers” insert “or licensed CLC practitioners”.
6 (1) Section 34 (modification of existing enactments relating to conveyancing etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after “a recognised body” insert “which is a conveyancing services body”.
(3) In subsection (2), after “conveyancer or” (in the second place it occurs) insert “such a”.
(4) In subsection (3), after “body” insert “which is a conveyancing services body”.
(5) After subsection (3) insert—
“(4) In this section “conveyancing services body” has the meaning given by section 32A.”
7 In section 39 (interpretation of Part 2), in subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—
““licensed CLC practitioner” means a person, other than a licensed conveyancer, who holds a licence under section 53 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;”.8 In Schedule 3 (the Council for Licensed Conveyancers: supplementary provisions), in paragraph 2 (constitution of the Council), in sub-paragraph (1)(a)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (i);(b) after sub-paragraph (i) insert—“(ia) licensed CLC practitioners; or”.9 (1) Schedule 6 (bodies recognised under section 32: supplementary provisions) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3 (preliminary investigation by the Investigating Committee etc)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (1)(a)(ii);(b) after sub-paragraph (1)(aa) insert—“(aaa) it is alleged that a manager or employee of a recognised body who is not a licensed CLC practitioner has failed to comply with any rules applicable to him by virtue of section 32; or”.(3) In paragraph 3A (orders made by the Investigating Committee), in sub-paragraph (1)(b)—
(a) after “3(1)(aa)” insert “or (aaa)”;(b) for “that paragraph” substitute “paragraph 3(1)(aa) or (aaa) (as the case may be)”. (4) In paragraph 4 (orders made by the Discipline and Appeals Committee), in sub-paragraph (2A)—
(a) after “3(1)(aa)” insert “or (aaa)”;(b) for “sub-paragraph (ii) of that paragraph” substitute “paragraph 3(1)(aa) or (aaa) (as the case may be)”.(5) In paragraph 14 (examination of files), in sub-paragraph (1), after “(aa)” insert “, (aaa)”.
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41)10 The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is amended as follows.
11 In section 75 (judges etc barred from legal practice), in paragraph (c), for “or licensed conveyancer” substitute “, licensed conveyancer or licensed CLC practitioner”.
12 In section 119 (interpretation), in subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—
““licensed CLC practitioner” has the meaning given in section 53;”.13 (1) Schedule 8 (licensed conveyancers) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading, after “conveyancers” insert “and licensed CLC practitioners”.
(3) In paragraph 1 (general)—
(a) for the definition of “advocacy licence” substitute—““advocacy licence”, “litigation licence” and “probate licence” have the meaning given by section 53;”;(b) omit the definitions of—(i) “litigation licence”, and(ii) “probate licence”.(4) In paragraph 4 (issue of licences), in sub-paragraph (3), for the words from “with respect” to “as they” substitute “with respect to—
(a) any application under paragraph 3 for an advocacy licence and any advocacy licence in force under section 53;(b) any application under paragraph 3 for a litigation licence and any litigation licence in force under section 53; and(c) any application under paragraph 3 for a probate licence and any probate licence in force under section 53 (as the case may be),as they”.(5) In paragraph 5 (conditional licences)—
(a) for sub-paragraph (1)(b) substitute—“(b) when conditions under this paragraph have been imposed on an advocacy, litigation or probate licence previously issued to him;(ba) when conditions under section 16 of the Act of 1985 have been imposed on a licence under Part 2 of the Act of 1985 previously issued to him;”;(b) in sub-paragraph (1)(c), for “a licence of that kind” substitute “an advocacy, litigation or probate licence or a licence under Part 2 of the Act of 1985”;(c) in sub-paragraph (1)(d)—(i) after “1985” insert “(including section 24A(1) as applied by section 53)”;(ii) after “that Act” insert “(including section 26(1) as applied by section 53)”;(d) in sub-paragraph (6), omit the “or” after paragraph (a);(e) in sub-paragraph (6)(b), at the beginning insert “in the case of an applicant who is a licensed conveyancer,”;(f) after sub-paragraph (6)(b) insert “; or(c) for requiring the applicant to take any specified steps that will, in the opinion of the Council, be conducive to his carrying on an efficient practice as a licensed CLC practitioner,”;(g) in sub-paragraph (6), after “paragraph (b)” insert “or (c)”.(6) After paragraph 6 insert—
“Register of licensed CLC practitioners6A (1) The Council must establish and maintain, in such form as the Council may determine, a register containing the names and places of business of all persons who for the time being hold an advocacy, litigation or probate licence and are not licensed conveyancers.
(2) The Council may make rules specifying the further information, including information about disciplinary measures taken, to be recorded in the register in relation to a person.
(3) The Council must cause the appropriate entries and deletions to be made in the register on the issue and termination of advocacy, litigation and probate licences; and where any licence held by a person is for the time being suspended by virtue of any provision of Part 2 of the Act of 1985 as applied by this Act the Council must cause that fact to be noted in the register against that person’s name.
(4) Any change in a licensed CLC practitioner’s place or places of business must be notified by that person to the Council within the period of fourteen days beginning with the date on which the change takes effect.
(5) The Council must provide facilities for making the information contained in the entries in the register available for inspection in visible and legible form by any person during office hours and without payment.
(6) A certificate signed by an officer of the Council appointed for the purpose and stating—
(a) that any person does or does not, or did or did not at any time, hold an advocacy, litigation or probate licence, or(b) that any licence held by any person is or was at any time either free of conditions or subject to any particular conditions,is, unless the contrary is proved, evidence of the facts stated in the certificate; and a certificate purporting to be so signed is to be taken to have been so signed unless the contrary is proved.”(7) For paragraph 8 and the cross-heading preceding it substitute—
“Effect of suspension or revocation8 Where a relevant licence ceases to be in force because of—
(a) a direction under section 24(5) of the Act of 1985, or(b) an order under section 26(2)(a) or (c) of the Act of 1985,any other relevant licence in force with respect to that person at the time shall cease to have effect to the same extent as the licence in question.”(8) Omit paragraph 9 (removal of disqualification from holding an advocacy, litigation or probate licence).
(9) Omit paragraph 10 (revocation on grounds of error or fraud).
(10) In paragraph 21 (power to examine files)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a), after “conveyancer” insert “or licensed CLC practitioner”;(b) in sub-paragraph (1), for “the licensed conveyancer” (in both places where it occurs) substitute “the person complained of”.(11) In paragraph 22 (interest on clients’ money), after “conveyancer” insert “or licensed CLC practitioner”.
Legal Services Act 2007 (c. 29)14 The Legal Services Act 2007 is amended as follows.
15 (1) Section 104 (prevention of regulatory conflict: accounts rules) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after “conveyancer” insert “or licensed CLC practitioner”.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(3) In this section “licensed CLC practitioner” means a person, other than a licensed conveyancer, who holds a licence under section 53 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.”
16 (1) In Schedule 5 (authorised persons), paragraph 11 (rights during transitional period: licensed conveyancers) is amended as follows.
(2) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) During the transitional period every individual, not being a licensed conveyancer, who holds a licence under section 53 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is deemed to be authorised by the Council to administer oaths.”(3) In sub-paragraph (2), after “(1)” insert “or (1A)”.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3), in the opening words—
(a) after “and every” insert “conveyancing services”;(b) after “provide conveyancing” insert “or other”.(5) After sub-paragraph (3) insert—
“(3A) During that period, every CLC practitioner services body recognised under section 32 of the Administration of Justice Act 1985 is deemed to be authorised by the Council to administer oaths.”(6) In sub-paragraph (4), after “(3)” insert “or (3A)”.
(7) For sub-paragraph (5) substitute—
“(5) In this paragraph—“CLC practitioner services body” has the meaning given by section 32B of the Administration of Justice Act 1985;“conveyancing partnership” means a partnership at least some of the members of which are licensed conveyancers, but does not include a CLC practitioner services body;“conveyancing services body” has the meaning given by section 32A of the Administration of Justice 1985.”(8) In sub-paragraph (6), after “licence” insert “or a licence under section 53 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990”.
17 In Schedule 24 (index of defined expressions), at the appropriate places insert—
“CLC practitioner services body | paragraph 11 of Schedule 5”; | |
“conveyancing services body | paragraph 11 of Schedule 5”; | |
“licensed CLC practitioner | section 104(3)”.” |
“The Council for Licensed Conveyancers: other amendments1 The Administration of Justice Act 1985 is amended as follows.
2 (1) Section 15 (issue of licences by the Council for Licensed Conveyancers) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)(b), for the words from “the period” to “the Council” substitute “the period prescribed under subsection (3A)”.
(3) After subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The Council must by rules prescribe the period that applies for the purposes of subsection (3)(b).”
3 (1) Section 18 (suspension or termination of licences) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2C) insert—
“(2CA) Where the power conferred by paragraph 6(1) or 9(1) of Schedule 5 is exercised in relation to a recognised body by virtue of paragraph 10(1)(a) of Schedule 6, the exercise of that power shall operate immediately to suspend any licence under this Part held by a person who is a manager of the recognised body.
(2CB) Where the power conferred by paragraph 6(1) or 9(1) of Schedule 5 is exercised in relation to a recognised body by virtue of paragraph 10(1)(d) of Schedule 6, the exercise of that power shall operate immediately to suspend any licence under this Part held by a person who is—
(a) a manager of the recognised body, or(b) an employee of the recognised body.(2CC) Where the power conferred by paragraph 3(1) or 8(1) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007 is exercised in relation to a licensed body by virtue of paragraph 1(2)(d) of that Schedule, the exercise of that power shall operate immediately to suspend any licence under this Part held by a person who is—
(a) a manager of the licensed body, or (b) an employee of the licensed body.(2CD) At the time when the power referred to in subsection (2CA), (2CB) or (2CC) is exercised, the Council may direct that subsection (2CA), (2CB) or (2CC) (as the case may be) is not to apply in relation to a particular licensed conveyancer.
(2CE) The Council may give a direction under subsection (2CD) in relation to a licensed conveyancer only if—
(a) the Council is satisfied that the licensed conveyancer did not fail to comply with the rules applicable to the recognised body by virtue of section 32, or contribute to the body’s failure to comply with such rules, in a case where the Council acts by virtue of paragraph 10(1)(a) of Schedule 6,(b) the Council does not suspect the licensed conveyancer of dishonesty, in a case where the Council acts by virtue of—(i) paragraph 10(1)(d) of Schedule 6, or(ii) paragraph 1(2)(d) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007,(c) the Council is satisfied that the licensed conveyancer was not a manager of the recognised body when the conduct providing the basis for the exercise of the power in paragraph 6(1) or 9(1) of Schedule 5 took place, in a case where the Council acts by virtue of paragraph 10(1)(a) of Schedule 6,(d) the Council is satisfied that the licensed conveyancer was not a manager or employee of the recognised body when the conduct providing the basis for the exercise of the power in paragraph 6(1) or 9(1) of Schedule 5 is suspected of having taken place, in a case where the Council acts by virtue of paragraph 10(1)(d) of Schedule 6, and(e) the Council is satisfied that the licensed conveyancer was not a manager or employee of the licensed body when the conduct providing the basis for the exercise of the power in paragraph 3(1) or 8(1) of Schedule 14 to the Legal Services Act 2007 is suspected of having taken place, in a case where the Council acts by virtue of paragraph 1(2)(d) of Schedule 14 to that Act.(2CF) At the time when the power referred to in subsection (2CA), (2CB) or (2CC) is exercised, the Council may direct that such of the licensed conveyancers concerned as are identified in the direction may continue to act in relation to any matter specified in the direction as if their licences had not been suspended by virtue of subsection (2CA), (2CB) or (2CC) (as the case may be), subject to such conditions (if any) as the Council sees fit to impose.”
(3) In subsection (2D), after “(2A)” insert “, (2CA), (2CB) or (2CC)”.
(4) In subsection (2G), for “High Court” substitute “First-tier Tribunal”.
(5) Omit subsection (2H).
4 (1) Section 19 (register of licensed conveyancers) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) The Council may make rules specifying the further information, including information about disciplinary measures taken, to be recorded in the register in relation to a person.”
(3) In subsection (2), omit “accordingly”.
5 In section 20 (rules as to professional practice, conduct and discipline), omit subsection (2).
6 (1) Section 24 (preliminary investigation of disciplinary cases) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (10), for “High Court” substitute “First-tier Tribunal”.
(3) In subsection (11), for “High Court” substitute “First-tier Tribunal”.
(4) Omit subsection (12).
7 (1) Section 24A (determination of allegations by the Investigating Committee) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (8), for “High Court” substitute “First-tier Tribunal”.
(3) In subsection (9), for “High Court” substitute “First-tier Tribunal”.
(4) Omit subsection (10).
8 (1) Section 26 (proceedings in disciplinary cases) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (7) substitute—
“(7) Where the Discipline and Appeals Committee make an order by virtue of subsection (1)—
(a) the person against whom the order is made, or(b) the Council,may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, and on any such appeal the First-tier Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.”(3) In subsection (7A), for “High Court” (in both places where it occurs) substitute “First-tier Tribunal”.
(4) Omit subsection (8).
9 In Schedule 3 (the Council for Licensed Conveyancers: supplementary provisions), in paragraph 4 (appointment of persons to Council), in sub-paragraph (2), omit “by one”.
10 (1) Schedule 6 (bodies recognised under section 32: supplementary provisions) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3A (orders made by the Investigating Committee)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (8), for “High Court” substitute “First-tier Tribunal”;(b) in sub-paragraph (9), for “High Court” substitute “First-tier Tribunal”;(c) omit sub-paragraph (10).(3) In paragraph 6 (appeals against orders of the Discipline and Appeals Committee)—
(a) for sub-paragraph (1) substitute—“(1) Where the Committee make an order by virtue of paragraph 4(1) or (2A) or 5(1)—(a) the person as regards whom the order is made, or(b) the Council,may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal, and on any such appeal the First-tier Tribunal may make such order as it thinks fit.”;(b) in sub-paragraph (1A), for “High Court” (in both places where it occurs) substitute “First-tier Tribunal”;(c) omit sub-paragraph (2).”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, I use this opportunity for a brief moment to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Stevenson, who, from our side, has guided and marshalled our many Front Bench colleagues, including my noble friends Lady Thornton, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord McKenzie, through what has been called a “Christmas tree Bill”. Of course, we do not think it is quite such a Bill because it is not full of goodies, but I thank my noble friend Lord Stevenson and, I have to say, our brilliant legislative adviser, Muna Abbas; this was her first such Bill. We think that it has ended up a little better than it arrived.
I thank the Minister and his sometimes expanding, sometimes reducing ministerial team. I also thank the other members of the Bill team who have helped negotiate, redraft, debate and discuss throughout the process, including the setting up of a large number of bilateral meetings, some of which have dealt with some very complex issues. They now deserve a very good holiday, so I suggest that before too long we have a general election so that they may have one.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I thank my noble friend Lord Wallace for seeing us through this Bill. When we started, we thought that this would be a complete nightmare, but his skill, perseverance and patience have helped that not to be so. I thank also the opposition Benches for their part in seeing this legislation through, and our colleagues in our own office, Giles Derrington and Elizabeth Plummer, who supported us through the business of this Bill.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, this is almost the end of the Gardiner-Wallace double act for this Parliament. The kinder definition of this Bill is “a portmanteau Bill”, I think. I am particularly grateful to the Bill teams for the way in which they have coped with what has unavoidably been a matter of negotiation across Whitehall, dealing with different Whitehall departments, in pursuit of what the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, would like to call better regulation rather than deregulation.
When I look across the currently empty Benches, I am always conscious that there are those who believe that the only regulations imposed on Britain are imposed by Brussels. Many of our discussions here have been about the necessity of regulation for many different parts of the British economy, British society and British science, and we are going to continue, for the rest of our careers in this Chamber, to discuss many of these issues about risk, regulation, the market and how one balances all those very difficult issues.
There are many others whom one could thank. I almost feel that I should thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for agreeing that, having chaired the pre-legislative scrutiny, he would not take further part in this Bill because he felt that he had had enough. He is far too sharp otherwise to have missed a number of things that we have been struggling with. It has been a very large Bill. We have managed to repeal or amend a number of early 19th-century Acts and statutory instruments, and we have now come to the end. I am extremely grateful to all those who have co-operated in this, including the Opposition Front Bench and their researchers, as well as our magnificent Bill team.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill
Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill
Civil Proceedings and Family Proceedings Fees (Amendment) Order 2015
(9 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulks
That the draft order laid before the House on 19 February be approved.
Relevant document: 20th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this draft order is to introduce enhanced fees to commence certain proceedings for the recovery of money in the courts of England and Wales. Enhanced fees are fees that are set above the costs of the proceedings to which they relate. The order prescribes a fee of 5% of the value of the claim for all claims with a value of £10,000 or more, up to a maximum of £10,000. It also provides for a discount of 10% for applications initiated electronically.
The order also fixes three fees that are already currently above cost: the fee for an application for a divorce; the fee to fix a hearing of a case allocated to the fast track; and the fee for a multi-track hearing. These fees have come to be at a level above cost due to the adoption of a new mechanism for modelling the way that cases progress through the courts, and a new methodology for apportioning costs to those cases. These were first used to prescribe the court fee changes introduced on 22 April last year.
I reassure noble Lords that these fees are not being increased. But we made it clear, when we responded to the consultation on fee increases to achieve cost recovery, that we could see no justification for reducing any fee in the current financial climate. These fees are therefore being remade at their current levels explicitly using the enhanced fee power. The normal rule for public services is that fee income should cover the full cost of delivering those services. For many years, the civil and family courts have operated on that basis.
Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 provides the Lord Chancellor with a power to prescribe fees above cost. In December 2013, we set out our proposals for using this power in a consultation paper, and on 16 January we published the government response setting out the fee increases that we intended to take forward. The order gives effect to those fee increases.
Why are the Government taking this action and why is it necessary? The principal reason for bringing forward this order is financial: to ensure that the courts are properly funded. The courts fulfil a crucial function in our society. They ensure access to justice for those who need it. This is vital to an effective democracy, helping to maintain social order and an effective and functioning economy. It is critical that these principles are preserved, so that people who need it have ready access to the courts.
A strong economy is a pre-requisite for effective and affordable public services. Noble Lords will be well aware of the state of public finances that this Government inherited, with a growing budget deficit, increased public sector debt and an economy in recession. We made economic recovery our first priority. That required some difficult choices. The action that we have taken is working, and the recovery is now well under way. But further reductions in spending are essential if we are to eliminate the deficit and reduce overall levels of public debt.
There can be no exceptions for the courts. The challenge, as with many other public services, is to do more with less. The Government will invest £375 million over the next five years in the courts on much-needed modernisation. This investment is expected to release long-term, sustainable savings worth over £100 million per annum. There is, however, only so much that can be done through cost-efficiency measures alone. In the current climate, we must also look to those who use the courts to contribute more towards the running of the courts, where they can afford to do so.
We consulted on our proposals and we have taken the time to consider the responses very carefully. The consultation produced some very strong views. We listened and we have decided not to take forward some of our original plans. We are not increasing the fee for a divorce, nor are we taking forward either of the proposals for raising fees for commercial proceedings. This has not, however, changed the financial imperative, and we have set out our further proposals for raising fee income from possession claims and from general applications in civil proceedings.
The measures in this order will, we estimate, generate £120 million per annum in additional income, with every pound collected retained by the courts. That is a matter specifically provided by Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act. Fee increases will never be welcome or popular. But I am sure that those who choose to litigate in our courts will continue to recognise the outstanding levels of service and excellent value for money we offer. I therefore commend this draft order to the House and I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Pannick
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft order unfairly and inappropriately increases fees for civil proceedings above costs and so damages access to justice”.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, last week, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Grayling, told the Global Law Summit that he is,
“incredibly proud of our legal heritage”.
Today, we are debating an order that he has brought forward which will do incredible damage to the legal heritage because it will impede access to justice. As the Minister mentioned, this order will substantially increase the fees that claimants must pay when they start legal proceedings. If you want to sue for between £10,000 and £200,000, you will need to pay an upfront fee of 5% of your claim. To claim £200,000, you will need to find £10,000. That is a 576% increase on the current fee of £1,515.
The Minister is of course correct to say that Parliament approved Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which authorises the Lord Chancellor to prescribe fees above the cost of providing the court service to litigants. That is the power that Mr Grayling is now exercising. But is it a fair, reasonable or proportionate exercise of that power? Plainly not. For litigants to have to pay such substantial sums in advance of bringing a legal claim will inevitably, in practice, deny access to the court for many traders, small businesses and people suing for personal injuries.
The Government have suggested that court fees will be a small fraction of the legal expenses which a claimant will incur, but many claimants will not have to pay their legal expenses at the outset of proceedings. They will not have such a substantial sum of money available at the outset of the case, or they may be able to pay these court fees only by doing without competent legal representation. The deterrent effect on litigation will, I think, make it most unlikely that the increased charges will produce the anticipated £120 million which the Government hope to produce by this order.
The order will have further damaging consequences. Unscrupulous debtors will be far less likely to pay up if they suspect that their creditor cannot afford the court fees.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, last Thursday, my noble friend Lord Howarth asked a Question about the subject of the Order and the Motion of Regret that we are debating tonight. In my follow-up question, I asked why, in the light of the 80% decline in the number of employment tribunal cases since the imposition of charges—quite contrary to the Government’s predictions—we should accept the Government’s assurances that there would be little or no effect on access to justice from this measure. The Minister’s reply, apart from the mantra which all Ministers are programmed to repeat about the Government’s so-called “long-term economic plan”, was interesting. He conceded that:
“As a result of a relatively modest fee”—
in employment cases—
“there has been a significant decline in the number of claims brought”.—[Official Report, 26/2/15; col.1763.]
Perhaps he could tell us just how much money it was predicted would be raised by those fees, and how much has actually been raised. Then perhaps he could explain why increases in fees of up to some 600% in the civil courts, which could not conceivably be described as “relatively modest”, will have little or no effect on the number of cases brought there.
How do the Government respond to the withering criticism by the senior judiciary in its response to the initial consultation in February 2014, which described,
“the research so far undertaken”,
as,
“clearly inadequate to assess the … consequences … on the ability of parties to afford access to the courts and on their willingness to do so”.
The Government’s response to part 2 of the consultation on their proposals, published in January this year, is instructive. At paragraph 38, they noted that:
“A number of respondents … disagreed with the proposal”.
Is it too much to ask the Minister how many? How many did agree with the proposal?
I should note and welcome in parenthesis that, as the Minister has pointed out, the Government did at least change their position on family law and commercial cases. However, the response contains one paragraph that merits a Nobel prize for circularity. Paragraph 46 recognises that,
“some respondents were concerned that the fees bore little resemblance to the cost of proceedings. However, under the powers contained section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, court fees are not limited by the cost of proceedings”.
So that is all right then.
As we have heard, the Government airily dismiss the suggestion that the proposed fees,
“could lead to difficulties in some people being able to access the courts”.
Who, upon what evidence, supports that view? Not the Lord Chief Justice, on behalf of the senior judiciary, who, in his letter of 19 December, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has already mentioned, refers to the two exercises purporting to constitute research into the proposals and which are reflected in what passes for the impact assessment. He draws particular attention to the effect on SMEs and litigants in person. The Lord Chief Justice reiterated that the 2013 research was based on only “18 telephone interviews”—presumably carried out in similar fashion to the cold calls with which we are increasingly and irritatingly familiar. The latest research involved 31 users, of whom all of 12 related to claims for more than £10,000, which is the level at which the fees are levied at 5%, which amounts, as we have heard, to £10,000 for large claims of £200,000. That represents an exponential increase of something around 600%.
Other bodies have made their strong views known, as the Minister acknowledged and as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The Civil Justice Council, in its response in December, identified,
“a disproportionately adverse effect on some groups e.g. small and medium enterprises, low income individuals … thereby undermining equality before the law”.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, an application has been made for a judicial review of the order by nine institutional claimants, equally expressing their great concerns. Eleven different professional organisations draw particular attention to the potential impact on individuals with clinical negligence or personal injury claims; on small unincorporated businesses, where they forecast a drop of 35% in claims; and on SME companies—that is, limited companies—a drop of 49% in claims. They also draw attention to the possible impact on actions for recovery and insolvency cases, which could, ironically, rebound indirectly on the taxpayer.
The leading solicitors firm Fieldfisher, which acts in high-value, usually personal injury and medical negligence claims, supplied an interesting perspective on the implications of the order. I ought to declare an avuncular interest, as my nephew is a tax partner in that firm. It points out that whereas after the Woolf reforms solicitors usually funded disbursements, including court fees, that cost would rise to millions of pounds per annum. Few people could afford a £10,000 payment and most solicitors will be unable to fund their clients’ actions. They point to fears of a negative impact on mesothelioma claims, where speed is of the essence. They conclude that the proposal,
“tips the balance further in favour of the Government and corporate interests in whose interests it is to delay, frustrate and deter access to justice and access to compensation. It encourages Defendants to make early low offers before proper investigation of the case and to continue to unreasonably deny liability”—
their split infinitive, not mine. This comes not from a niche, left-wing human rights firm of the kind so abhorrent to the Lord Chancellor, but from one of the City’s leading firms, which proclaims itself,
“more than just a European law firm, specialising in providing commercial solutions across industries and sectors”.
Members may also have had sight of three letters sent to the Law Society by three different people seeking to recover, for them, substantial sums and facing under these proposals fee costs of £5,000 in two cases, and between £2,600 and £3,200 in the third, which they simply cannot afford precisely because of the losses incurred which are the subject of their claims. One also has to ask what consideration has been given to the possibility of claimants resorting to alternative methods of dispute resolution at a potentially lower cost to them, with a consequent impact on the income for the Courts Service?
There may be a case for full cost recovery. The Minister, in opening, referred to that as if it were the main point at issue, but of course it is not. The real issue here is the fact that the Government are going for more than full cost recovery. It is perhaps arguable that there may be some categories of cases where that might be justified, but might the Government be contemplating other such approaches by analogy, for example in relation to criminal cases or to damages in road traffic and personal injury cases, where defendants can already be required to meet the cost of NHS treatment afforded to the claimant? If more than full cost recovery is legitimate in the court area, might it not be argued that to help with the growing cost of the National Health Service and the demands for extra funding, more than full cost recovery from those who injure people who therefore have to undergo NHS treatment should be levied in those areas? Will the Government disavow any such intention, or is it perhaps in their mind to expand this principle of more than full cost recovery to other areas than those that are the subject of these regulations?
Tonight we will doubtless hear from noble and learned Lords, although not too many—there are only about a couple now present in the Chamber—and we look forward to it. They have a lifetime’s experience of the operations of the courts and a profound attachment to access to justice. We have already heard from one distinguished practitioner, and I dare say we will hear from two more before the evening ends, also troubled by the potential implications of this ill thought out measure. It is not too late for the Government to pause, reflect upon and reconsider these proposals, even if the order is affirmed today, as undoubtedly it will be. It would surely be appropriate to do so in any event when such a controversial measure comes so close to the end of a Parliament.
I urge the Government, before implementing the order, to commission further work in conjunction with the Civil Justice Council to examine in greater detail the implications of their proposals as presently cast and the impact that is likely to ensue, and to listen with care to the advice of those whose wisdom and experience should guide any decisions with the potential significantly to impact on access to justice, the very cornerstone of our legal system.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, one problem with a Bill that stretches to 186 clauses and 11 schedules and occupies 232 pages of the Queen’s printer’s copy is that, at least by the time that Clause 180 is reached, this House’s scrutiny powers begin to wane. Thus it was that, last year, by passing Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, the Lord Chancellor was empowered to prescribe by statutory instrument, subject to affirmative resolution, court fees exceeding the cost of doing that for which the fee is charged—enhanced fees, as they are called. That Section 180 power must be reasonably, sensitively and fastidiously used. It is bad enough that the courts should be required to be self-financing at all. The justice system properly exists for the benefit of society and the economy as a whole. There has long been objection to the basic principle of full cost recovery.
To put that aside, the order for enhanced fees goes altogether further. In a real sense, it is selling justice—apparently contrary to Magna Carta, although now sanctioned by Section 180. Small wonder that it is characterised by some as a tax-like payment rather than a realistic charge for the use of the courts. Under Section 180(6), the enhanced fees,
“must be used to finance an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals”.
That is small comfort to those who pay enhanced fees. Why, they will not unnaturally ask, should they be subsidising the family courts or whatever other proceedings are brought which do not attract the enhanced fee liability?
That is the first, fundamental, principled objection to the order. It is an objection not just in abstract constitutional terms, but because it must inevitably carry with it reputational consequences. Frankly, it sullies the overall image of British justice, no part of which should be open to criticism as a profit-making enterprise.
The second main objection is in two linked parts. First, to some extent at least, enhanced fees are bound to deter prospective claimants from litigating their claims. The second, necessarily linked, part of the objection is that, to the extent that claims are deterred, enhanced fees will fail in their central objective of raising money. The greater the number of claims deterred, the smaller the additional sum raised by the increases.
I add four footnotes to that objection. First, as explained in the Civil Justice Council’s response in December and the Lord Chief Justice’s letter written on behalf of all the heads of division, those dramatic increases, which, as we have heard, are in some instances over 600%, have to be paid up front and in full and are likely to impact disproportionately on SMEs and litigants in person. Of course, as the Minister observed in an answer at Question Time last week to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the heads of division were indeed consulted, but even after modifications were made they continued to voice “deep concerns” about the proposals.
Secondly, as explained in a detailed briefing paper from the Law Society, the Bar Council and various other professional bodies, clinical negligence and personal injury cases, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred, are likely to be adversely affected.
Thirdly, contrary to the Government’s bland statement that they are confident that the concerns expressed about the risk of damage to our legal services, and London’s reputation as the leading commercial dispute resolution centre, are misplaced—a bland assurance seen in their January 2015 response to the consultation and in Appendix 2 to the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report—in fact 61% of the 158 people who responded on this issue to the BIICL research which was especially commissioned by the Ministry of Justice suggested that the proposed increase in fees could have a detrimental effect on the English litigation market, with 44 of those consulted considering this to be “highly likely”.
Wisely, following the consultation, the Government abandoned their initial proposal, which was to raise yet higher enhanced fees of up to £20,000 for the issue of the higher-value commercial claims in the Rolls Building, on the basis that this would be likely to kill or, at any rate, severely lame the golden goose that has paid the vast sums which this litigation has earned the nation—billions of pounds-worth, a lot of it foreign currency. It must surely follow from that abandonment that even £10,000 is likely at least to deter some foreign claimants from litigating their claims here or to drive people, if not actually to abandon their claims, at any rate to resort to arbitration or mediation, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, also suggested.
With regard to my fourth footnote—I say this in fairness to the Government—unlike certain others, I do not see the employment tribunal fees experience as a directly helpful analogy. No doubt the introduction of those fees, whereas before there were none, has discouraged a number of meritorious claims but I suspect that it has discouraged at least as many unmeritorious claims—speculative claims, which used regularly to be brought and then bought off or settled because, frankly, that was a cheaper option for the defendant employers than successfully resisting them and then being left to bear their own costs, which were quite likely to be very substantially more.
A third and final reason for objecting to these increases is that they are not only intrinsically unfair when levied at this level but, in addition, produce curious and unfair anomalies. An obvious one is that all claims not specifically limited are now to attract the maximum full fee of £10,000. It is true that the Civil Justice Council said that it could see no logical justification for distinguishing between specified and unspecified money claims, and as far as it goes that is right. However, as the Lord Chief Justice’s letter points out, in personal injury cases, for example, it may well be quite impossible to value the claim when it is issued. Similarly, in many of the Rolls Building commercial cases, damages may be a subsidiary consideration. The principal relief being sought may well be an injunction or some other remedy—perhaps an account or something of that character.
My final point is that the Government are now proposing yet further enhanced fees, with a view to raising a further £55 million annually. They propose to do this—it is the subject of the January 2015 consultation document—by raising fees in possession cases and upon applications of one sort or another being made in ordinary civil proceedings. Again, there are compelling arguments against those, summarised in the Civil Justice Council’s response in February to the latest consultation round, but it is not necessary to go into them today.
Today’s Motion is of course one of regret rather than a fatal Motion. For whatever reason, Labour has apparently not been prepared to go that far. However, it will, I hope, help at least to persuade the Government that enough is enough and that really there must be no more use of this enhanced fee power. I suggest that the order is not merely to be regretted but to be deplored.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I regret that I find it difficult to understand what has made the Ministry of Justice persist with these changes in the face of the well reasoned and overwhelmingly hostile reaction to them. The ministry’s impact assessment was based upon express assumptions, described as “key”, that,
“fee changes will not affect court case volumes”;
that,
“there are no detrimental impacts on court case outcomes nor on access to justice from any increase in court fees”;
and that,
“there are … no impacts on the legal services used to pursue or defend claims”.
It was those assumptions to which the senior judiciary referred in their letter dated 19 December 2014, to which reference has already been made, which led the Lord Chief Justice to describe the proposals as,
“very sweeping and, in our view, unduly complacent”.
For judges not inclined to overstatement, that is trenchant criticism indeed. The letter was based upon the draft impact statement, which the senior judiciary had seen. Notwithstanding that criticism, the assumptions nevertheless found their way into the final impact statement when it was made on 16 January this year.
When the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked a Question of the Minister last Thursday, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay questioned why these measures had not been introduced with the consent of the heads of division. Cynics, and anyone who had read the letter of 19 December, could be forgiven for the view that the reason why such consent was not sought was that it clearly would have been withheld for the very reason that the assumptions made by the department were unsustainable.
It was not only the Law Society and the Bar Council that prepared a briefing on these proposals. Other professional bodies as disparate as the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Forum of Insurance Lawyers —who, of course, are usually on the other side—the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, and COMBAR, the Commercial Bar Association, joined them in referring to the evidence from individual law firms, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred, that:
“Over 200 individual examples provided by law firms show that the total value of cases brought by individuals would be likely to fall by around one-third (35 per cent) under higher court fees. For small and medium-sized companies it would halve (a 49 per cent decrease). This suggests that increased court fees could have a significant impact on access to justice for both individuals and businesses, as fewer could afford to pay the higher rates”—
a point eloquently made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood.
Lord Scott of Foscote (CB)
My Lords, I had prepared a speech in support of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Pannick. However, having regard to the speeches that your Lordships have already heard from not only the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, but from the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Marks, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, I will confine myself to asking four questions of the Minister.
First, does the Minister agree that respect for the rule of law by at least the majority of those living in this country is an essential requirement if this country is to continue to rank as a civilised country in which it is a pleasure and a privilege to live? Secondly, does he also agree that those who for reasons of lack of necessary funds are denied access to justice in our courts cannot expect to have or to retain respect for the rule of law? Thirdly, if the Minister agrees with those two previous questions, which seem to me self-evident, how can he justify increasing the cost of litigation to a level that will deny access to justice to a large number of people? The fourth question arises out of the terms of Section 92(3) of the Courts Act 2003, which states that in setting fee levels,
“the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the principle that access to the courts must not be denied”.
Does the Minister accept that principle? If he does, as I am sure is the case, how does he justify a fee of as much as £10,000 for the commencement of a civil action? If he does not accept that principle, how does he justify his retention as a Minister in the office of the Lord Chancellor?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for tabling this amendment, which I believe is very important—although I note that only those who are speaking are present tonight. I declare an interest as the founder and president of the Citizenship Foundation, a national charity which seeks to prepare young people in our schools for the life they are to lead beyond them by giving them a broad and very basic understanding of the laws of our land. I am also a co-founder of the Legal Action Group, which is to this day a tower of strength in seeking to advance and protect legal aid. The group is fairly desperate about this order, I have to say.
I accept that it is extremely difficult for my noble friend to have to move the Motion on this order tonight. I know him to be as concerned about equal justice as anybody. I also readily accept that the Government have a lousy task in seeking to balance the national books in a way that does not cause mayhem all round. But having said all that, like others I believe that if ever the word “fundamental” is justified, it is justified in regard to protection of the rule of law and equal justice. I maintain that we cannot claim to be a proud democracy which upholds the rule of law when we know that so many of our fellow countrymen cannot access the laws that we in Parliament legislate for them. Knowing that as we do—there is no lack of evidence on that—it strikes me as being almost a case of defrauding the public for us to go on as we do, enacting legislation for which we make all sorts of claims while knowing that so many of our countrymen will not get near to exercising those rights. That is why all of us have spoken so passionately. We all know that the law is now so voluminous, hypercomplex and intrusive that to pretend that poor or middling citizens do not have need of access to lawyers and the courts is just cloud-cuckoo-land. Indeed, quite a bit of research has been done recently into citizens’ need for legal services and access to justice. That comes up with a figure of about one-third of the population being in that bracket.
I must also agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who very pertinently observed that we must all have been asleep when Clause 180 of the then Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill was enacted. This was an astonishing clause and I do not think that anyone in this House really had a go at it. Yet how can one conceivably agree to a principle that we make a profit out of justice? How can that have gone through this place? Indeed, I wonder whether it is a provision that could withstand oversight of the courts on human rights grounds, quite apart from those being advanced on behalf of the Law Society; I am very happy to see that my professional body is doing that.
Section 180 of the 2014 Act makes no reference to justice at all. Subsection (3) says that,
“the Lord Chancellor must have regard to … the financial position of the courts … and … the competitiveness of the legal services market”.
Subsection (6) says that the surplus made from increased fees—those parts of them that are intended to generate a profit—must go, as my noble friend Lord Marks said, to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the system of our courts and tribunals. There is nothing to do with the justice of the system. At no point is there any reference to justice. It makes me wonder whether there might be some defect there in terms of basic law. I may have to reinstruct the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as I used to about 40 years ago. I hope he will give me the same jolly opinion.
Reference has already been made to Magna Carta by a number of speakers. I do not propose to make further reference to it, but we must accept that the cuts in legal aid made last year have knocked one-quarter off the legal aid budget, I believe. The ones that we are dealing with now will affect huge numbers of claims. The scale of the problem is that there are currently 235,000 claims for possession every year; 370,000 money claims via the court are potentially caught by this order; and there are 160,000 general applications in other proceedings.
One aspect of the Government’s impact assessment really caught my eye. Other noble Lords have made reference to it, but not to this set of facts. In one of the consultation documents we learn that the consultation took place in December and January—over Christmas and the new year. Is that not well designed to have a maximum response? The first question in the questionnaire is:
“What do you consider to be the equality impacts of the proposed fee increases (when supported by a remissions system) … ?”.
How many people do noble Lords suppose answered that first, key question? Seventy-six. It is verging on the scandalous to undertake the measures in this order on the basis of 76 respondents. And how many of them thought that the equality issue was adequately dealt with? Less than half. So you have 30-odd people and organisations approving of the central measure which is the subject of this order tonight.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for tabling this amendment. I also thank him and other noble Lords for speaking in criticism of this statutory instrument. Their speeches have been principled, lucid and compelling.
It appears that I may be the only non-lawyer to participate in this debate, and I hope it will not be regarded as superfluous or intrusive if I speak simply as a citizen. To me, access to justice is fundamental to the very nature of British citizenship. The rule of law and equality before the law are, or should be, bedrocks of our constitution and our liberal society. The essential principle, which we must preserve, is that no one should be prevented from bringing a reasonable case to court for lack of financial means. This order violates that principle. The imposition of a 5% fee on claims ranging from £10,000 to £200,000 is, as noble Lords have noted, a potential increase of the order of 600%. To be required to pay £10,000 upfront as the entry fee to get into court will in practical terms be impossible for many small and medium-sized enterprises, as it will be impossible for individuals who seek to recover debts due to them or to get personal injury compensation or compensation for clinical negligence.
As has been noted, a coalition of lawyers and other expert groups has advised us that:
“These proposals will significantly reduce the ability of individuals and small businesses with legitimate claims to pursue these through the courts ... These increases represent a significant barrier to access to justice ... Increasing fees to fund court infrastructure risks ‘pricing out’ those on low and medium-level incomes, leaving access to justice in the hands of a wealthy few”.
The Ministry of Justice’s assessment of the impact of this measure is scandalously inadequate, and not for the first time. We vigorously criticised the impact assessment associated with the LASPO Bill because it was simply not good enough. In the case of the impact assessment for this measure, the Regulatory Policy Committee said in January 2014 of an earlier articulation of the impact assessment, in terms, that the impact assessment is not fit for purpose. The impact assessment that was published alongside this order in January this year is equally unfit for purpose. The criticisms do not appear to have been heeded. For example, in the section that covers key assumptions, sensitivities and risks, the impact assessment says:
“It has been assumed that fee changes will not affect court case volumes … It has been assumed that there are no detrimental impacts on court case outcomes nor on access to justice from any increase in court fees. It has been assumed that there are to be no impacts on the legal services used to pursue or defend claims”.
In the section on impact, the Explanatory Memorandum tells us:
“Some proceedings to which these fee changes apply may involve businesses, charities, voluntary bodies or public sector organisations.—We“—
that is, the Ministry of Justice—
“do not routinely collect information on people and organisations involved in court proceedings and we are not therefore able to calculate the impact that the fee increases are likely to have on these organisations”.
In the next section, on regulating small business, the impact assessment tells us:
“Some proceedings to which these fees relate will be initiated by small businesses. We do not have detailed information on the characteristics of those who bring money claims before the courts; how many of these proceedings may be initiated by, or against small businesses; and the types and value of claim they typically make. We do not therefore know what the impact of these fee increases is likely to be on small businesses”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, Mr Vara, in seeking to advocate this measure to the House of Commons, said that,
“we must also look to those who use the courts to contribute more towards their running where they can afford to do so”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 23/2/15; col. 3.]
The Minister reiterated that thought today.
The problem is that they do not know whether potential users of the courts will in these new circumstances be able to afford to do so. I understand that there are no fee remissions for SMEs. To legislate in avowed ignorance of the impact of the legislation on those who may seek to avail themselves of legal remedy is reckless. It is breathtakingly irresponsible. The policy is also based on an improper premise that the costs of public services should be fully funded by their users. Again, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary told the House of Commons:
“The normal rule for public services is that fee income should cover the full cost of delivering such services”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 23/2/15; col. 3.]
Of course, it is the Government’s intention and it is part of what is provided for in this order that they should go beyond covering full costs; they should in certain cases exceed full costs. I quote from Paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum:
“The Government decided to take a power to charge fee income from courts above the full level of cost for certain proceedings”.
Two reasons are given:
“It did so to make sure that the courts are adequately funded in order that access to justice is protected”.
So they priced the courts out of people’s reach in order to make sure that access to justice is protected. It goes on to say, and this is really revealing:
“It also wanted to reduce the cost of the courts borne by the taxpayer”.
Whatever may be the case in certain areas of government, there is plainly not an expectation that the cost of public services should be covered by fees charged to their users. Obviously it is not the case in the National Health Service or where schools are concerned and whatever may have been the tradition and the practice in the justice system I suggest that this cannot be a paramount principle. The paramount principle is to ensure access to justice. I believe that the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens accept that there is a social contract. They may not use that language but they understand and accept that they must pay the taxes needed to ensure that there is equal access to justice.
There has been too much cant in too many pronouncements from Ministers at the Ministry of Justice. I immediately except from that charge the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. He may be briefed to utter cant but he would never originate cant. However, I am afraid to say that his colleague in the House of Commons has been less fastidious. He said in the ministerial foreword to the response to the consultation that was published in January 2015:
“I am proud that we live in a country which operates under the rule of law, and where we have such a strong tradition of access to justice … It is vital that these principles and qualities are preserved so that people can continue to have ready access to the courts when they need it”.
That is his commentary in response to the consultation on the very measure we are debating this evening.
The Lord Chancellor himself, Mr Grayling, at the Global Law Summit, to which reference has already been made, said that we continue to innovate and develop our policy at the Ministry of Justice but always consistent with the principles of Magna Carta. It simply is not so. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, in talking about the financial context of this policy, again in the response to the consultation, talked about having reduced spending on legal aid so the scheme is more affordable. This is the Alice in Wonderland logic the ministry employs. By more affordable of course he means for the taxpayer, not for the citizen who needs to have recourse to the justice system. He boasted that,
“we have reduced staffing levels in our headquarters functions, and in the headquarters of our agencies”.
However, what he did not mention in that document was the money that the Ministry of Justice has wasted on information technology. I quote from the Guardian of 30 June 2014:
“The Ministry of Justice has written off £56m spent on an IT project after discovering it was late, over budget and duplicated by another department”.
The write-off was equivalent to about a quarter of the amount being cut from the legal aid budget.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, passionate as they have been. All noble Lords who have taken part—I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I include myself—are passionate about access to justice and about the rule of law. I hope that in that sentence I have answered two of the questions posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote. Of course, I very much include the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, who, although not a lawyer, has a long history of involvement in access to justice and stressing its importance in our constitution.
I think it would also be accepted by all those who have taken part that we need a properly funded court system. I said in opening this debate that we are investing more than £375 million over the next five years but that we consider that those who use the courts should make a significant contribution to the cost. The Opposition in the House of Commons did not disagree with the aspiration of full cost recovery, or, and I quote Mr Andy Slaughter, that,
“in some cases the fees should be more than full cost recovery”.—[Official Report, Commons, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 23/2/15; col. 4.]
Of course, I accept that no litigant will welcome increased costs and I also acknowledge that no litigation solicitor will be applauding increased costs either. I acknowledge that concerns about access to justice are entirely legitimate and should be very much a part of any movement in this direction.
The statutory instrument can perhaps be safely divided into those smallish claims—90% or so—where there is no increase in the fees, and the very large claims, which I will come to later. I think that it is fair to say that the main focus of the debate has been on the middle-size claims—those perhaps brought by SMEs or by those seeking damages for personal injuries or clinical negligence. The question is whether the court fees, as a proportion of the sum claimed are such as to be a deterrent and would prevent people having access to justice. It is true that in percentage terms there is potentially a significant increase. For example, as a proportion of £150,000, court fees are now £7,500; they were £1,315. In percentage terms that is significant. But, of course, the original fees until this statutory instrument was introduced, should it proceed, were very modest.
It is also worth bearing in mind that litigation is very much an optional activity. Anybody who is deciding whether or not to sue will have all sorts of factors that they bear in mind. There are plenty of reasons for not bringing proceedings, one of which is uncertainty of outcome. Anyone advising a claimant will probably need to satisfy that claimant that there is at the very least a better than even—probably a 75%—chance of success before they commence proceedings. Another relevant factor is the solvency of the defendant or the likelihood of recovery. All those are matters that will inhibit somebody in deciding whether or not to sue. Of course, there is also the factor of the cost and extent of their lawyers’ fees.
What is important is that the court fees generated here would be recoverable from any defendant in the event of a successful claim. They are a disbursement and cannot be challenged. The same could not be said for solicitors’ or barristers’ fees, which are always potentially subject to challenge. If a claimant has a sound claim and if satisfied about the solvency—of course, one can never be sure about these things—of the defendant, these sums will be recoverable. That is relevant, first, to the question of access to justice, whether an individual will seek access to justice, and also as to whether a solicitor will feel able, as is often the case in personal injury or clinical negligence cases, to provide assistance with the upfront costs on the basis that they will be recovered in the fullness of time.
Of course, there are fee remission provisions. No noble Lord has mentioned those, but they may be provided. Where there is a household income for couples without children of less than £1,085 per calendar month, there will be full remission—more with children—and there are also provisions for partial waiver. Capital will be taken into account, but this excludes the principal dwelling-house and compensation payments and pensions. The waivers are more generous for those over 61. In suggesting that access to justice will be denied, one should bear in mind all those factors.
When dealing with the top end of claims, the original consultation, as has been said, suggested a higher figure—twice the figure of £10,000. After consultation the Government changed their mind about that and listened to the consultation. The arguments about recoverability apply likewise. But, of course, the larger the claim, the less significant the court fees will be as a proportion of the prospective expenditure.
The quality of our judicial system, of which my noble friend Lord Phillips is rightly proud, is very high, and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, at least in terms of access to justice, feels so little faith in it. Certainly I do not understand him to be criticising our judges in any way. The quality of justice is, of course, a significant attraction to litigants and will, I suggest, continue to be an attraction. The Government bear in mind the possibility, where there is a choice of jurisdiction, of New York, Singapore or Dubai, but are satisfied, having consulted widely, that this is a reasonable and proportionate increase for these large claims.
Mention has been made of arbitration, and even mediation. Where arbitration is an option, it has to be borne in mind that you have to pay for the arbitrator’s services. Here, were a case to go the entire distance, the judge is provided, as it were, as part of that court fee. In those rare cases where a case goes to trial, frankly, the fee for the use of court premises, court infrastructure and the services of a high-quality judge is very good value indeed. Then there is the 90% below £10,000, where there is no difference. Those are the smaller claims. Those with smaller pockets, perhaps, will have to pay no more than they already pay. How do we get to 90%? The information comes from Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which states that 90% of claims are for less than £10,000. That is currently the case and the basis on which we reach that figure.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned employment tribunal fees, as indeed he did at Questions last week. We estimate that the employment tribunal fees will generate about £10 million per annum, and our current forecast is that income is broadly in line with expectations. I share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, on the fees for employment tribunals.
The question of personal injury claims was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and other noble Lords. Conditional fee arrangements have been changed as a result of the LASPO Act, but “after the event” insurance still exists and the “after the event” insurance market still exists. In appropriate cases where an insurer thinks that a claim has merit, it enables court fees to be incurred, which are, as I said earlier, recoverable from the other side.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, asked why we considered the possibility of making higher fees for commercial claims. We did, and we considered the responses and reduced the figure because we bear in mind that a balance has to be struck between trying to recover some of the money that we think is expended and attracting potential litigants. We did not seek judicial consent; that is a matter for the Government. The question that I was asked during Oral Questions by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, was about whether the judges had been consulted. He also suggested that he had experienced the possibility of them being judicially reviewed in connection with this. I think noble Lords might agree that, ultimately, the Government are accountable for these matters, and it would be somewhat invidious for judges to have to decide things. They are, of course, entitled to have their opinions taken into account and they have expressed them, as a number of noble Lords have said, in pretty firm terms.
It was said, I think by my noble friend Lord Phillips, that there is no mention of justice in Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act; but he will have seen from the statutory instrument that Section 92 of the Courts Act refers specifically to considering access to justice.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
The Minister mentioned that Section 92(3) of the Courts Act 2003, which is the requirement that when making one of these orders, states that,
“the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the principle that access to the courts must not be denied”.
I thought the Minister said that that had found its way into the actual Order. I have been looking at this and of course I am sure I shall be corrected, but an awful lot of provisions are referred to there but rather oddly not Section 92(3). One might have thought that it would be, because the second paragraph in the recital says that he has had regard to matters referred to in Section 180(3) of the 2014 Act. That is actually where one would have hoped and expected it to appear. I do not know that he makes any reference to having had regard to that provision, which the earlier statute required him to have regard to. As I said, I am open to correction, and apologetic in raising this point today.
Lord Faulks
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. He is quite right: the recital refers to the fact that there is an exercise of the power conferred by Section 92(1) and (2) of the Courts Act and the consultation in accordance with Section 92(5) and (6). There is no explicit reference to Section 92(3). However, in purporting to exercise those powers, it would be said, although not specifically recited, that he was exercising them in accordance with the remainder of that section.
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken—and spoken passionately—in this debate. The Minister said that the order contains sensible and proportionate provisions. As your Lordships have heard tonight, these proposals are going to do inevitable and substantial damage to access to justice. It is simply perverse for the Government to dispute that many small businesses and many personal injury claimants are going to be unable to pay an up-front £10,000 fee as the price of access to the courts.
The noble Lord’s and the Government’s argument comes to this. Funds are needed to pay for the court system, but there is no point in having a civil court system if ordinary people are to be charged an entry fee which they cannot afford to bring basic claims for breach of contract and personal injuries. The Minister described litigation—I wrote this down, because it was a very striking phrase—as an “optional activity”, like a skiing holiday or a visit to a three-starred Michelin restaurant. As the Minister well knows from his experience as a very successful barrister, for many people—those suing for debts or to recover compensation for personal injury—litigation is often a necessity to keep your business alive or to maintain any quality of life. The Minister is absolutely right that there are already many impediments to access to justice. That is surely no justification—no excuse—for the state to erect further high barriers.
The fee remission provisions to which the Minister, perhaps somewhat desperately, referred are not going to assist other than in exceptional cases. Nor is it any answer that court fees can be recovered from the other side if the claim succeeds. Claimants need to find the fee up front.
The Minister referred to my earlier Motions of Regret with a reference to Frank Sinatra. To change the music somewhat, “Je ne regrette rien”. Happily, the courts have done more than regret. In a series of cases they have quashed Mr Grayling’s regulations which we have regretted in this House. My regret—my astonishment—that the Government should bring forward an order of this nature is mitigated only by my optimism that the courts will inevitably add this order to the long list of Mr Grayling’s regulations which have been declared unlawful in the past three years. With thanks to all noble Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.